backtop


Print 110 comment(s) - last by Tilmitt.. on Jul 2 at 8:03 AM


U.S. researchers assess lathes used to manufacture nuclear fuel rods during part of an inspection of the Yongbyon plant. North Korea is suspected of having developed enriched uranium and plutonium stockpiles. However, it has finally agreed to cooperate with the U.S. in phasing out its nuclear activities.  (Source: AP)

An aerial view of the Yongbyon nuclear facility in North Korea, a suspected site of nuclear enrichment. North Korea will destroy the prominent tower on Friday as part of its plans to dismantle the facility.  (Source: DigitalGlobe-ISIS)
North Korea agrees to a full public accounting of its nuclear stockpile

Many countries around the world have begun to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, but the U.S. continues a modest program of nuclear development, both offensive and defensive with research into missile shields and new missile designs

The U.S. is not alone either.  India and Pakistan both have developed declared nuclear arsenals since the 90s in an ongoing brinkmanship power play.

Other countries, including Iran and North Korea are suspected or known to have produced nuclear power and weapons grade materials in secret.  Because of this, both countries were dubbed part of the "Axis of Evil" by President Bush several years ago.

Now North Korea has agreed to a full public accounting of its nuclear assets and has agreed to scale back its nuclear production.  The move was a culmination of a series of talks led by fellow-communist neighbor China, which included four other nations, including the U.S.

President Bush welcomed the move and said it would allow the U.S. to remove North Korea from its list of states which support terrorism.

One particularly interesting detail of accounting should be North Korea's revelation of its plutonium stocks.  It is unknown how much plutonium has been amassed by the country's nuclear operations.  Plutonium is primarily used in the creation of nuclear weapons, while uranium, from which plutonium is produced, is primarily used for nuclear power generation.

North Korea has also agreed to dismantle a major reactor, which was shrouded with controversy.  Bush has agreed to call for the removal of North Korea from the terror list, but warned that North Korea must show its cooperation in a "verifiable" way.  He stated, "The United States has no illusions about the regime in Pyongyang, yet we welcome today's development as one step of a multi-step process."

He added a warning, "If North Korea continues to make the right choices, it can repair its relationship with the international community.  If North Korea makes the wrong choices, the United States and its partners in the six-party talks will respond accordingly."

As part of the deal, North Korea will "acknowledge" international concerns about its nuclear proliferation and uranium enrichment activities.  While it has not agreed to destroy its current plutonium stocks, it is willing to agree as part of the agreement to suspend future enrichment activity.  It has also not agreed to reveal if it has any nuclear bombs, so it may have a trump card or two up its sleeve.

In exchange the nation will receive economic and energy assistance.

It will be monitored to assure that the dismantlement of its nuclear program proceeds earnestly.  On Friday, North Korea will take an important step in the dismantlement of its Yongbyon nuclear reactor, by imploding the cooling tower.  The power production section of the plant is currently being dismantled.  U.S. officials warn that the cooling tower's destruction is nothing more than a symbolic gesture and much work remains.

In a surprising development, North Korea invited the international press to cover the tower's destruction.  North Korea typically bans foreign media.

The other nations involved in the talks have been South Korea, Japan, and Russia.  The U.S. backed off its initial demands that North Korea confess to a large enriched uranium stockpile, which U.S. intelligence officials believe exists.  The U.S. also backed down from its accusations that North Korea supplied Syria, a terror state, with nuclear weapons technology and/or materials.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said the deal was far from ideal, but it was the best that could be accomplished.  The documents from the talks will now be reviewed for completeness and accuracy.

An irony is that North Korea's removal from the terror list will have no real effect on U.S. sanctions against the nation and similar sanctions exist for a variety of reason through other measures.  Thus sanctions remain, but the nuclear tensions between the communist state and the West will temporarily ease.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

really?
By JustTom on 6/26/2008 11:18:53 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Many countries around the world have begun to dismantle their nuclear arsenals, but the U.S. continues a modest program of nuclear development, both offensive and defensive with research into missile shields and new missile designs.


The United States has dismantled a large part of its nuclear arsenal, as has Russia. None of the declared or undeclared nuclear powers have any plan for complete nuclear disarment. Which of these nations are you referring to when you claim 'many' are disarming? And how are there nuclear disarmanment programs superior to the United States?




RE: really?
By FingerMeElmo87 on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: really?
By Aloonatic on 6/26/2008 12:16:00 PM , Rating: 4
Several?

Try thousands :-s


RE: really?
By Samus on 6/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: really?
By gyranthir on 6/26/2008 12:45:11 PM , Rating: 2
I am not sure what you mean by funny.

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "Talk softly and carry a big stick."

We aren't going to be unarmed in a situation such as this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_n...

Even if you NEVER use them, they are a good deterrent.


RE: really?
By freaqie on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: really?
By gyranthir on 6/26/2008 6:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
As much as they claim they don't care about life, and all of that good jazz, they do.


RE: really?
By Aloonatic on 7/1/2008 4:36:54 AM , Rating: 1
Dictators need people to dictate, and I don't mean well trained secretaries who know shorthand either.

It's funny/a little scary how you/some people think that these "terrorist" nations and people are stupid/ignorant.

They aren't, they just live in a completely different world to you and I where they have been told that the sky is pink but it doesn't mean that they are stupid or want to see the end of life as we know it?

And maybe, having been told that the sky is blue over here, we have been mislead?

*I am fairly confident that the sky is blue and nor do I think that people in N Korea are told that it is pink, I am just pointing out that they are raised/educated with different mindset and ideology but they are not intrinsically evil or stupid, just as we only know what we are told in the West and are not evil or stupid either.

*Also, I do believe that the moon landings happened before anyone thinks that I am one of those crazy cooks.


RE: really?
By Xpl1c1t on 6/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: really?
By P4blo on 6/26/2008 12:11:12 PM , Rating: 3
I expect they dismantled their oldest tech because the new tech can nuke twice as much. I wouldn't be too excited about any form of 'dismantling' unless it's proven to be complete. Which it never will be. America just doesn't want untrustworthy non allies with weps which is pretty hypocritical.

Anyone who thinks the world will be rid of nuclear weapons or similar one day is kidding themselves. It was a one way trip to weapons of mass distruction. Nobody will want to surrender such a deterrent while there is a small chance others have quietly kept some hidden away.

Case closed.


RE: really?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 6/26/2008 12:41:58 PM , Rating: 2
In the U.S. we use some of the 20,000 warheads we bought from Russia to manufacture fuel for our nuclear power plants. If that's not a good case for nuclear energy then I don't know what is!


RE: really?
By gyranthir on 6/26/2008 12:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hypocritical?

Not really, They (and by they I mean, the WORLD), just want a good handle on what others have. The US and Russia have dismantled MANY MANY MANY of their stockpile, so have many of the other nuclear powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_n...

10 of these weapons would change life as we know it on this planet, due to fallout, crop and populace disruption, nuclear/radiation poisoning etc. Having a knowledge of who can cause that sort of the destruction isn't a terrible idea.


RE: really?
By Ringold on 6/26/2008 4:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to discount the idea a handful of nuclear explosions as being capable of devastating the whole world.

