Non-Proliferation a childish dream?

N.Korea just withdrew from the non-proliferation treaty effective immediately.

Mexico has announced intentions to pursue nuclear research and its president believes the non-proliferation treaty to be biased in favour of the US.

Japan seeks approval from the US to go nuclear.

The nuclear club is seen as an unfair setup by those outside of it. Who actually owns the atom? Nobody.

Liberals and peaceniks who trust in paper agreements such as arms control treatys, non nuclear proliferation treatys etc are nothing but radical fools, morons and idiots. Just like the Neville Chamberlein crowd of the 1930s. Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. Any country can step away from the table whenever it suits them. Perhaps people will finally begin to realise this now that the number of 'rogue' countries is approaching double figures. Even the US can't police the entire World.

International politics has a number of contradictions. At present, we see the United States leading the world against Iran, Iraq and North Korea because they allegedly possess weapons of mass destruction. We see the United States at the same time approving the idea of Israel building a new nuclear reactor. The new reactor will chemically process uranium and will obviously increase the size of the Israeli arsenal. The US is keeping silent on Israels secret nuclear weapons program.

Why isn't Israel being threatened, bribed or invaded over it's officially unacknowledged nuclear weapons nubering about 200 warheads? We all know why.

The Nuclear Club is getting clubbier.

At present, those countries officially in the club are...

United States,
Russia,
China,
Britain and
France.

Those in the club but officially not in the club(who are known)...

India,
Pakistan,
N.Korea.

Those desperately seeking the keys to the club....

Iraq,
Libya,
Syria,
Iran.

Those we aren't sure about....

Japan,
Mexico,
Saudi Arabia.


That's just off the top of my head. I know those lists are actually longer. The CTBT was supposed to see the elimination of nukes but only one nation has ever gotten rid of its nuclear arsenal, Africa. As expensive as they are to maintain, the independance and political clout afforded by our greatest weapon makes them an attractive item to aquire. When the number of 'rogue' countries on the US hit list reaches double figures, they may rethink their strategy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is bound to happen sooner or later.
I hope soon war will be meaningless, since a lot of countries will have nuclear weap. Who would risk an invasion when that country has nuclear weapons?
No more israelis invading Palestine, no more Americans threatening invasion, etc..
Maybe atomic bomb will be the best peacekeeper?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You make a good point and I would go along with it to a point. However, if nuclear proliferation is completely out of control (as it quite clearly is) then the number of nations with the bomb will escalate. Now, only an insane fanatic, miscommunication, asteroid impact or boredom is going to get fingers pushing buttons. Ok, Alien invasion too but thats a long shot. As the number of buttons increases, the possibility of somebody getting trigger happy increases. During the cold war we came close to nuclear war on several occasions. On one occasion a missile was seen on Russian radar heading for moscow. This fitted perfectly with the number one most likely first strike offensive. An EMP airburst over the capital. According to the rules of engagement, the two buttons in Russia carried in special suitcases should have been pressed. They weren't. We can only assume that Russkies aren't quite the low down varmints Reagan told us they were. They chose not to take us into hell with them. The missile turned out to be a swedish scientific weather rocket on it's way to the Aurora Borealis. The Russian military had been contacted in advance but the news had not been passed up the line of command.
:bugeye:
Most wars start over the most obscure and trivial things. Non-proliferation treaties don't work. It's time we tried something completely different and incredibly controversial instead. Something we perhaps should have done immediately back in the forties. Embrace nuclear power. Both edges of the sword. Its peaceful and military applications. Nuclear weapons have given us nice peaceful interlude in history but the holiday is coming to an end. We need a bigger stick that only a single nation or the UN can hold. Inertia weapons. Yep, somebody steps out of line and we nudge an asteroid into them. A nuke has a maximum damage radius of about 37 km due to the curvature of the Earth. A big rock can wipe out a continent.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Faced with a nation holding that kind of power most nations will abandon their expensive nuclear arsenals. The only other alternative I can see is a big dirty nuclear war. It will happen some day.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nonsense..
This is the same as saying "having a nuclear arsenal we will not have an army".

