125
nuclear weapons : Swingers Discussion 101985
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsnuclear weapons
TOPIC: nuclear weapons
Created by: bambi59
Original Starting post for this thread:
I was wondering what everyone's thoughts were on countries having nuclear weapons. Do we aim to have no one have nuclear weapons? Do we aim to maintain the current status? Do we aim to assist our current allies obtain nuclear weapons? Is it realistic to think we alone can prevent others from obtaining nuclear weapons? Doug

GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 298   End
User Details are only visible to members.
get back into your bunker ----

Key West FL
Username hidden
(2881 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
boom boom!!

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
You left out a few little Cowboys-are-Us details like----- You'd have to live underground for 1000 years or so. And hope you have enough canned food and water to last -- maybe some clean air too.

I think you can get all that stuff down at Cowboys-are-Us!!!! lol

Key West FL
Username hidden
(2881 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Sure you can win a nuclear war, as long as you are the 1st to use and totally destroy the enemy. I can never figure the libs and the "evil " of nukes. Most of us baby boomers can thank the atomic bombs being used on Japan for our being here. We would have lost at least 1 million men invading Japan. Plus, I would rather die in a nuclear blast than on the end of a bayonet.

Mentone AL
Username hidden
(2281 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
hey talk to hildabeast it is her people saying it...don't kill the messenger, typical liberal ploy

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Desty

Have you been shopping at Cowboys-are-Us again. There is no such thing as a winner in a nuclear war.

Its a figment of the Cowboys-are-Us foreign policy crowd... How sad

Key West FL
Username hidden
(2881 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told CLINTON'S TOP GENERAL SAYS WEST MUST BE READY TO USE PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR ATTACKS

The west must be ready to resort to a pre-emptive nuclear attack to try to halt the "imminent" spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, according to a radical manifesto for a new Nato by five of the west's most senior military officers and strategists. Calling for root-and-branch reform of Nato and a new pact drawing the US, Nato and the European Union together in a "grand strategy" to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world, the former armed forces chiefs from the US, Britain, Germany, France and the Netherlands insist that a "first strike" nuclear option remains an "indispensable instrument" since there is "simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world".

The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views. It has been presented to the Pentagon in Washington and to Nato's secretary general, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, over the past 10 days. The proposals are likely to be discussed at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April.

"The risk of further [nuclear] proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible," the authors argued in the 150-page blueprint for urgent reform of western military strategy and structures. "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

The authors - General John Shalikashvili, the former chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff and Nato's ex-supreme commander in Europe, General Klaus Naumann, Germany's former top soldier and ex-chairman of Nato's military committee, General Henk van den Breemen, a former Dutch chief of staff, Admiral Jacques Lanxade, a former French chief of staff, and Lord Inge, field marshal and ex-chief of the general staff and the defence staff in the UK - paint an alarming picture of the threats and challenges confronting the west in the post-9/11 world and deliver a withering verdict on the ability to cope.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
1970s

In March 1974, the Shah envisioned a time when the world's oil supply would run out, and declared, "Petroleum is a noble material, much too valuable to burn... We envision producing, as soon as possible, 23 000 megawatts of electricity using nuclear plants."[13] Bushehr would be the first plant, and would supply energy to the inland city of Shiraz. In 1975, the Bonn firm Kraftwerk Union AG, a joint venture of Siemens AG and AEG Telefunken, signed a contract worth $4 to $6 billion to build the pressurized water reactor nuclear power plant. Construction of the two 1,196 MWe nuclear generating units was subcontracted to ThyssenKrupp, and was to have been completed in 1981.

"President Gerald Ford signed a directive in 1976 offering Tehran the chance to buy and operate a U.S.-built reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium from nuclear reactor fuel. The deal was for a complete 'nuclear fuel cycle'."[14] At the time, Richard Cheney was the White House Chief of Staff, and Donald Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. The Ford strategy paper said the "introduction of nuclear power will both provide for the growing needs of Iran's economy and free remaining oil reserves for export or conversion to petrochemicals."

Iran, a U.S. ally then, had deep pockets and close ties to Washington. U.S. and European companies scrambled to do business there.[15]

Gawdat Bahgat, a professor of Middle Eastern Studies states that "Despite assertions that Iran’s nuclear program under the Shah was only for peaceful purposes, some sources claim that the Shah intended to build a nuclear weapons capability. In the mid-1970s, the Shah was quoted as saying that Iran would have nuclear weapons 'without a doubt and sooner than one would think.' The Center for Non-proliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies claims that the Western intelligence community 'had long suspected that the Shah’s nuclear scientists conducted research into military applications.'...despite these speculations on the Shah’s intentions, it is important to point out that in 1974, when the AEOI was established, the Shah called for making the entire Middle East a nuclear weapons-free zone (MENWFZ)."[6]

Then-United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said in 2005, 'I don't think the issue of proliferation came up'.[14] However a 1974 CIA proliferation assessment had stated "If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s ... and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit."[16] As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Iran signed in 1968, their program would have been under International Atomic Energy Agency inspection.

Bellingham MA
Username hidden
(350 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Everyone agrees that Iran' s nuclear ambitions must be addressed, but differ on how. Yet this is only a slice of an ever enlarging pie. We often forget that our foreign policy over the decades on this subject has contributed to this situation. If that mentality isn't changed, we will face a far more dangerous situation than Iran. A country with a nuclear weapon attacking another country with a nuclear weapon will be retaliated on, both being badly damaged or far worse. No country wants that. On the world's present course, proliferation is in the thought/action process of countries, that coupled with future A.Q. Khan's, are we willing to risk an Al Qaeda style terrorist group obtaining one? Below is a little history lesson courtesy of Wikipedia:

1950s and 60s

The foundations for Iran's nuclear program were laid after a 1953, CIA-supported coup deposed democratically-elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and brought Shah (King) Mohammad Reza Pahlavi to power.[11]

A civil nuclear co-operation program was established under the U.S. Atoms for Peace program. In 1967, the Tehran Nuclear Research Center (TNRC) was established, run by the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI). The TNRC was equipped with a U.S.-supplied, 5-megawatt nuclear research reactor, which became operational in 1967 and was fueled by highly enriched uranium.[12] Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and ratified it in 1970. With the establishment of Iran's atomic agency and the NPT in place, the Shah approved plans to construct, with U.S. help, up to 23 nuclear power stations by the year 2000.

Bellingham MA
Username hidden
(350 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) — Azerbaijan will soon release a shipment of Russian equipment for Iran's first nuclear power plant that it halted at its border in late March, a senior government official said Wednesday. "The matter will be solved in the nearest future," Deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov told reporters.

Azimov said the Russian state company building the plant, located in the Iranian port city of Bushehr, has presented all necessary paperwork for the heat-isolating equipment. Trucks carrying the equipment were detained at the Azeri-Iranian border on March 29.

Russia's OAO Atomstroiexport has accused Azerbaijan of deliberately obstructing the cargo.

Iran is paying Russia more than US$1 billion to build the light-water reactor. Construction has been held up by disputes between Tehran and Moscow over payments and a schedule for shipping nuclear fuel.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... More 
 1 to 10 of 298   End
TOPIC: nuclear weapons