The Soviets as well as our own military test-detonated some big-ass bombs, the size of which I don't think most of our stockpile comes close to, and we did it with a degree of regularity. If I recall, the soviets tested a bomb that created an explosion the size of.. Maryland, was it?

Anyway, according to the EPA, above-ground nuclear testing peaked at about 160 megatons in 1962:

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/nuclearblast.htm...

Scouring different websites, it looks like the majority of our weapons are in the kiloton, not megaton, range. 300kt seems to be a popular range, though it looks like our nuclear bombers can carry higher yields. Total yield of our entire arsenal, according to one site, is 2330 Mt, but it says only 1430 Mt are readily available for deployment.

Given that the world didn't collapse in the 60s, I'd say that environmentalists might go insane and start forming suicide cults but otherwise a small nuclear exchange wouldn't be the end of the world. For example, I'd imagine if Iran tossed at nuke at Israel, Israel could pretty fully annihilate Iran without destroying the world. Just matching the yield of 1962, they could hit Iran with over 500 lower-yielding bombs, and Carter recently speculated Israel only has 150 anyway. Even larger bombs, like our B83 @ 1.2 Mt, would mean Israel could hit Iran with 133 before breaching the amount of testing done in 1962.


RE: really?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 8:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Even larger bombs, like our B83 @ 1.2 Mt, would mean Israel could hit Iran with 133 before breaching the amount of testing done in 1962. "

Well, technically there isn't a linear relationship between yield and fallout. For instance, the Soviet's largest detonation (Tsar Bomba) was ~50MT...but the yield was almost entirely from fusion, making it extraordinarily clean for its size. A 300 KT device is going to be a boosted-fission variant, so it'll be somewhat dirtier than its size suggests.

Explosion height has a large effect also-- a ground burst will generate far more fallout than one at high-altitude. Still, talk of "ten changing the world" is utter nonsense. Several thousand of them would increase background radiation levels enough to cause issues throughout the Northern Hemisphere...but even a few hundred aren't going to be disruptive.


RE: really?
By Ammohunt on 6/26/2008 12:51:47 PM , Rating: 4
Fools thoughts! Or at least from someone I gather didn’t live during the cold war! We are stuck with nuclear weapons for as long as man lives. Western Civilized nations in possession of WMD doesn’t bother me in the slightest. Radical regimes such as Iran, North Korea, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.. the thought of that scares me. Same reason I wouldn’t trust a convicted child rapist to baby sit my child. Use your brain.


RE: really?
By JonnyDough on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: really?
By grenableu on 6/26/2008 9:33:29 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, all that talk of Stalin and Mao killing tens of millions of their own people was just propaganda, you're right.

/roll_eyes


RE: really?
By dever on 6/27/2008 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Countries who have respect for human lives have allowed the growth of the civil, political and economic freedoms you enjoy. These individual freedoms represent checks and balances to centralized power, not just through government structure but also through the freedom of speech and press.

On the contrary, those countries where power is concentrated in the hands of a few and that have consistently denied rights to their own citizens should naturally be suspect.


RE: really?
By nemrod on 7/1/2008 10:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethnicity has nothing to do with it. Countries who have respect for human lives have allowed the growth of the civil, political and economic freedoms you enjoy. These individual freedoms represent checks and balances to centralized power, not just through government structure but also through the freedom of speech and press.


It's a theorical point of view.
Which country has used a nuclear weapon against civil?
Where are the mass destruction weapon of irak?

Even, if I'm not for nuclear proliferation, good and evil classification isn't the real world where truth is more complex.


RE: really?
By encryptkeeper on 6/26/2008 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
There are only 8 nations (9 if you count Israel, not that I'm anti-Israel, just that they've never declared to have nukes) that have nukes, and the "dismantling" is mainly limited to classifying extremely old warheads as inactive due to age and most likely, near zero functionality. I doubt many newer warheads are ever dismantled.

We'll never have a world with complete nuclear disarmament unless we use them all up.


RE: really?
By Jedi2155 on 6/26/2008 5:56:16 PM , Rating: 2
They did start deactivating the newer MX missiles despite it being the newest tech....


RE: really?
By encryptkeeper on 6/27/2008 8:56:55 AM , Rating: 2
Not a very good example. The missile you're talking about is better known as the Peacekeeper missile, and it was mainly developed for pinpoint strikes against the Soviets in case they were able to destroy our air-based nuclear bombers, thereby leaving the US vulnerable. Silos are really expensive to build and maintain, and very few are left. The US's nuclear armament mostly exists on nuclear submarines.


RE: really?
By JustTom on 6/27/2008 9:13:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are only 8 nations (9 if you count Israel, not that I'm anti-Israel, just that they've never declared to have nukes) that have nukes, and the "dismantling" is mainly limited to classifying extremely old warheads as inactive due to age and most likely, near zero functionality. I doubt many newer warheads are ever dismantled.


Even accepting your premise as 100% true, and it is not, why would a country that wishes to keep some nuclear weapons decommission its more modern weapons while keepings its older possibly non-functioning warheads?

No, there will never be complete nuclear disarmament. It is not reasonable to expect it. However, both the United States and Russia have cut their nuclear arsenals tremendously.


States that support terrorism?
By Some1ne on 6/26/2008 3:40:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
President Bush welcomed the move and said it would allow the U.S. to remove North Korea from its list of states which support terrorism.


Oh really? Because North Korea agrees to make its nuclear program (which only just barely made it off the ground in the first place) transparent, they no longer support terrorism? How does that work? I always assumed that "supporting terrorism" meant lending financial and/or material aid to terrorist groups. Whether or not North Korea has open accounting of its nuclear program has nothing to do with that.

It looks like our list of "states that support terrorism" may be completely inaccurate, and nothing more than a bargaining chip used to apply political pressure to countries that we don't like. Pity we can't get more transparency and accountability from our own government.




RE: States that support terrorism?
By Ringold on 6/26/2008 4:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the Syrian nuclear facility that Israel bombed earlier this month was apparently a clone of North Korea's. Syria is a satellite of Iran, and Iran supports Hezbollah as well as Iraqi insurgents. Therefore, NK was indirectly rendering aid to terrorist groups. If NK becomes transparent and is no longer rendering such aid, they're no longer supporting terrorist groups and/or terrorist-sponsoring states.

I've got a feeling that if the article said, say, "German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the move and said..." then your weak conspiracy theory wouldn't of been cooked up. Because Bush said it though, it must somehow be an evil, manipulative plot.


RE: States that support terrorism?
By Ringold on 6/26/2008 4:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
I meant to say "earlier this year" regarding the Israeli strike, but even then I'm still wrong. They took it out in September of last year.

Time flies. :(


RE: States that support terrorism?
By Some1ne on 6/26/2008 5:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well, the Syrian nuclear facility that Israel bombed earlier this month was apparently a clone of North Korea's. Syria is a satellite of Iran, and Iran supports Hezbollah as well as Iraqi insurgents. Therefore, NK was indirectly rendering aid to terrorist groups.


You assert rendering aid to terrorist groups through that many layers of indirection, and I'm the one with weak conspiracy theories?

Also, just because the plants were similar, that doesn't necessarily implicate North Korea. Maybe the Syrians just got the plans from the same people who sold the North Koreans their plans.

quote:
If NK becomes transparent and is no longer rendering such aid, they're no longer supporting terrorist groups and/or terrorist-sponsoring states.