Not necessarily its a bad thing..
You shouldn't look at wars as a bad thing.

People who are stupid/unstable don't usually get to power in the first place.
*edit

And all life on earth.. As easily.

 

"Faced with a nation holding that kind of power most nations will abandon their expensive nuclear arsenals."
by me

Nonsense..
This is the same as saying "having a nuclear arsenal we will not have an army".
by ndrs

Not really. How many armies still carry bows and slings? Almost none I would imagine. They are redundant technologies. Nuclear weapons were once the big stick keeping the 'have nots' in line. During the cold war when arsenals reached their highest levels it was inconcievable that anybody would threaten the Super Powers. Now our last Super Power has diminished nuclear capacity and is in the act of reducing its weapons further while its stockpile ages beyond use. Old weapons aren't being replaced and new concepts aren't being explored. The US is losing its teeth. This has not gone unnoticed.
WMD and armies are totally different levels of threat. Armies are made of troops carrying extremely limited fire power. Wasps. Unless you give them a Davy Crocket shoulder launched nuclear rifle to kill themselves with ofcourse. Even those are extremely low yield shells compared to most nuclear devices. A nuclear weapons arsenal is very expensive to maintain. The halflife of Plutonium is only 14 years and even if you rely on enriched Uranium it will still cost millions each year to keep your nuclear defense in operation. The deterrance factor is the only reason nukes are kept. MAD or mutually assured destruction. If a bigger stick existed which made nukes an extremely expensive but poor cousin in comparison then they would be a lot less attractive. Countries have been living under the western nuclear umbrella for decades. As the technology to build nukes spreads, this big brother policy is losing popularity. It was impossible to globally police nukes from the very start. Not without a bigger stick to threaten with at any rate.


"The only other alternative I can see is a big dirty nuclear war."
by me


"Not necessarily its a bad thing..
You shouldn't look at wars as a bad thing."
by ndrs

A global nuclear war would have casualties in the hundreds of millions. The most advanced nations would be pushed back a century technologically. Our communications satellites and computers would become useless because of EMP. Most electrical devices like TV's and energy generation plants would be unsalvageable. The politicoeconomic face of the Earth would be changed forever. Survivors would fight over diminished resources and there will be no going back. Although I would agree that change is generally good and we need to shake up the status quo from time to time, even knocking down walls of convention, I'm not partial to eating rat.


"As the number of buttons increases, the possibility of somebody getting trigger happy increases."
by me

"People who are stupid/unstable don't usually get to power in the first place."

Good point and I totally agree. However, much as I detest the anti-proliferation mobs utopian dream of everybody throwing away their nukes, I am forced to agree that a small possibility of button pushing exists. Accidents happen. Lunatics do occasionally reach high office by way of military coup or overwhelming personality. The more countries with nukes, the higher the possibility of global thermonuclear war.


"A big rock can wipe out a continent."
by me


"And all life on earth.. As easily."
by ndrs


Absolutely. It is the ultimate weapon and easily policed. Quite simply keep everybody else out of space. The truth is that inertia weapons are the most devastating weapon possible for us to handle at this point in time. They are also available immediately to any nation with a strong deep space exploration capability. At present nobody has aquired such technology. The US did reach the moon but that is only a satellite. Claiming this as a deep space capability is synonymous with a US man claiming to have travelled the oceans after going to Rhode Island and back. Inertia weapons will instantly become available to the first nation who can send men to Mars. All you need is a high understanding of mathematics which I'll assume most spacefaring nations will have. Calculate the trajectory and give your NEO a nudge. Whether we use this big stick to try and control nuclear arsenals on Earth through intimidation is dependant on whether or not we are the first to aquire it. The new kid on the block is steadily increasing its spaceflight capability. It may be China that reaches deep space first.

