Close Topic Options

Weapons Advancement

The Bush administration wants to make a nuclear bomb that can break through what are called, 'Nuclear Bomb Bunkers', these are shelters capable of withstanding the force of a nuclear bomb. If Bush has his way then there will be a bomb that can destroy such a bunker. At the same time the US has always spoke out against other countries developing WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction), but what do you think of this, is that correct? Is it a nations right to build and develop what ever weapons it wants to? If you say 'no' then what is the 'policy' and who has given this 'policy' authority to bind another country's desire to create weapons?

Advancement Weapons

That is certainly a good group of questions.

Basically, you have to start with the non-proliferation treaties that were signed by almost every country in the world. Iran, North Korea, and others agreed to not seek nuclear weapons, yet they have continued to do so.

The other part of the answer is that "might makes right". It is expressly against the best interests of the United States, Britain, France, Israel, China, even Pakistan and India, for places like North Korea and Iran to have nuclear weapons, since both countries have proven that they are willing to use any weapon, any strategy, and any tactics to advance their causes, which are viewed as extremely dangerous to the rest of the civilized world.

Personally, I would love to see that NOBODY had nuclear weapons. But that isn't possible. With that in mind, it is important that those who do have the weapons keep some sort of control over what weapons are used.

As far as the "Bunker Busters", the announcement of them is probably designed to point out to Iran, mostly, that if there are good indications that they are developing a nuclear weapon, somebody, probably either the US or Israel, will make sure it is destroyed, even if it takes a bunker buster to do so.

Weapons Advancement History & Civil Business Politics

I think a number of truths must first be stated:

1. One country cannot justly - or finally - control what another country does within its own borders

2. Treaties can be broken (Russia broke all of its SALT treaties, etc.)

3. There is nothing immoral in a country ensuring (by defensive means) its own protection


Dubhdara.

Advancement Weapons

So with the recent news of Bush' visit to India, their nuclear activity has come under scrutiny again. I didn't realize India was one of those countries who hadn't signed the International Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, so this 'pact' that Bush is trying to get implemented seems to almost undermine what the Treaty is about. Basically, he is trying to get them to separate civilian nuclear activity from military nuclear activity, and open the civilian activity for inspection. The general populace and government in India don't approve of this, and I'm not so sure why. It seems by doing this that the US will invest in their civilian program and thus help boost their economic growth and subsequently the US' as well. Is India concerned that their military nuclear activity will be more open to others like Pakistan? Or are they trying to hide their military activity by keeping it combined with the civilian energy program?

Advancement Weapons

I don't believe it is the right of any individual country to police weapons development of others.

Unfortunately there is a gross double standard when it comes to weapons development between those countries who are allied towards the West and those who are not.

If countries are signed up to a non-proliferation treaty, then really it should be up to a world body to ensure they are compliant.

I am totally against the "might is right" policy. I believe we should be trying to dismantle nuclear weapons instead of building more. But history will show this is not realistic, so powerful nuclear-armed country's have a responsibility to lead by example, instead of advancing their arsenals.

The bunker-buster nuclear weapons are very disturbing because it sends a message to the rest of the world that it's ok to build WMDs.

Strategically the US must engage with India, they are effectively gatekeepers of a very troubled and resource rich part of the world. India is an emerging power so it makes sense for the US to be an ally, especially as both nations see China as a threat to their economies.

Weapons Advancement

The original topic of NEO "Nuclear bunker busters" are you saying using Nuclear weapons to bust through bunkers? Because, if so, it already exists and has been tested. In the mid 60's the Soviet Union detonated a 200 megaton device that no bunker could withstand not even Cheyenne Mountain. The size of a nuclear weapon is only limited to the carrying capacity of the delivery device. If one wanted to, you could make a super tanker into a weapon and not only destroy bunkers, but all life, including bacteria.

Weapons Advancement

Margaret Thatcher wrote in her autobiography that she was against the non-proliferation advances that Ronald Reagan was trying to make. It was her opinion that nuclear weapons had caused more peace than anything else in recent history. Her reasoning was that the Cold War would have inevitably escalated into a large scale war had not the threat of nuclear annihilation restrained the nations involved.

The case might be somewhat different today. The Russians were fairly careful not to outright provoke the Americans with an episode like 9/11. The U.S. now clearly does not wish states that they believe to have no restraints to possess nuclear weapons. I think the question might be - would allowing the so-called rogue states to arm themselves with nuclear weapons restore the cold war "balance"?

Weapons Advancement Politics Business Civil & History

Nighthawk,you did it again...

An American is full of though that his nation is more superior than others.How can you conclude that Iran and Russia are willing to do anything to get what they want?Why don't you include US too.US is the only nation in this planet which us the nuclear weapon on civilian,and what makes you think that US deserve to own nuke?It is just like "I can have it,but you dont!".Nuclear weapon should be ban from this world.No one deserve to own that weapon.If the US and Russians ban the weapon,others will do the same.Think for the younger generation like me.The world will be a better place without nukes.