That is only true if it was the *only* aid North Korea has ever given to terrorist groups. If they've rendered other assistance (which I'm sure they must have, as they've been on the "state sponsors of terror" list since well before there was uproar about their nuclear program), then their status on the list should not change, if the list is at all accurate.

quote:
I've got a feeling that if the article said, say, "German Chancellor Angela Merkel welcomed the move and said..." then your weak conspiracy theory wouldn't of been cooked up. Because Bush said it though, it must somehow be an evil, manipulative plot.


If Germany maintained a list of "state sponsors of terror", and used it for the purpose of swaying public opinion on foreign relations and domestic politics, then I'd still call foul. But to the best of my knowledge, they don't do that.

Also, I never said it was a conspiracy, or that it was evil. It's inaccurate, and certainly manipulative when you have political pundits throwing criticisms around about how anyone willing to talk to any nation on the "state sponsors of terror" list doesn't know jack about foreign policy. But that doesn't make it a conspiracy. It makes it propaganda. And surely you're not going to assert that the government (and not just Bush, I never implicated him as an individual in the first place) is above using propaganda to sway public opinion, are you?


RE: States that support terrorism?
By Penti on 6/26/2008 7:51:14 PM , Rating: 2
DPRK was a weapons proliferater just as any western country by selling there own modified Scud B's. Spare parts for soviet tanks, kalashnikovs, other parts for soviet stuff and weapons. I think they will basically agree to stop selling the missiles. But today that's kinda pointless, Iran for example that DPRK had as customers in the 80's and early 90's for missile technology has long surpassed DPRKs capabilities.

However the only country with undeclared nukes that actually have ICBM capability is Israel. Irans missiles can't treat western europe for example, but Israels ICBMs has the range to do so. Pakistan and India is getting there, but they don't have strike capability on europe yet.

BTW i think your forgetting how long ago the Syrian plant was actually built (or began to be built) even if the story is as the US (and Israeli) intelligence says. It was started on before DPRK left the NPT. While there own plants still was under monitoring and before they had ever reprocessed any fuel rods. They have been desperate for cash since soviet fell though so i don't doubt that they would build such plants. But it's not like you would get an massive arsenal of weapons plutonium from such a reactor. So it seems kinda stupid to not build a reactor with higher thermal power. A larger reactor.

I think it could change thinks a lot in north korea if the sanctions where dropped though. They can't wire money today from accounts in foreign banks freely and they certainly can't actually send money to the state banks inside of north korea. They go so far that they often carry cash in suitcases just to get some cash to the factories. They pay stuff like Russian tractors in cash directly to the seller. It's absurd really.

It's however not a country where any one would invest. If that does not change it will continue to be a desperate country with few trade partners and still don't have access to any markets or technology. And they really need to stop be a closed society when it comes to information and communication. They can't survive buy just opening up some industrial zones where South Korean companies can pay the workforce some 50 dollar a month in pay.


RE: States that support terrorism?
By Ringold on 6/27/2008 12:50:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
then their status on the list should not change, if the list is at all accurate.


If they are verified as being clean in the present and moving forward, why not take them off the list? Is it not the liberal position to be forgiving? Why continue to punish them, particularly after they decide to come clean?

The rest I'm not going to bother responding to. You did a good job of putting up a smoke screen to cover your original bias, and I don't care to pursue it further.


Daily Tech Material?
By Spookster on 6/26/2008 12:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
Why is this article being published on DailyTech? Doesn't seem like typical or usual DT material especially considering the article doesn't actually dicuss the technology involved with nuclear activities. It's just a regurgitation of what many news agencies are already reporting.




RE: Daily Tech Material?
By GaryJohnson on 6/26/2008 1:04:55 PM , Rating: 3
It's a McArticle, loaded with trans-politics.


RE: Daily Tech Material?
By 1078feba on 6/27/2008 11:38:04 AM , Rating: 2
Couldn't agree more.

Perhaps page hits were down? Got to keep people coming back so you don't have to drop your ad rates.

Stories like this are sure to start the political flame wars here in the threads, which in turn bring out the lurkers by the dozen.


Secret stash
By Screwballl on 6/26/2008 11:45:22 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Now North Korea has agreed to a full public accounting of its nuclear assets and has agreed to scale back its nuclear production.


That means they have secret nukes all ready to go and blast off whenever the first country pisses off NK... sure let the UN have access to the visible nuclear material to keep a good public face while keeping the nuclear WMD hidden.

bash> ./Global_Thermonuclear_Warfare
> *WARNING there can be no winner in this game*
> *how about a nice game of chess?*
> (Y/N)?
> |




God bless America...
By kattanna on 6/26/2008 11:23:27 AM , Rating: 2
and no one else.

great line from that movie your pic is from.

on a serious note, i'd like to know how much i just got stucking paying for the priviledge of knowing what north korea is doing.




RE: God bless America...
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 11:58:41 AM , Rating: 1
Slavery.....F*CK YEAH!


By DigitalFreak on 6/26/2008 3:42:26 PM , Rating: 3
but says plans to invade them are moving forward anyway.




MAD Works
By pauldovi on 6/26/2008 1:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
It does.




By Chaser on 6/26/2008 4:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
What's the logic here?
By dickeywang on 6/27/2008 8:21:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
President Bush welcomed the move and said it would allow the U.S. to remove North Korea from its list of states which support terrorism.


So President Bush want to remove North Korea from the list because they let us know how many nuclear weapons they have? Why is that I don't see a clean logic between these two? Isn't it the case that you remove a certain country from the list of states which support terrorism only if they are no longer support terrorism? Am I missing something here?




USA at its most paranoid
By monkeyman1140 on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: USA at its most paranoid
By 67STANG on 6/26/2008 11:18:35 AM , Rating: 3
Well lets see. How many people can 2 nukes kill? How about if both land in Tokyo? Even if they are crude, they could still kill millions.

If you lived in Japan, and you found out N. Korea had 2 nukes, would you feel safe?

Please. Don't be retarded.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/26/2008 11:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, thats why Japan is extremely interested in the anti-missile technologies. In fact I believe one of the Japenese AEGIS cruisers was modified to target nukes and fire interceptor missiles.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By ksherman on 6/26/2008 11:26:54 AM , Rating: 2
OT, but the AEGIS cruisers are freaking incredible ships.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Chaser on 6/26/2008 11:33:27 AM , Rating: 2
Yes they are indeed. I've rode on several out of Japan.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Aloonatic on 6/26/2008 11:34:04 AM , Rating: 4
Just for the laughs???

Ask Americans how many people 2 nukes can kill.

They are the only people to have ever used them.....

(average rating 2.xx....1.xx...0.xx..0)


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By RobberBaron on 6/26/2008 11:39:23 AM , Rating: 5
Proving they never need to be used again.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Aloonatic on 6/26/2008 11:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
Absolutely.

I don't think the cold war would have gone the way it did if the respective sides just "wondered" how effective these weapons are and the pictures of the actual effects on the people of Japan were not so wide spread.

But we do sometimes forget that these weapons have been used on people though, and that is a bad thing.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Reclaimer77 on 6/26/2008 1:30:46 PM , Rating: 2
Reagan used nukes to defeat Communism, because he knew Russia was also using nukes to save their government by attempting to blackmail us for economic aid. They thought the fear of nuclear war was enough to get Reagan to sign off on tons of economic and political concessions to bail them out.