 

Well, it is still spending more than one third of global world spending. Still I looked at this website, and US is not slacking off with its research spending. Just look at the amounts being spent...
http://www.dtic.mil/comptroller/fy2003budget/index.html
Among research projects are (the last numbers are the amounts in 10^3$ being spent):
39 0603876F Space-Based Laser 3 67,522
156 0208021F Information Warfare Support 7 1,785 7,837 U
5 0601108D8Z High Energy Laser Research Initiatives 1 11,785 12,082 U
25 0602890D8Z High Energy Laser Research 2 29,723 35,231 39,310 U
32 0603174C Space Based Lasers (SBL) 3 69,595 U
Still..
Global military spending has declined from $1.2 trillion in 1985 to $812 billion in 2000. During that time the U.S. share of total military spending rose from 31% to 36% in Fiscal Year 2000.

Bigger stick? What I am trying to say that bigger stick is meaningless when you have a weapon capable of destroying 10 miles in diameter. Hydrogen bombs are 1000 times stronger than normal fission bomb that was dropped.
The stats from http://serendipity.magnet.ch/more/atomic.html:
1. Hiroshima
The point of total vaporization from the blast measured one half of a mile in diameter. Total destruction ranged at one mile in diameter. Severe blast damage carried as far as two miles in diameter. At two and a half miles, everything flammable in the area burned. The remaining area of the blast zone was riddled with serious blazes that stretched out to the final edge at a little over three miles in diameter.
Estimates from physicists who have studied each atomic explosion (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) state that the bombs that were used had utilized only 1/10th of 1 percent of their respective explosive capabilities.
Blast Zone Radii
[3 different bomb types]

______________________ ______________________ ______________________
| | | | | |
| -[10 KILOTONS]- | | -[1 MEGATON]- | | -[20 MEGATONS]- |
|----------------------| |----------------------| |----------------------|
| Airburst - 1,980 ft | | Airburst - 8,000 ft | | Airburst - 17,500 ft |
|______________________| |______________________| |______________________|
| | | | | |
| [1] 0.5 miles | | [1] 2.5 miles | | [1] 8.75 miles |
| [2] 1 mile | | [2] 3.75 miles | | [2] 14 miles |
| [3] 1.75 miles | | [3] 6.5 miles | | [3] 27 miles |
| [4] 2.5 miles | | [4] 7.75 miles | | [4] 31 miles |
| [5] 3 miles | | [5] 10 miles | | [5] 35 miles |
| | | | | |
|______________________| |______________________| |______________________|



[1] Vaporization Point
Everything is vaporized by the atomic blast. 98% fatalities. Overpress=25 psi. Wind velocity=320 mph.
[2] Total Destruction
All structures above ground are destroyed. 90% fatalities. Overpress=17 psi. Wind velocity=290 mph.
[3] Severe Blast Damage
Factories and other large-scale building collapse. Severe damage to highway bridges. Rivers sometimes flow countercurrent. 65% fatalities, 30% injured. Overpress=9 psi. Wind velocity=260 mph.
[4] Severe Heat Damage
Everything flammable burns. People in the area suffocate due to the fact that most available oxygen is consumed by the fires. 50% fatalities, 45% injured. Overpress=6 psi. Wind velocity=140 mph.
[5] Severe Fire & Wind Damage
Residency structures are severely damaged. People are blown around. 2nd and 3rd-degree burns suffered by most survivors. 15% dead. 50% injured. Overpress=3 psi. Wind velocity=98 mph.
-------------------------------------

Do you really think America could tell its citizens that they can threaten someone with a weapon capable destroying a continent, when the other country can wipe out for example New York?

I am aware what casualties a global nuclear war would make...
But how do you know what a rat taste like, I can imagine it doesn't taste as good as a steak, but... I would rather eat rats and live a rather free life, than work in the same office for 50 years, looking how the masses are getting only stupidier. I think a global shakeup would be good in a sense that it would make people focus on less bullshit. People get comfy=stupid=ignorant. I am glad you agree partially.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I used to have this dream of me waking up in total destructed world... But I leave my sick side for now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I am not so sure this inertia weapon is possible at all.
Since by physics to change inertia you need moving mass in the first place. Imagine how much an asteroid of these proportions weighs (http://www.secretsofsurvival.com/survival/asteroid_survival.html):
For a land impact, it can be said that an object of roughly 75 meters (225 feet) diameter can probably destroy a city, a 160-meter (480-foot) object can destroy a large urban area, a 350-meter (1050-foot) object can destroy a small state, and a 700-meter (2,100-foot) object can destroy a small country.
To accelerate an object you need a comparable size object to collide it with. Just detonating a nuclear device on an asteroid won't do.

