Nuclear arms summit...

[smanches]

I find some amazing things coming out of this summit. Just wondering what others thought about it.

And if you didn't know, Washington DC is hosting 47 countries, at this moment, to talk about and take action to reduce nuclear weapons.

 

[HarveyH42]

I think it's a big waste of time and money, which could be better spent on the economy (and Climatology). Only the countries with none or few, will be all for it, just to imply that they got them, and are powerful. Countries like the U.S., Russia, China, have already reduce as far as they intend to go, and feel safe about having them sitting around. I really don't see anybody actually using them, nor are they going to say how many they actually have, or willing to get rid of. Just a big expensive party, where everyone hopes to get some idea what the other guys have hidden, to lie, to boast. Regardless if they sign a treaty or not, they all will keep the weapons the feel they need, maybe retire a few older ones of questionable safety.

 

[Birdman Adam]

Regarding nuclear weapons - I've always gone by the saying that it only takes one match to light a fire. I mean the US must have like what, a few hundred nuclear warheads??? Reducing that to even 10 isn't going to help anything... Apparently you can destroy a city with just one!

And I believe I heard the president saying that the overall goal was to eliminate all nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. I simply can't believe that will ever happen... First of all, we might sign a treaty with Russia, but it's easy as pie for us (or them) to just say "yea we got rid of 50", and not do it. Then you have places like North Korea that are actively working closer to creating a nuclear weapon that will obviously not be used for anything good.

Instead of reducing nuclear arms of countries who already have them, I would be working to protect sources of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium around the world.

 

[Sceadwian]

Apparently, no one here actually READS the news =) It's not a summit about reducing nuclear proliferation. It's about increasing security about the technologies and munitions themselves to prevent terrorists from getting their hands on them. The last two headlines I saw about the summit was that Obama came out to say that the single largest threat to US security was a terrorist getting ahold of a working adhoc or even half assed nuclear device, or large quantity of nuclear material.

Birdman, protecting the sources of the materials and the technology is EXACTLY what the summit was about.

 

[HiTech]

From what I've read only Russia and the US agreed to reduce nuclear weapons stockpiles leaving each of them with still well over 1000 weapons- enough to assure complete mutual annihilation and enough fallout to kill off many other nations on earth. Besides, the weapons reduction is focused at only aging, high maintenance missles and mobile launchers that are years old. Both countries would still keep their newer models. Don't forget their navies are the best platform for delivering nukes throughout the world. There hasn't been any mention of chemical and biological weapons reduction nor other cutting-edge large scale weapons. I consider the (bogus) effort from both the US and Russia to be more of smoke 'n mirrors.

 

[smanches]

Still leaves them each with 1000s of missles. The point is to reduce the amount of fissionable material in the world to help prevent it from falling into the wrong hands. They've already agreed to dispose of all the excess plutonium and weapons grade uranium; enough to build another 17,000 missles, and to not create any more. Reducing the stockpiles by 1/3 is another good step. Maybe eventually we will have leaders with enough guts to destroy them all, but this is what we have for now.

If someone was truly expecting everyone to just throw them all away suddenly, I think they're being a bit idealistic. At least it's something. More than what's been happening for the past decade. Bush actually threw billions into the tactical nuclear weapon program. Probably the absolute worst nuclear weapons there could be. Because of their "limited" area of effect, they might have even been put to use at some point. At least with the massive weapons, there are enough people to prevent the irrational disaster of such magnitudes.

Sitting on your ass bitching about how others are doing a terrible job accomplishes nothing.

 

[BrownOut]

@Smatches: You are a VERY rare voice of reason on this forum. I honestly don't know why anyone would not want to put effort into securing nuclear material in the world of terrorsim and rogue states. Not only did the fall of the Soviet Untion leave a breath taking amount of nuclear material unsecured, but the invasion of Iraq make it possible for terrorists to get their hands on tonnes of material that was previously in lockdown.

How are gun-toting americans gonna shoot their way out of a dirty bomb attack?

 

[Sceadwian]

Brownout, even the BEST hopes of the summit are for locking down these types of material in the next FOUR years, and that's going to obviously fail.
Whatever is gonna happen is gonna happen regardless of what governments do now.

 

[BrownOut]

Not so obvious. The US and SU managed to avoid nuclear war for half a century. That didn't happen by mistake. Every ounce of nuclear material that is destroyed or secured is an ounce that is beyond the grasp or terrorists. Besides, nothing happens overnight. It took decades for the material to speard over the globe. 4 years doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

 

[Sceadwian]

In the meantime, there is an untold amount of unsecured nuclear or nuclear able materials.

 

[BrownOut]

Understand. It's a shame that happened. That's why it's better to take action sooner rather than later.

 

[Sceadwian]

You can't take action before the event (sloppy nuclear security) it occurred as a course from the original gross nuclear proliferation. Action is being taken now, but until whatever that action may end up being has come to fruition security is at the point where while not any Joe Smoe, but anyone that truly wanted it could gain access to nuclear materials.

 

[BrownOut]

Improving security over the material is part of the plan.

 

[Sceadwian]

Yes, and I as I said already the optimistic goal is to have that security increased in the participating countries within four years. What about the ones not invited/participating? What about during the next four years, think the terrorists are gonna sit on their butts?

 

[BrownOut]

Are you suggesting we are going to sit on our butts for 3 years and 364 days? And then try to secure all the world's stockpiles at the last possible moment? It just don't work like that. Every ounce of material that gets secured along the way is an ounce not available to terrorists. It took much longer than 4 years to rid Europe of fascism, but nobody ever said it wasn’t worth it. But I guess we can just go back to the 2001 model: ignore the threats and do nothing until we are hit, and then invade and occupy a country that didn't have anything to do with it. Are we feeling safe yet? It doesn't work for me.

 

[Sceadwian]

I never suggested anything of the sort Brownout, the time for something like this however was about 10 years ago. Doesn't mean it's not a good idea, but it deserves a face palm and eye roll on general principles alone.

 

[BrownOut]

It's never a bad time to work for better security, 10 years ago, or today. If it takes 4 years or 40, it's still a pretty good idea.

 

[HiTech]

Maybe so but I tend to see it more as keeping the stuff out of the hands of honest people.... just like gun control measures being simply that. Bad people with bad intentions will prevail and find a way to accomplish their diabolical plans through determination and endless effort.

 

[Sceadwian]

Umm.. HiTech, we're talking about nuclear weapons here....

 

[HiTech]

Exactly--- we can't keep tabs on all nuclear material, much less biohazard/chemical materials. Stuff sneaks out all the time be it someone who was bought off or just plain enters and takes the stuff. A criminal mind will eventually find a way to get what they want. Now this doesn't mean that I am not for controls to be put into place and actions taken. Just stating that no matter how hard we nations try to monitor and control rogue states or factions from acquiring harmful material, they could slip between cracks in the measures or have a clandestine insider working for them. There are no guarantees for safe living on this planet.