Same thing North Korea was doing. Too bad Bush couldn't realize this and caved in.

On the flip side, maybe Kong Juan Ill really IS that crazy and would have used them. So in that case, YAY go Bush !


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By 67STANG on 6/26/2008 12:43:22 PM , Rating: 5
I love all the schmucks that bring this up, not realizing how many more people would have died had we not used them...


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By gyranthir on 6/26/2008 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Solandri on 6/26/2008 1:33:54 PM , Rating: 5
Not just would have died, but were dying. Towards the end of the war, the Allies were pretty much bombing Germany and Japan indiscriminately. The atomic bombs didn't do anything that wasn't already being done, they just did it a lot more efficiently.

13-15 Feb 1945 - Dresden bombing: 25,000 ~ 40,000 killed
9-10 March 1945 - Tokyo bombing: ~100,000 killed
6 August 1945 - Hiroshima bombing: ~140,000 killed
9 August 1945 - Nagasaki bombing: ~80,000 killed

And the Japanese were far from innocent victims. The 140,000 killed at Hiroshima includes ~20,000 Korean and Chinese forced laborers (Hiroshima was a major military production center).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_dur...


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By overzealot on 6/27/2008 3:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the dead were civilians.

I fail to see how civilians aren't considered "innocent".


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 11:55:36 AM , Rating: 2
Damn right we are. And we plan to keep it that way.

And dropping those two nukes saved far more than the amount they killed.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 12:06:19 PM , Rating: 5
> "Ask Americans how many people 2 nukes can kill."

Answer: less than 1/10 what an armed invasion of the Japanese mainland would have killed.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By nah on 6/26/2008 1:24:14 PM , Rating: 2
This is true--Operation Coronet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall

quote:
Japan's geography made this invasion plan obvious to the Japanese as well; they were able to accurately deduce the Allied invasion plans and adjust their defensive plans accordingly. The Japanese planned an all-out defense of Kyushu, with little left in reserve for any subsequent defense operations. Casualty predictions varied widely but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for Allied casualties,[1] and tens of millions for Japanese casualties.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/26/2008 2:21:58 PM , Rating: 2
Well my father's Uncle told me. There was not to many places you could land an invasion into Japan. The boat he was on looked into a harbor with a kind of horse shoe effect, but closed more between the end points. The end points were very tall hills or mountains with several large guns on top of these points. They were sitting just out of the range of these guns for several days waiting for the order to attack. He did not know at the time, the US was waiting for Japan's reaction to the bombs. He said, if they were giving the orders to attack he knew that would be his last day alive...then added they would have never made it to the shore, forget about moving inland.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
> "He did not know at the time, the US was waiting for Japan's reaction to the bombs..."

And many people don't realize that Japan's reaction to the bombs was *still* to refuse surrender.

It wasn't until many days later, after the Soviets declared war on Japan (yes, they waited till the war was nearly over to do so) and Hirohito made a personal appeal to the people over the radio, that the war council finally agreed to surrender...and even then, a group of army officers revolted and stormed the Imperial Palace, attempting to prevent it.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/26/2008 3:42:10 PM , Rating: 2
Did not know that....interesting.
I was reading from the link above and thought this was an impressive statement of what they knew was going to happen if we had to land forces:
Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. To the present date, all the American military casualties of the sixty years following the end of World War II — including the Korean and Vietnam Wars — have not exceeded that number. In 2003, there were still 120,000 of these Purple Heart medals in stock.[45] There are so many in surplus that combat units in Iraq and Afghanistan are able to keep Purple Hearts on-hand for immediate award to wounded soldiers on the field.[45]

So, today, the Purple heart medal given out is actually older then the military person receiving the medal.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Fluxion on 6/26/2008 5:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
Japan's reaction after the first bomb was to refuse surrender, but after the second bomb, plus the invasion of Manchuria by the Soviet Union, they didn't so much refuse as they debated over how to handle a surrender. At the time, many, including the Japanese and others, knew that the US had been working on an atomic bomb, but didn't believe it was anywhere near completion, so after the first bomb was dropped, it was more disbelief, which then led to them believing the US couldn't have produced very many atomic bombs (which in fact was true, we hadn't, but obviously more were under construction), but we had prepared to destroy most major cities.

The war council had already agreed to surrender pre-Hirohito's announcement, because the rebellion that occured with the taking of the Imperial palace by Hatanaka, did not have the support of the Army at all, and ultimately was quickly ended.

While I'm not against the dropping of the atomic bombs, it's also important to point out, that many in the US military and government, felt that the dropping of the two bombs was entirerly unnecessary, as between conventional bombing raids and complete control of the seas around Japan, essentially had placed a strangehold on them. The Japanese war cabinet and Hirohito had already recognized before the atomic bombings, that they couldn't hold out that much longer, and were hoping for the US to invade. An invasion would have been horrible in terms of casualities, but I honestly we would have done so many bombing raids in preparation for Operation Downfall, that they would have surrendered before the actual invasion landings.

I do think though, that the resulting horrors that came from the bombs being dropped, helped to steady the hand of US and Soviet military and political leaders during the Cold War, as they had seen first hand the results of, by thermonuclear weapon standards, relatively weak, simplistic atomic weapons. A thermonuclear warhead's result would be much worse, and so MAD helped keep the Cold War from turning nuclear hot.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 8:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
> "it's also important to point out, that many in the US military and government, felt that the dropping of the two bombs was entirerly unnecessary"

Many? Stuff and nonsense. Yes, we had a "stranglehold" on Japan, but no, it was doing absolutely nothing to compel them to surrender.

Some people believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two cities we bombed. In actuality, we destroyed dozens of cities through conventional bombing. Toyama? 99% destroyed. Osaka? 35% destroyed. Fukuyama? 80% destroyed. Nara? 70% destroyed. Kofu? 80% destroyed. Mito? 70% destroyed. Fukui? 85% destroyed. Tokyo? 100,000 killed. The list goes on and on...and it was doing nothing whatsoever to compel surrender.

Yes, the War Council was hoping for the US to invade. They harbored the belief that Japan could cause so many casualties they could still force a stalemate...and they very well may have been correct, though such a mission would have meant the death of millions of Japanese civilians.

The bombings saved lives -- not just American lives, but Japanese lives as well.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Fluxion on 6/27/2008 1:05:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many? Stuff and nonsense. Yes, we had a "stranglehold" on Japan, but no, it was doing absolutely nothing to compel them to surrender.


I didn't know that such individuals as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Admiral Chester Nimitz, Admiral Leahy, General MacArthur and others count as "stuff and nonsense".

As early as April of 1945, the Japanese government had realized that they were running out of materials to wage war rather quickly, and in June of 1945, a report was published by the Japanese government for the Emperor, the military and others, stating that by the end of the year, Japan's ability to mount any type of effective, modern-style of war would be gone, as they wouldn't have the resources to produce weapons, etc. They had even resorted to recycling metal bomb fragments to use for production.