 

Ah... I also found this..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

D. Conventional Explosive Charge(s)
This explosive is used to introduce (and weld) the lesser amount of Uranium to the greater amount within the bomb's housing. [The amount of pressure needed to bring this about is unknown and possibly classified by the United States Government for reasons of National Security.]

Plastic explosives work best in this situation since they can be manipulated to enable both a Uranium bomb and a Plutonium bomb to detonate. One very good explosive is Urea Nitrate. The directions on how to make Urea Nitrate are as follows:

Ingredients

[1] 1 cup concentrated solution of uric acid (C5 H4 N4 O3)
[2] 1/3 cup of nitric acid
[3] 4 heat-resistant glass containers
[4] 4 filters (such as coffee filters)

Filter the concentrated solution of uric acid through a filter to remove impurities. Slowly add 1/3 cup of nitric acid to the solution and let the mixture stand for one hour. Filter again as before. This time the Urea Nitrate crystals will collect on the filter. Wash the crystals by pouring water over them while they are in the filter. Remove the crystals from the filter and allow 16 hours for them to dry. This explosive needs a blasting cap to detonate.

It may be necessary to make a quantity larger than the aforementioned list calls for to bring about an explosion great enough to cause the Uranium (or Plutonium) sections to weld together on impact.

 

"Well, it is still spending more than one third of global world spending."

So true. The amount spent on the military by the US is staggering. Very little for Nuclear Weapons though because it violates the CTBT. You have to be clever and call it fusion research or something. There is talk of testing aging weapons to see if their blast radius meets predictions and there may be a new tactical bunker busting nuke program in the near future but for now there's very little outside of computer simulations.

"Do you really think America could tell its citizens that they can threaten someone with a weapon capable destroying a continent, when the other country can wipe out for example New York?"

In short yes. A city can be evacuated whereas a country cannot. The level of threat is too high to be ignored. If faced with the decision of disarming or facing total genocide every nuclear nation will give up its arsenals. They are of no use anymore anyway. Just an expensive redundant weapon.

"I am not so sure this inertia weapon is possible at all.'

You don't need nukes or ramming it for a billiard ball ricoche. Just lean on it and keep pushing. One of the advantages of a frictioless void with zero gravity. Any cumulatively applied force will take effect. Providing enough thrust is supplied you can point an asteroid anywhere. It wouldn't be a matter of seeking out asteroids and flinging them at the Earth. You set them up in high orbit using their own natural volatiles to power the process. After creating this belt of orbiting rocks to keep the moon company you can bring the sky down on anybody.

But how do you know what a rat taste like, I can imagine it doesn't taste as good as a steak, but... I would rather eat rats and live a rather free life, than work in the same office for 50 years, looking how the masses are getting only stupidier.

I was thinking the same thing after I posted it. What I should have written is that I'm not partial to the idea of eating Rat. Part of me too is romanticised by the notion of a free post armageddon society. I have a little survivalist in me. A large block of land out west of the mountains well away from potential fallout. I do enjoy reading books on it like 'The Beach'. The notion of radiation being carried on the winds and gradually killing the Earth piecemeal over many years is silly but I still enjoyed the well thought out human response.

 

Thanks for the bomb info. Have copied it down and will apply later to my backyard shed thermonuclear device.

How to build an Atom Bomb.

A lot of people have responded to this farcical article with furious self rightiousness not realising it is only black humor and doesn't contain a shred of useful information on how to actually build a bomb. Which kind of supports your 'humans are getting dumber' theory quite nicely.

How to really build an atomic bomb.

The information contained in this file is strictly for academic use alone. Outlaw Labs will bear no responsibility for any use otherwise. It would be wise to note that the personnel who design and construct these devices are skilled physicists and are more knowledgeable in these matters than any layperson can ever hope to be... Should a layperson attempt to build a device such as this, chances are s/he would probably kill his/herself not by a nuclear detonation, but rather through radiation exposure. We here at Outlaw Labs do not recommend using this file beyond the realm of casual or academic curiosity.

