Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament by US??

When is the United States going to Disarm?

That's about the result to the rest of the world.

Unilateral doesn't mean "Everyone except the united states"

 

What do people think of MAD (mutually assured destruction)? It seems to be the main argument for keeping nuclear weapons stockpiled.

 

I think it's quite accurate. Which is why Iran should get into a good Alliance with China and Russia.

 

... i have some friends in Russia...

:ninja:

 

I stand amazed at the ignorance regarding balance of power. Russia and the US have been disarming since WWII, bit by bit. Allowing satellites to pass over and take pics of different things being destroyed, there has been an active disarmament ongoing.
Only a complete idiot would disarm the US' nuclear armament in the face of the rest of the insane world.
Pakistan has over 60 warheads and the Taliban and Al Qeada are constantly trying to take over the government. Insane groups of extremists are actively pursuing nuclear waste and technology, hardware and software, delivery systems and uranium sources. If an idiot tries to disarm the US, he will be removed.

 

God I wish I had more time to talk about this (or wasn't so bored right now), I'd love to keep ranting about Detterence Theories.

Anyway, Just Me, if terrorists ever manage to acquire or build a nuclear warhead, it doesn't matter whether the U.S will be armed or not. It's their defensive capabilities and their dettering intelligence measures that matter in the case of Nuclear terrorism.

MAD, although a cold war theory, is still in effect, and will always be in effect [not dettering wars by proxy or small scale conventional wars however (check Indian-Pakistani wars, especially in 1999)] until one nuclear power manages to completely shield itself from a nuclear strike (ex. anti ballistic missile umbrelas). Which is something impossible in the current international system and with the current power balance. I think I've talked about MAD someplace else in this forum. If you want to learn more, read this:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm.

Note it was written in 1981, so the international system was bipolar. Still it's a very radical article concerning MAD. Things have of course changed since then.
It's written by Kenneth Waltz, one of the most prominet IR think tanks in realism (he introduced structural realism). It's a very old text, but it's an interesting article to read anyway.

 

I wish, too, you had more time and was not bored.

There is intel of increased activity at Pyongyang's known nuclear test site, possibly indicating a coming test of defiance. The ICBM was tested many days ago unarmed.

 

Strike capability matters when others have it, too. I do agree about deterrence.

 

I've still not seen any conclusive proof that the launch was an ICBM.

However, the US has been demanding that everyone else destroy theirs and has been both moving at a snails pace to destroy the largest stockpile on earth, and at the same time build a nuclear missile shield.

What precisely does that say to you? Because what you said before? That's not immediate in the minds of every world leader at odds with the US.

 

YAY! MOAR SPAMBOTS!

I was beginning to think we were unloved.

 

Psh, we are always loved here.

N. Korea isn't really a threat. They are about show-boating more then anything. That country is in too much of a shamble to get it's act together to cause any damage. The same goes for most other countries that are a threat.

In a nutshell, I am not worried about nuclear war at all. Would it be nice to completly get rid of nukes? of course. Is it going to happen this century? Probablly not.

 

I wonder if we already have weapons that are better and safer than Nukes? That MOAB bomb looks pretty cool when it goes off. I am more worried about germ warfare than nukes.

 

Shai, I'm hearing you. The largest stockpile of nuclear warheads is in Russia, not the US. The way I read it, the US is trying to keep nuclear technology from spreading. The proliferation of nuclear technology is what they are trying to stop.
Example:
A) Tehran wants nuclear technology.....says for peaceful means.
B) Tehran wants to destroy Israel........does not hide the fact.
Do the math.
A+B= x
x=

 

Just me. I beg you to think twice before stating something like that again. If you don't stop demonizing other countries to lionize your own, I'm going to start speaking offensively, and I'l say things I'll later regret. I'm trying to resist the urge. Please stop provoking people. I beg you. For the sake of this forum community(or at least for my sake, since I'll probably get banned), avoid saying things like that. You're gonna force me to forget this "you're free to believe whatever you want" principle I have. And I sometimes can't control myself when I'm angry. So please, if you say something regarding politics, at least consider the mentality of some of the people of this forum. Thank you in advance for your understanding.

 

Taz, It bothers me regarding a couple of issues talked about on this forum, but I cannot say I have been angry. I have deleted the solution to my equation.....you figure it out your own ways. I do this in the spirit of kindness.

 

Don't even think you need math:

>.>

 

I appreciate your understanding in this matter.

 

Iran isn't dumb, nor is any other country with nukes. If iran were to attack isreal with nuclear wepons, within hours nearly every country that has them would begin launching. They know that.

 

I don't really trust any nation that threatens other nations with their nukes...

Oh wait... The USA threatened to Nuke Iran... Little wonder Iran wants ICBMs to defend themselves with.

As for Israel, well, they already have nukes.