In fact, both the War Council and Emperor Hirohito had reports produced as to what the most effective terms of surrender would be, at this time, but typically they always favored conditions highly favorable to Japan, so they would not have seriously been considered. But no, they were in fact already looking into a surrender of some kind.

quote:
Some people believe Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the only two cities we bombed. In actuality, we destroyed dozens of cities through conventional bombing. Toyama? 99% destroyed. Osaka? 35% destroyed. Fukuyama? 80% destroyed. Nara? 70% destroyed. Kofu? 80% destroyed. Mito? 70% destroyed. Fukui? 85% destroyed. Tokyo? 100,000 killed. The list goes on and on...and it was doing nothing whatsoever to compel surrender.


I'm not quite sure why you threw this in, if only to support what I had already stated above, that if we hadn't have dropped the bombs, we simply would have conducted numerous bombing raids over Japan via conventional methods, which would have been far more destructive. Conventional bombing, anti-commerce submarine warfare and operations such as Operation Starvation all were resulting in the complete and total destruction of Japan's ability to wage war. The atomic bombs simply provided a more efficient way to destroy a target, as one plane with one atomic bomb, could do the job of hundreds of B-29 bombers. Given that by the time of Japan's surrender, we had approximately 4,000 B-29s available (not nearly that number were in the Pacific campaign, but many were on their way to the Pacific), and we could have likely have leveled every major and semi-major city in Japan in a fairly short time frame.

quote:
Yes, the War Council was hoping for the US to invade. They harbored the belief that Japan could cause so many casualties they could still force a stalemate...and they very well may have been correct, though such a mission would have meant the death of millions of Japanese civilians.


After the first atomic bomb was dropped, and before news had even reached Tokyo about the second bomb's dropping, Japan had already agreed to accept the conditions of the Potsdam Conference, as long as Emperor Hirohito remained in power. The general consensus seems to be that it was more the announcement of war by the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Manchuria, that forced Japan to surrender faster, and not the droppings of the atomic bomb.

As for Operation Downfall, Japan had focused many of its remaining military forces at the southern end of Kyushu, and so its middle and northern regions were weakly defended, and this prompted concern from Hirohito and others as early as June 1945. So conceivably, even if they had managed to somewhat contain Allied invasion forces in the south, threats in the north from the Soviet Union scared them immensely once the USSR declared war.

It's also important to note, that while McArthur desired to go ahead as planned and attack southern Kyushu, others such as Nimitz desired a change of the plan, and to land further north, where Japanese defense forces were much smaller and resistance much less likely. Thus, we can never say just how difficult or easy the conquest of Japan would have been.

It is true though that the War Council hoped to make the invasion as gruesome as possible, not as you said to force a stalemate, because Japan knew that time was long past, but to force more favorable surrendering conditions for themselves.

And honestly, as I said, I don't view it as a mistake, because we may not have even been around now had the world not seen what they unleashed. However, if we had simply forced them into starvation, and with Russia's declaration of war, who knows how quickly they'd have surrendered anyway. If it was quick, then the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wouldn't have saved lives, but cost far more. If the period was long before Japan's surrender, then the bombings would have saved lives. It's one of those situations that is only a "what if", and doesn't really matter, because that's not how history turned out.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Fluxion on 6/27/2008 1:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
I also forgot to add, but later US planning for Operation Downfall, also included research into the "tactical" (if such a thing for large-sized atomic bombs can even be considered that) use of atomic weapons against Japanese defense forces on Kyushu.

Admittedly, this itself would have been a horrible idea, as besides the large number of likely deaths to Japanese soldiers and civilians, US troops landing and going into areas recently hit by an atomic bomb, would have likely faced dangerous levels of residual radiation, and thus a lot more American casualties as a result.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Solandri on 6/26/2008 8:28:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It wasn't until many days later, after the Soviets declared war on Japan (yes, they waited till the war was nearly over to do so)

Well, the Soviets didn't really "wait" until the last minute to declare war. They knew the folly of fighting a two-front war, and entered into a non-aggression pact with Japan when they got involved with Germany. The U.S. wasn't sure the atomic bombs would work, and didn't want to invade Japan without the help of another major power. They begged and pleaded with the Soviets to declare war, but the Soviets stuck with their treaty with Japan.

Eventually the U.S. and G.B. made a lot of concessions which finally got the Soviets to break the treaty and declare war. Those included Soviet control of Mongolia, half of the Korean peninsula, and control of Sakhalin and the Kuril islands. When the atomic bombs worked and Japan surrendered, the Soviets got all that territory basically for barely lifting a finger. As you can tell from the locations, it set up at least one of the major confrontations during the Cold War. And Japan is still trying to get part of the Kuril islands back.

But hey, if we had had to invade Japan, the Soviets would've been there to help us. Some gambles pay off, some don't.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Tilmitt on 6/26/2008 9:42:42 PM , Rating: 2
You people are sick with your justification of the mass slaughter of CIVILIANS. This is never right, even if you think you're going to "save lives" based on calculations compared to a standard military offensive.

Would it have been a War Crime if, in 1942, the third Reich used Nuclear weapons on two American Cities to "save the lives" that would be lost during a standard invasion of America? You hypocritical American's certainly would say it would be, as I would too.

But when you mass slaughter Japanese CIVILIANS it's all worded up into some sort of sick justification and the indiscriminate murder gets written into history by the victors as something to be almost proud of.

Murderers and War Criminals. Anyone that can ever justify murdering civilians is a sick disgusting person.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 10:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
Let me clear up your confusion. While a nation should take steps to minimize civilian casualties during war, it is wholly impossible to wage war without killing civilians. The sophomoric idea that one can "never" kill a civilian would mean the Allies would have been forced to immediately surrender the moment they were attacked. In war, civilians die.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both valid military targets. Hiroshima, for instance, contained the Second Army headquarters, a communications center, and a huge number of military warehouses. It was, in fact, the center from which the defense of all Southern Japan would have been conducted, had the US been forced to invade.

The bombing saved civilian lives. This is a fact that cannot be ignored. And not just the lives of Japanese civilians, but hundreds of thousands of others. For instance, a Dutch woman who once lived next to me. Her mother and three sisters had all starved to death in a Japanese concentration camp during WW2...she herself was days away from starvation when the Japanese surendered.

However, what's even more important is that the bombing saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. And that, sir, in war, is a nation's primary objective. Had the Japanese people not aided and abetted one of the most murderous regimes in history, they would not have been faced with this outcome.

In any case, calling any Japanese citizen during WW2 a "civilian" strains the term to its breaking point. Finding anyone who wasn't involved directly in supporting the war effort at that time would have been difficult, and a majority of citizens were also receiving direct military training for an armed defense of the island.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Tilmitt on 6/26/2008 10:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
So would the same logic would apply if the weapons were used against the United States to quickly end a war and "save lives"?


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 11:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Had the weapons been used because the US began a world war which killed tens of millions of innocent civilians, and sometimes under the most brutal of conditions, -- then yes, another nation would most certainly be justified in using nuclear weapons in retaliation.

By the way, with all your talk of "you Americans", what nation do you hail from? I wonder if you're even aware how many civilians it itself has been responsible for the death of.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Tilmitt on 6/27/2008 4:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
I am Irish, but living in Japan. It isn't as simple as Allied powers good/ Axis powers bad. There are many complicated reasons for the war, some of which can be blamed on the various "good guys".