That sounds like a challenge to me!

Here's another one from the bulletin of atomic scientists.

Just a short page giving the basic outline.

We'll need a lot of Uranium first. We can worry about enrichment after we have it. Couldn't we extract it chemically from natural ores. Uranium exists quite commonly in mineral ores I've heard. Can we extract enough for a bomb without breaking the piggy bank?

 

All the info to build a nuke I can find in my high school's library. All this means is more Vietnams.

 

We'll, the idea of a bigger stick won't completely neutralise nuclear weapons. A few will doubtless be hidden away for a few years. It's biggest attraction is the fear factor. Who will actually use a handful of nukes on an enemy target knowing that their own nation will be removed from the face of the Planet as a consequence? Having very few fingers on buttons would be enough. It diminishes the risk of an accidental launch and reduces the overall damage inflicted by a nuclear war. Any nuke incident would therefore be localised and shortlived.
Without a bigger stick controlled by a single nation or global body like the UN, there is going to be continuous nuclear proliferation until enough nuclear arsenals exist to wipe out life on Earth. It only takes one trigger happy moron to unleash Armageddon. We are seeing the cold war reenact itself on a smaller scale between India and Pakistan right now. Without a bigger stick, Mutually Assured destruction is the only other way of dealing with nuclear blackmail and that's why both countries are escalating their arsenals as we speak.

 

currently there is a treaty designed to keep WMD out of space

now that says that everyone is following it and that someone hasnt snuck around and done it behind the worlds back

 

Treaties aren't worth the paper they are written on. There is a Non-Proliferation treaty forbidding nuclear weapons research and it is being completely ignored by many nations. Even the US is conducting research. Even officially a nation can step away with 3 months notice. Nukes aren't necessary to build a deep space program. Any nation that can reach an NEO can use inertia weapons. The awesome destructive power which wiped out the dinosaurs is not so frightening for its tremendous capacity to inflict damage as it is for its simplicity in harnessing. We are already reaching out to space. When we get there we will need to police it from terrorist Inertia Weapons. The military will be essential when space travel becomes commonplace. Assuming it ever does.

 

Sorry Cthulhu. I totally forgot!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Point taken.

US couldn't evacuate every single city, besides it definetly wouldn't evacuate NY for some disarmament.
Besides US people would never allow genocide. Are you crazy?

Still, it would require a lot of inertia to bring a meaningful-sized asteroid out of orbit, it's very expensive. But even if you would be able to do it, the dust from large asteroid would cover the skies, and we would all die due to lack of sunlight. It is a crazy idea..

You need specific Uranium, that is very rare indeed. Buying off Russian generals is definetly the best idea.

 

US couldn't evacuate every single city, besides it definetly wouldn't evacuate NY for some disarmament.


They probably wouldn't need to evacuate any cities. There likely wouldn't be time anyway. Who would want to invite an inertia attack by launching nukes? Those with the arsenals to destroy numerous American cities have never tried to for fear of a nuclear retaliation. Fear of an inertia weapon retaliation would be even greater. Plus, inertia weapons are slightly quicker on the draw. Once the correct trajectory has been forced onto an object in LEO it will fall at a rate of 1 metre per second, per second. The nuclear warheads would be caught in the atmospheric shockwave of their country's demise.

Besides US people would never allow genocide.

Are you saying that if a foreign country tried to nuke Washington and New York your President wouldn't retaliate with all possible force.

Are you crazy?

Yeah. Sure. Why not.

Still, it would require a lot of inertia to bring a meaningful-sized asteroid out of orbit, it's very expensive.

You can use it's own mass to drive it. You don't need the whole thing. Asteroids are full of volatiles such as Hydrogen and Oxygen. Ready made Rocket fuel. Use part of it's mass as propellant. I'd dig holes into it and insert nukes then fill them with wadding like lead. Massive Cannons all over it's surface. The resources available once you reach asteroids is incredible. One average iron nickel rock out there contains enough metal to supply the US steel industry for a year. Building really big spacecraft for pushing them around is more than feasible. With all that high grade ore available it's actually practical.