In any case, that is moot, as anyone who would deliberately murder civilians of any nation is a barbarian and a war criminal. I would never ever sink to that level, even if I was in command of a country that received such attacks.

War crimes are war crimes. Winning the war doesn't excuse anyone from the guilt, shame and the truth.

Shame on those who committed those atrocities. If Hell and all that religious rubbish really existed, they'd be going straight to it.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By masher2 (blog) on 6/27/2008 9:46:54 AM , Rating: 2
> "I am Irish, but living in Japan."

Ah Ireland, the nation that essentially invented guerilla warfare and the killing of civilians to win their war of independence; the nation that tacitly approved Hitler's campaigns by refusing to fight against him in WW2. Pot, hast thou met kettle?

And from there, you've chosen to adopt and defend the nation responsible for the brutal genocide at the Rape of Nanking, the mass murder of millions in the Philippines and elsewhere, the nation which dissected live prisoners without anesthesia, which kept a legion of "comfort women" as forced sex slaves, and -- most importantly of all -- the nation which initiated the hostilities.

> "War crimes are war crimes"

And people which can't understand war crimes are people which can't understand them. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were valid military targets. Bombing them was no different than the bombing of Tokyo, Osaka, or any of the dozens of other Japanese cities struck.

The fact that the bombing saved civilian lives was a nice bonus, but irrelevant to the issue at hand.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/27/2008 10:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
You should have added that Japan's death camps made Hitler's death camps look like SUMMER fun time camps. Japan killed 3 to 4 times as many people. They did things like use a fire hose to wet clothed and naked people to see which died first (outside in the middle of winter) and the amount of time difference between deaths (groups of people at a time of course). Living autopsies – of course no pain killer, why waste them on someone who is going to be dead in an hour or two – depending on how long I want him to stay alive during my exam. Injecting diseases into different people to see how their bodies fight off or don't fight off the sickness. Physical brutality that you just can not imagine. These are some of the things... really probably the nicer side of the camps. But this is OK with Tilmitt because USA was not doing it (to blame) and it was mostly Chinese people that were harmed before they were kill or left to die.
I'm sure Saddam Hussein was harmed wrongfully to Tilmitt too. Even though Saddam lead a small (by square miles) country, in 30 years over a 1,000,000 people just went missing no reason. Family, friends and loved ones could not call the police...because that's whom in many cases the missing person was last with being carted off somewhere. But again this is OK, because the USA was not doing it, so you can not blame USA – most be OK. However, we can blame the USA for ruining Saddam life style. After all the USA took him out of power, found him, and turned him over to his own people. Whom found him guilty of crimes again humanity and hung him. That was soooooooo evil of us. Now, because of this – businesses are starting to open up again in Iraq, kids (boys and girls) are going to school again – many for the first time, kids can play out in the streets again, the people have smiles once again on their faces. Geee what will we ever do? Sure, there our a few Iraq citizens not happy with their new government...mostly the ones that were in charge of the old government. Most people are unhappy when they lose their power.

Sorry if anyone takes offense - but these are just things that happened not things I made up or believe in. So, is it wrong that people like myself and my country (the USA – other nations too) can not stand to see others wrongfully harmed? Are we perfect - NO, but at least we stand up for what we believe in and try to make this a better world for all.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Tilmitt on 6/28/2008 2:25:19 AM , Rating: 2
I have no love for my own country, only a fool loves a country because he was born in it.

However I will take issue with one point "the nation that tacitly approved Hitler's campaigns by refusing to fight against him in WW2".

The USA did this too, while Britain and France declared war on the Third Reich after it invaded Poland, the USA stood idly by and left Poland to it's fate. And it was Germany that declared war on the USA two years later. The USA "tacitly approved Hitler's campaigns by refusing to fight against him" as you so put it.

I never once defended Japan in my above post, I condemned the mass slaughter of civilians. You're willing to hold the civilians of a nation guilty for the actions of its government, a guilt which justifies their mass slaughter according to you. I can't believe you could be this immoral. This is same logic used to justify the attacks on the world trade centre and the murdering of 3,000 innocent civilians. You could say that those people paid taxes that the government uses to conduct an immoral foreign policy and that they elected the administration that pursued these policies, and that therefore they are as guilty as the government themselves. But I'd say that's a sick attitude to blindly slaughter citizens of a country because of their government's policies.

Wiping out an entire city with a nuclear weapon (twice at that) is not anything other than a genocide. You cannot accept that the USA committed a textbook warcrime because it does not fit with your "we're always the good guys" world view.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By 67STANG on 6/28/2008 2:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have no love for my own country, only a fool loves a country because he was born in it.


Being patriotic makes you a fool? Perhaps only if your Irish?

quote:
The USA did this too, while Britain and France declared war on the Third Reich after it invaded Poland, the USA stood idly by and left Poland to it's fate. And it was Germany that declared war on the USA two years later. The USA "tacitly approved Hitler's campaigns by refusing to fight against him" as you so put it.


I missed the part where we didn't fight against Hitler... Perhaps we were waiting for Ireland to get into the fray... By the way, when did Ireland get involved? Just wondering...

quote:
This is same logic used to justify the attacks on the world trade centre and the murdering of 3,000 innocent civilians.


Actually, no... that was an act of terrorism. But judging from your extra-liberal comments after that quote, i'd say you're a functional retard.

quote:
Wiping out an entire city with a nuclear weapon (twice at that) is not anything other than a genocide.


Please, by all means. Look up "genocide" in the dictionary. Obviously you're jaded in your view of war crimes. Just because 1 bomb killed 70,000 people, you have completely igonored the fact that our firebombing of Tokyo with conventional arms killed nearly double. I guess that means it's only a war crime if you don't put in that extra effort by dropping more bombs right?

I find it quite laughable you live in Japan. Perhaps your a reincarnated kamikaze pilot.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By Tilmitt on 7/2/2008 8:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Being patriotic makes you a fool? Perhaps only if your Irish?


Of course it is stupid to love a country just because you were born in it. I do not love Ireland because I do not think it deserves to be loved.

quote:
I missed the part where we didn't fight against Hitler... Perhaps we were waiting for Ireland to get into the fray... By the way, when did Ireland get involved? Just wondering...

My point was that the USA did not come to anyone's rescue, it was the Third Reich who attacked the USA bringing it into the war, while Britain and France were willing to declare war to help Poland. This point was in response to a previous post making the same accusation against Ireland.

quote:
Actually, no... that was an act of terrorism. But judging from your extra-liberal comments after that quote, i'd say you're a functional retard.


The attack was on innocent civilians because of the policies of their government, much the same as the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, except that far far fewer people were murdered. Making "extra-liberal comments" does not invalidate any of my points, please fight me with logic, not emotion.

quote:
Please, by all means. Look up "genocide" in the dictionary. Obviously you're jaded in your view of war crimes. Just because 1 bomb killed 70,000 people, you have completely igonored the fact that our firebombing of Tokyo with conventional arms killed nearly double. I guess that means it's only a war crime if you don't put in that extra effort by dropping more bombs right?


I never said the fire bombing was not a war crime, the current debate is focusing on Nuclear weapons so that is the point I was discussing.

quote:
I find it quite laughable you live in Japan. Perhaps your a reincarnated kamikaze pilot.