But even if you would be able to do it, the dust from large asteroid would cover the skies, and we would all die due to lack of sunlight. It is a crazy idea..

That's one scenario. Meteors hit our planet every day. With this kind of weapon you can choose the scale of impact to an unheard of degree. It's quite possible you could scale it down to a crater covering only a few metres if you wanted to.

Hey, what's with this "The Anti-Cthulhu". When I awaken from R'Lyeh I intend to devour the World so it's probably best you get on my good side. I make Ragnarok look like a puppy dog.

 

Ah.. I'll post a reply when I get back from the club..

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just so I don't forget

 

Japan is a fairly level-headed country. Let them have the nukes. They are no more likly to use them than the US or Russia.

In fact the more nations that have nukes the less likly any sane person would use one. It would become suicide.

 

Someone who isn't even in the country. Or someone who is really angry and doesn't care.
I think nuclear radiation waste is a enough deterrant for any sane leader of a country.

Not genocide, still... Nuke places where missiles are located, yes. But kill all civilians in the country is a bit too much.

Yes, but we are talking about the scale of a country.. say Iraq, an asteroid needed to devastate Iraq would definetly bring side-effects. Besides how would you do the testing to know which size fits?

I also not very sure about the maths. Because:
1. You wouldn't know where the center of mass of an asteroid lies.
2. The asteroids (even minimal) rotation would make it difficult to predict its path.

This is quite far away though. You know how difficult it is to even bring 1 ton into space. Spacecraft assembly in space looks like long way away.

Ah.. BTW, this reminds of a game called "Stars!". Ever played it? There is the element (which I hate), where you shoot asteroids at other oponent planets. It's a good, pure strategy game.

I had it for a while. I don't even know what Cthulhu is really.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

CIA Director Has Woken Up.

Somebody must have tripped over him in the hallway and disturbed his sleep. It appears he has finally looked around and noticed that proliferation is out of control. He won't admit there is no possibility of control but does mumble that the US might not be able to contain proliferation. What a clod.

"I think nuclear radiation waste is a enough deterrant for any sane leader of a country."

What about insane leaders? What about leaders unperturbed by "collateral damage" measured in millions of lives?

"This is quite far away though. You know how difficult it is to even bring 1 ton into space."

Using existing chemical rockets sure. This would require nuclear launch systems. Well within the bounds of existing technology. An Orion or two from Antarctica could do the job. Maybe something entirely new like a Liberty vehicle. The asteroids themselves would provide the bulk of necessary resources to pull this off so payload requirement would be minimal. The cost would be well within US means and the payoff would priceless. Domination of Space and Earth for the foreseeable future seems likely. An end to nuclear proliferation and major wars is a big possibility. The only other option is imminent unavoidable thermonuclear war. History has taught us that. Proliferation will continue until a spark eventually sets of Armageddon.

"I don't even know what Cthulhu is really."

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The best answer to this question is found in H.P.Lovecraft's tale "The Call of Cthulhu". Cthulhu is a monstrous entity who lies "dead but dreaming" in the city of R'lyeh, a place of non-Euclidean madness presently (and mercifully) sunken below the depths of the Pacific Ocean. Appearing in various monstrous and demonic forms in early myths of the human race. Racial memory preserves me as humanity's most basic nightmare. The high priest of the Great Old Ones, unnatural alien beings who once ruled the Earth before humanity formed. Worshipped as gods by some misguided people. It is said that We will return, causing worldwide insanity and mindless violence before finally displacing humanity forever.

Cthulhu For President!
Why vote for a lesser evil?

 

This is off topic, but H.P Lovecraft was a fairly sickly individual who lived his short life in Providence, R.I. His mythical 'Miskatonic University' is based upon Brown University, also R.I. He had a friend called Clark Ashton Smith (also an author), after whom he named his fictional character 'Klarkash Ton'.

I probably don't need to mention that I've read everything he wrote.

Cheers,

Ron.