People like you make me wish I was.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/30/2008 1:03:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're willing to hold the civilians of a nation guilty for the actions of its government, a guilt which justifies their mass slaughter according to you. I can't believe you could be this immoral. This is same logic used to justify the attacks on the world trade centre and the murdering of 3,000 innocent civilians.

Wow you still have much to learn or something. No you can not compare the two at all. The USA does not have a habit of attacking other countries or people without warning. If you are going to say economic policies imposed on other countries, who seem to not be play fair are immoral. Then I suggest you study the meaning of morality. Going to another country and attacking the civilians because you don't like the freedoms they have, you don't like their religion, you don't like that they educate girls, you don't like their economic power they can use over you. So you attack verse trying to find a way to better yourself... That is immoral. Dropping a bomb to bring someone (a country) to their knees to end years of fighting. A fight we did not start and yes, did not want to be in at all (also one where we were attack without warning). Is actually a quick, human and moral way to peace.

Others like to through punches at the USA... Give list of reasons – whether good or bad to justify their actions. Well knock yourself out and through away, but don't cry like a little girl about how mean, unfair, immoral the USA is when we start punching back...after all we were sitting back just going about our business when they blind sided us.


RE: USA at its most paranoid
By werepossum on 6/27/2008 12:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You people are sick with your justification of the mass slaughter of CIVILIANS. This is never right, even if you think you're going to "save lives" based on calculations compared to a standard military offensive.


You, sir, are a moron. Military supplies are manufactured by civilians - they don't just spring into being. Countries fight wars, and countries suffer the consequences. That has always been the case and will always be the case, no matter the efforts of Western nations to limit civilian deaths. Have you no concept of the number of civilian deaths inflicted by Germany in WW2? Do some reading on the number of merchant ships and even passenger ships sunk by u-boats before you climb up onto your high horse.

Beyond that, Japan attacked the USA when the two countries were at peace. (Unless you think - sorry, feel - that oil embargoes or aid to China constitutes an attack on Japan, in which case your opinion would be that aggressor nations must be not only tolerated but actually aided.) The military men and women in the US armed forces were almost all civilians before that attack, only joining or being drafted afterward. Military forces are not some evil untouchable caste, as you seem to think - sorry, feel - and persons in the military have just as much right to live as the civilians manufacturing the enemy's war material.

As to Japan being prepared to surrender before Nagasaki, this is not quite true. The warlords were willing to sign an armistice; we were demanding unconditional surrender. Having fought Germany in consecutive generations, no one in military or political leadership would have been so foolish as to leave Japan the ability to rebuild its military for round two. Japanese warriors considered death in battle to be glorious and surrender to be despicable, and counted human life as very cheap indeed. The only reason they surrendered at all was, as Asher said, the emperor made a personal appeal to the people. To understand while this worked, you have to know that the emperor was considered divine, but his supposed word was delivered to the people through the warlords and governors. Thus his message became their message. The warlords were fully prepared to fight to the death as preferable to surrender, but when the emperor made his appeal directly to the people he cut their authority for continuing the war out from under them.


...
By Spivonious on 6/26/08, Rating: -1
RE: ...
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/26/08, Rating: 0
RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 11:12:59 AM , Rating: 5
> "Why aren't other countries allowed to research and develop nuclear-based technologies?"

If you have to ask why we don't want a nation that starves its own citizens into submission to have nuclear weapons, then there's probably no merit in debating the topic.

By the way, North Korea has already been found to be selling nuclear and/or ballistic missile technology to a dizen different nations and even suspected terrorist organizations.


RE: ...
By Aloonatic on 6/26/2008 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
Someone please stop this thread in it's tracks :-s

There's going to be a lot of average ratings hurt as people point out uncomfortable truths that most people ignore about their own countries and start making wild accusations :-s

*Not supporting N Korea (or Iran, where this will surely go) by the way :)


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 11:53:55 AM , Rating: 2
If you have to ask why we don't want a nation that starves its own citizens into submission to have nuclear weapons, then there's probably no merit in debating the topic.

I think his point was not specifically regarding North Korea, nor was it regarding weapons.

What about, say, Ireland or Norway?


RE: ...
By Rookierookie on 6/26/2008 11:59:44 AM , Rating: 2
You never know what Norway would do to defend its fishing!


RE: ...
By tjr508 on 6/26/2008 12:22:50 PM , Rating: 1
FYI, Norway is the #2 richest nation in the world per capita now. The good ol US of A is somewhere in the 10-20 range. I'd say they're not just fishermen anymore.

To the man with the starving people comment: I don't think Americans were too well off when we were researching nukes. Great depression anyone?


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 12:30:59 PM , Rating: 5
> "To the man with the starving people comment: I don't think Americans were too well off when we were researching nukes. Great depression anyone? "

Such puerile remarks are embarrassingly off target. During the Great Depression, the American government was not intentionally starving people to death. Nor were people dying en masse-- by some accounts, more than 10% of the total North Korean population has died from starvation under Kim's regime. Finally, the Great Depression ended years before the Manhattan Project even began.


RE: ...
By Solandri on 6/26/2008 1:47:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FYI, Norway is the #2 richest nation in the world per capita now. The good ol US of A is somewhere in the 10-20 range. I'd say they're not just fishermen anymore.

Yeah, the North Shore oil has been good to Norway (they are the world's #3 oil exporter). Of course if their environmental lobby had been as effective as that in the U.S., they would've banned offshore oil drilling. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_production


RE: ...
By Ringold on 6/26/2008 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FYI, Norway is the #2 richest nation in the world per capita now.


GDP and GDP-PPP are interesting, but the most easily accessible and well known economic stats are some times the most dangerous to quote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/weekinreview/17b...

The author is, by the way, a solid, gay liberal who moved to Europe (you know, what all the Hollywood liberals promise to do but rarely actually do). To his intellectual credit, he appears to of realized what BS socialism can be.

Related article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB108751426815241018...

Try as I could, I couldn't come up with discretionary income rankings (gross income - income taxes - minimum necessities, and preferably also accounting for VAT and all other EU tax silliness). Those numbers, properly adjusted similarly to PPP, would be interesting to look at.


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 12:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
> "What about, say, Ireland or Norway? "

If Norway started a nuclear program, I imagine it would be no different than France or India's....the world would be upset for a bit, sanctions might even be discussed, but we certainly wouldn't see anyone approving an armed attack to prevent it.


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 12:15:31 PM , Rating: 1
France?
France tested their first bomb 10 years before the NPT... I assume you mean Pakistan.

But focusing on the NPT, which is essentially what we're discussing. I find it morally objectionable that the "haves" can deny the "have nots" from accessing nuclear energy.

You know as well as I do that the best base power generation technique available at the current time is nuclear fission. Hardly fair to deny it to others is it?


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
> " find it morally objectionable that the "haves" can deny the "have nots" from accessing nuclear energy."

Who is being denied nuclear power? Over fifty different nations operate nuclear reactors....the NPT doesn't prevent such, nor is it designed to do so.

> "France tested their first bomb 10 years before the NPT... I assume you mean Pakistan."

No I mean France. Their first test caused a substantial degree of international condemnation....all of which ultimately led nowhere. Where any other responsible nation to secede from the NPT and start its own weapons program, we would see similar results.


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 12:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
Who is being denied nuclear power?

You could say right now, that a few governments are doing their best to deny Iran nuclear power.

No I mean France. Their first test caused a substantial degree of international condemnation.

Are you sure?

First plutonium produced, first reactor in the 40s, first power in the 50s and first bomb test in 1960...


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 1:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "You could say right now, that a few governments are doing their best to deny Iran nuclear power."

You can't say it with a straight face, though. The Western world has offered Iran nuclear reactors of a type unsuitable to allow diversion for nuclear weapons uses.

Iran, however, refuses. Under the guise of "energy dependence", it's rapidly building centrifuges to highly enrich uranium, as well as many other steps which confirm without a doubt its ultimate goal is a weapon, not peaceful nuclear power.


RE: ...
By FITCamaro on 6/26/2008 1:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
And even if the government itself was only interested in energy, do you really believe that in a country like Iran, that there isn't a part of the military that would be inclined to steal and sell the necessary material to a terrorist group?

If they get the material, that is likely what they will do anyway. They will make the bomb, give it to a terrorist group, blow it up somewhere, and then say the material was stolen or sold by some rogue general. That was always the fear with the Soviet's as well after the Iron Curtain fell.


RE: ...
By Penti on 6/26/2008 8:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
They will probably get killed (sentenced to death) by even thinking of doing it though. There aren't terrorists running around all of Iran for that matter either. If the program was for civilian purposes the military wouldn't have any parts for enriching uranium or reprocess fuel rods anyway. It's not like they would have HEU lying around. Just LEU for fuel rods, which can't be used in weapons.

And for that matter it's easier just to steel a B61 nuke from a base in Europe that the US has spread out hundreds of in Europe. But no one cares enough about that, it was recently discovered/reviled that they was guarded poorly.


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 5:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, but aren't there a number of programs within the US right now aimed at "reducing dependence on foreign oil"?

What is good for the goose...


RE: ...
By Ringold on 6/26/2008 5:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Please point to any US nuclear reactor under construction suitable for creating nuclear weapons. For that matter, point to any US alternative energy program that conveniently doubles as a weapon of mass destruction.


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/27/2008 2:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
And what relevance does that have to energy independence?


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 1:41:53 PM , Rating: 2
> "Are you sure? ...first bomb test in 1960"

I'm sure. From the BBC's newspaper account after France's tests in 1960:

quote:
The test provoked swift condemnation from Japan ...

Today, Moscow joined Japan in condemning the test saying it was a serious blow to any hope of disarmament and against the wishes of the United Nations. Moscow Radio described the act as "a monstrous challenge to world public opinion"...

Egypt, Morocco, Nigeria and Ghana have also expressed outrage...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/d...


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 5:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
All for various political reasons.

Japan - Fallout from WW2 bombs.

Moscow - Warsaw pact vs. NATO

Eygpt, Morocco, Nigeria, Ghana - Objection to possible fallout on their continent.


RE: ...
By 67STANG on 6/26/2008 12:49:43 PM , Rating: 1
We can't let Norway start a nuke program, look at their checkered history of human rights violations and invasions of soveriegn nations...


RE: ...
By DigitalFreak on 6/26/2008 3:45:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If Norway started a nuclear program, I imagine it would be no different than France or India's....the world would be upset for a bit, sanctions might even be discussed, but we certainly wouldn't see anyone approving an armed attack to prevent it.


Why the hell does France need nuclear weapons? They'd just surrender at the first sign of aggression anyway.


RE: ...
By 67STANG on 6/26/2008 5:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Remember a few years ago when you search google for "French Military Victories" and google replied with "did you mean French Military Defeats". That was priceless.

Seriously though, France needs nukes so that if anyone invades them again, they can just nuke them instead of lifting a rifle. Not a bad strategy for them, if you ask me.


RE: ...
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 1:05:18 PM , Rating: 2
Masher, if North Korea/Iran/India/France/Norway/Russia/U.S. launched a nuclear missile at another country, they would be almost instantaneously obliterated off the map. Why do you think the Cold War was cold?


RE: ...
By gyranthir on 6/26/2008 1:10:47 PM , Rating: 2
What's your point?

The Cold War was called the cold war, because there was no war, just an on going hostility and distrust, that effected the whole world.


RE: ...
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 3:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
It was "cold" because no open fighting took place. The Soviets knew if they launched a nuke they would start WW3 and no one would win. The U.S. knew if they launched a nuke they would start WW3 and no one would win.

Similarly today, North Korea/Iran/et. al knows if they launch a nuke they would start WW3 and no one would win.


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 3:48:36 PM , Rating: 3
> "It was "cold" because no open fighting took place"

You mean, besides the millions killed in proxy fights in Korea, Vietnam, the Yom Kippur War, the Soviet occupations of Hungary and Afghanistan, and dozens of smaller incidents between isolated military units?

> "North Korea/Iran/et. al knows if they launch a nuke they would start WW3 and no one would win. "

Nations very often start wars that, in retrospect, they should have known they would lose. The notion that all countries should have nuclear weapons because no one would dare use them is incredibly callow. At least twice, the US and Soviets were within hours of an open exchange...and during the Yom Kippur War, Israel actually rolled out nuclear-tipped missiles for launch, and provided field-level commanders with the codes.


RE: ...
By Spivonious on 6/26/2008 4:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
No open fighting ever took place between the US and the USSR.

Give me one good reason why North Korea or Iran would launch a nuclear weapon. Iran at least claims to be only after nuclear power and not weapons, yet the Western powers are scrambling to stop them under a veil of anti-terrorism. This sounds very similar to placing everything under the anti-communism banner.

I'm just waiting for the next McCarthy to show up.


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 4:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
> "Give me one good reason why North Korea or Iran would launch a nuclear weapon"

Give me one good reason Germany would invade France.


RE: ...
By Amiga500 on 6/26/2008 5:13:52 PM , Rating: 2
In which world war?

WW1 - Austria started it officially. However things like the arms race were contributing to tension.

WW2 - Treaty of Versailles.


RE: ...
By masher2 (blog) on 6/26/2008 8:19:42 PM , Rating: 1
> "WW2 - Treaty of Versailles. "

Hindsight is 20-20. Right up to the time German troops crossed the border, however, there were people just like you saying Germany would never attack, that they had no good reason for doing so, etc, etc.

Wars happen regardless. And any nation which finds itself losing a war will use all the weapons at its disposal. If we allow all nations nuclear weapons, they can and will be used in warfare.


RE: ...
By Ringold on 6/26/2008 4:56:20 PM , Rating: 3
Even China, who has no interest in terrorism, would say you're being shortsighted on Iran's supposedly peaceful nuclear ambitions.

What would it take for you to see what Iran is up to? An actual nuclear test?

quote:
No open fighting ever took place between the US and the USSR.


That'd be like saying we never directly fought China. Never mind it was Chinese troops that pushed us half way back down the Korean peninsula, and never mind it was US missiles blowing Soviet aircraft out of the skies of Afghanistan.


RE: ...
By Spuke on 6/26/2008 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, there sure are a LOT of people that don't know anything about history. You guys need to ease off the weed.


"This week I got an iPhone. This weekend I got four chargers so I can keep it charged everywhere I go and a land line so I can actually make phone calls." -- Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki