Question to the Mods or Professionals
- Thread starter TheOne
- Start date
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #22
Hi Guys.
This is the person who actually started the topic, I logged in after many days and I found good points out there, there were really some great posts by some of you guys.
Coming to the point, What I see clearly is the topic has digressed from the initial thing which I had asked about, I know whats being talked now is also important but 'IF' and happenings are entirely different.
I was trying to say when P-5 is not going to do anything to reduce the nuclear stockpile and even the nuclear testing( I think US carried out a sub critical test few days back) why would someone else listen. Lead by example, Should be the motto, not implement by force.
Everyone of you had a point which was absolutely spellbounding to read, but the point is different. This is disscussion which includes what you guys are talking but there is a bigger picture to it, apart from who controls the nukes and what happens 'IF' .
I had added a small point in the first post which said, What are the P-5( Also the remaining nuclear powers, including the unstated ones) going to do about the stock piles? Going to nuke Mars, So that the carbon dioxide which is in the surface comes out and we have one more earth? No way! They still say its a sign of world dominance, It shows people still have power,capability and means to show the world, they are not to be taken lightly off. People may call it as MAD , but do we need a stockpile of 10,000+ weapons for each country to show their dominance ?
Now, P-5 countries have the nukes( 30000+ in all) , and every other country , let it be Pakistan,Iran,North Korea, South Africa, Israel, know whats the importance of these weapons, they know why these countries can implement their doctrine all over the world. Now, Even they will start building these weapons which are improve their dominance( Who's controlling nukes is a different question, I will get to it soon). These countries are mostly developing countries, they have to increase their clout and they will try to scare the world with nukes( I remember in skool, Its the person with the latest toy who is the leader of the gang). Scaring , forcing the world to accept the weapons will let them have atleast some of the things they need.
This is the person who actually started the topic, I logged in after many days and I found good points out there, there were really some great posts by some of you guys.
Coming to the point, What I see clearly is the topic has digressed from the initial thing which I had asked about, I know whats being talked now is also important but 'IF' and happenings are entirely different.
I was trying to say when P-5 is not going to do anything to reduce the nuclear stockpile and even the nuclear testing( I think US carried out a sub critical test few days back) why would someone else listen. Lead by example, Should be the motto, not implement by force.
Everyone of you had a point which was absolutely spellbounding to read, but the point is different. This is disscussion which includes what you guys are talking but there is a bigger picture to it, apart from who controls the nukes and what happens 'IF' .
I had added a small point in the first post which said, What are the P-5( Also the remaining nuclear powers, including the unstated ones) going to do about the stock piles? Going to nuke Mars, So that the carbon dioxide which is in the surface comes out and we have one more earth? No way! They still say its a sign of world dominance, It shows people still have power,capability and means to show the world, they are not to be taken lightly off. People may call it as MAD , but do we need a stockpile of 10,000+ weapons for each country to show their dominance ?
Now, P-5 countries have the nukes( 30000+ in all) , and every other country , let it be Pakistan,Iran,North Korea, South Africa, Israel, know whats the importance of these weapons, they know why these countries can implement their doctrine all over the world. Now, Even they will start building these weapons which are improve their dominance( Who's controlling nukes is a different question, I will get to it soon). These countries are mostly developing countries, they have to increase their clout and they will try to scare the world with nukes( I remember in skool, Its the person with the latest toy who is the leader of the gang). Scaring , forcing the world to accept the weapons will let them have atleast some of the things they need.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #23
Coming to the other Question.
So the bigger question is how to stop the spread of nukes, Will be lead by example or intimidation ? We know not all countries will bend to intimidation, take for example , If Saudi arabia has nukes and we try to force them to discard, what happens? Will whole of muslim world sit quiet ? No way, We have to understand , each country will bend due to some or other way. Take China, Stop the oil flowing into their country, They will start a war for it( No need of a Taiwan).
Coming to dictatorship countries, I think North Korea has a very dangerous probability, as the power is weilded by only one individual who is esoteric as well as ecentric. Iran, I think is bothered by a set of scenario's, not just fundamentalism,( You corner a cat, what happens? It jumps on you!) Same is the thing, the people show their anger on the problems faced by their country.
Pakistan is also bothered by set of problems, each one very important, first is Kashmir, people of pakistan think its their land and so do Indians, Now, ordinary people always want simple, peaceful and stable life, but you have elements in their fold which will incite the voilence bytaking fundamentalism as cue and its going to digress to other areas, namely cooperation with US's war on terror. Now Musharraf, who is ruling a country which is often plagued by instability, will be finding it tough to manage on both fronts and whats going to happen IF he loses power ? People say, nukes will fall in wrong hands, IT is a possibility, But still a possibility and has to be considered as important.
Coming to India, I think there is very less possibility that even the right wing will get their hands on nukes, In India, people are trying for development, and they have a huge middle class which has a lot of say ( Unlike China which is Single Party). They will not want any wing( left or right) to play with nukes, testing is other thing though.
Iran, will definately try to scare the world, will not succeed in implementing a nuclear command and control. Just by building nukes will not get them anything, they need delivery weapons like the ICBM's which they do not have. Also, they know for every weapon they build they have 100+ weapons falling on them in retaliation. They will more likely couple with Middle east countries and use OIL as a weapon, rather than Nukes.
North Korea is esoteric and and the rules decides everything. Its tough to guage what he will do.
Israel , has nukes and means to deliver, this is one reason by which it still has a say even it is in middle of so many arab nations but still yeilds power.
So, Getting back to main question ? What are the P-5 and the other nuclear countries going to do for relieving the world of this horrible weapon or atleast reducing the number.
So the bigger question is how to stop the spread of nukes, Will be lead by example or intimidation ? We know not all countries will bend to intimidation, take for example , If Saudi arabia has nukes and we try to force them to discard, what happens? Will whole of muslim world sit quiet ? No way, We have to understand , each country will bend due to some or other way. Take China, Stop the oil flowing into their country, They will start a war for it( No need of a Taiwan).
Coming to dictatorship countries, I think North Korea has a very dangerous probability, as the power is weilded by only one individual who is esoteric as well as ecentric. Iran, I think is bothered by a set of scenario's, not just fundamentalism,( You corner a cat, what happens? It jumps on you!) Same is the thing, the people show their anger on the problems faced by their country.
Pakistan is also bothered by set of problems, each one very important, first is Kashmir, people of pakistan think its their land and so do Indians, Now, ordinary people always want simple, peaceful and stable life, but you have elements in their fold which will incite the voilence bytaking fundamentalism as cue and its going to digress to other areas, namely cooperation with US's war on terror. Now Musharraf, who is ruling a country which is often plagued by instability, will be finding it tough to manage on both fronts and whats going to happen IF he loses power ? People say, nukes will fall in wrong hands, IT is a possibility, But still a possibility and has to be considered as important.
Coming to India, I think there is very less possibility that even the right wing will get their hands on nukes, In India, people are trying for development, and they have a huge middle class which has a lot of say ( Unlike China which is Single Party). They will not want any wing( left or right) to play with nukes, testing is other thing though.
Iran, will definately try to scare the world, will not succeed in implementing a nuclear command and control. Just by building nukes will not get them anything, they need delivery weapons like the ICBM's which they do not have. Also, they know for every weapon they build they have 100+ weapons falling on them in retaliation. They will more likely couple with Middle east countries and use OIL as a weapon, rather than Nukes.
North Korea is esoteric and and the rules decides everything. Its tough to guage what he will do.
Israel , has nukes and means to deliver, this is one reason by which it still has a say even it is in middle of so many arab nations but still yeilds power.
So, Getting back to main question ? What are the P-5 and the other nuclear countries going to do for relieving the world of this horrible weapon or atleast reducing the number.
Nuclear South Asia.
Good posts Rich and The one.
it's late in night, so I will address one point Rich made very breifly. The possibility of accidental/Unintentional launch in Indo-Pakistan conflict scenario due to short flight times etc.
1. India's Nuclear doctrine is not based on Launch-on warning, rather it advocates 'No first use'. This inturn means having the capability of second strike, Robust command and control structure which can survive a pre-emptive strike, and clear, unambiguous designated launch authority, should the top echelon of decision making is taken out. There are reports of respectable institutions saying India has ear marked $ 2 billion/year towards command and control structure for next 10 years. Western style C&C is not there yet. Indias nuclear doctrine also states that “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.”
2. Pakistan keeps her nuclear arsenal in dis-assembled state. The core separate from explosive mechanism. Which also means they are not kept mated to Nuclear missile. As per Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, while Pakistan does not have PAL, there is a three man rule which governs Nuclear arsenal. There are also reports of Pakistan seeking USA's help regarding PAL.
Contrary to Western fears, prominant figures in both India and Pakistan feel nuclearized subcontinent will prevent a major conflict and foster escalation control. I have a slightly different opinion but right now my wife threatening massive retalliation if I don't shut down the computer. Will continue tomorrow Goodnight.
Good posts Rich and The one.
it's late in night, so I will address one point Rich made very breifly. The possibility of accidental/Unintentional launch in Indo-Pakistan conflict scenario due to short flight times etc.
1. India's Nuclear doctrine is not based on Launch-on warning, rather it advocates 'No first use'. This inturn means having the capability of second strike, Robust command and control structure which can survive a pre-emptive strike, and clear, unambiguous designated launch authority, should the top echelon of decision making is taken out. There are reports of respectable institutions saying India has ear marked $ 2 billion/year towards command and control structure for next 10 years. Western style C&C is not there yet. Indias nuclear doctrine also states that “Nuclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.”
2. Pakistan keeps her nuclear arsenal in dis-assembled state. The core separate from explosive mechanism. Which also means they are not kept mated to Nuclear missile. As per Lieutenant General Khalid Kidwai, while Pakistan does not have PAL, there is a three man rule which governs Nuclear arsenal. There are also reports of Pakistan seeking USA's help regarding PAL.
Contrary to Western fears, prominant figures in both India and Pakistan feel nuclearized subcontinent will prevent a major conflict and foster escalation control. I have a slightly different opinion but right now my wife threatening massive retalliation if I don't shut down the computer. Will continue tomorrow Goodnight.
Last edited:
I think, I've said enough in my replies but I will just throw some questions in there for people to reflect upon:Rich said:
Last time "islamic fundamentalism" took power in Pakistan was what year?
Last time those "islamic fundamentalists" (pakistani or non-pakistani) expressed their desire to use the weapon and against which country? And why?
Who started the Pakistani nuclear program? Who is supporting it? Who is protecting it? How many were Islamic fundamentalists?
Last time we heard nukes were "missing" in which country? This includes mini-nukes, briefcase nukes?
Last time we heard nuclear secrets and/or other military secrets were transfered to China from which country?
Last time we had nuclear reactor related accidents in which country?
Last time a nuclear bomb was used by which country on what other country and if that country had the nukes would it have been used?
Which countries have nuclear weapons in the thousands where chances of one going in the "wrong" hands is greater? It is like cars on the road, the more you have the more chances of accidents.
Even if Islamic fundamentalists get power in Pakistan, that does not mean they will use the weapon without any reason? Let's take Pakistani nukes out of the picture for a minute and say there is war between India and Pakistan - India is forced to use the weapon on Pakistan knowing very well that Pakistan does not have the nuclear weapon. Would we call Indian decision to use the nuke a fundamentalist choice? Or would we just act like deer in front of headlights and let few million Pakistani die because they are all bad old islamic fundamentalists? The Pakistani nukes ADD to the STABILITY of the region as well as the country, if those nukes were not there last time the hostilities were high, the war was inevitable.
If we were really SINCERE about condition of Pakistani nukes, we would look into ways to rid South Asia of such weapons... unfortunately, for almost 3 decades we were like deer in front of headlights until Pakistan tested the weapon in 1998. As I said, the fundamentalist problem is world wide, no fundamental bastards should ever get their hands on nuclear weapons in any nuclear power state. Pakistanis built the nukes to make sure they protect the integrity, unity and sovernty of Pakistan. It wasn't like picking flowers, it was a hard choice and hard choices are made with responsibility factor already factored in.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #26
Mr. WebMaster, I know this topic was not supposed to talk about islamic Fundamentalism or its effects, but sure has digressed into that scenario. So let me provide you with my comments. I'm sure not even one of my comments will satisfy your questions. But lemme try.WebMaster said:
No, Never Islamic Fundamentalism never took hold in Pakistan. Pakistan is ruled by president who has no mandate( Means democracy), It has a elected parliment which consists of the Islamic Fundamentalists, Is'nt it ? Now If some one from that government says, We will nuke an X country , Is'nt it the responsibility of the government.
Looking at the larger picture, Islam does not mean bad, nor Pakistan means a 'Axis' country. Taking cue from US, just because President Bush( I'm a great fan of his bushism's) attacked Iraq, should not mean that all americans are war mongerers. We have to understand, Its only a section of population which is thinking differently. But the attitude towards US War on Terror is treated as invasion in other countries. Is'nt it ?
Pakistan is also similar, It has a small section of population who are touted as 'Islamic Fundamentalists', they try to convince the illterate population of their machinations, which unfortunatey show results in some cases. Does not mean all Pakistani's are bad though!!
Its this social fabric which causes concern that something of tha sort MAY HAPPEN.
Hmm.. Interesting , but simple question, Why did CIA keep quiet when it knew Dr.Khan left sweeden with secrets? Now , who was most hated in arab word at that time ? India or Israel ? Who needed something to counter the Israelis? Why did US not stop the arms help to Pakistan , financially and by arming with weapons until Afghan war stopped(1990)? Why did US put in sanctions until the Afghan war was over ? Did'nt it knew that Pakistan was developing nuclear weapon from 1970's ?
We cannot count the number of people as 'Islamists' and 'Non-Islamists' , Its tough, Either wise, we are biased or we do not understand whats what.
Nay, I never heard any such things. But everyone's concerned.
Now, For example, US and Canada share border and enjoy cordial relations , So even if US helps canada, Does any other country know about that ? Pakistan was helped by China many times in many ways, now, why it was done can be explained by china's ambitions. But when the level of co operation between two countries is more than expected in many areas, Its suspected not convicted that they share technology. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry!
Dunno, It happens on SMALL and LARGE scale, some come out and some do not. We cannot talk about when and where until we have a exhaustive list of such things , when every country reports.
No, But whats the condition now ? Maybe, Who knows some terrorist organisations may have brought it at labor weekend sale at some remote place ? Now that provides organizations not countries, then against whom is anyone going to target ?
Russia and forver Soviet republics, and considering the number of nukes, every country which have big nuke arsenals may have equal probability . Now It may not mean any sense now, but things do change, No one can change destiny , can we ?
No one will use nukes until if the person who commans authority has gone nuts. I accept you point, but about stability, its wrong. People( Form Countries) fulfill their amibitions , which may be because of variety of reasons. Just because we burn put out backyard on fire does'nt not mean that neighbour will do that for stability. Its his sense of perception, for his needs suiting the conditions and future. Same is true, Pakistan attacking India that too with nukes is not possible, one of the reason is MAD, second and third might seem too political.
How ? Any good ideas ? Did'nt US know pakistan was making nuclear stuff from 1970's from the sweedish ?It did know, It also knew at time of Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, But nothing concrete came out until end of Soviet Invasion. Hard choices have least of responsibility and remorse, they will show their effects slowly, its like caffene.
Guys
I dont have anything against Pakistan nor Islam. But I started this thread as a different one and now it has diggressed into something different. Please read my latest two posts in this topic and lets get back to the disscussion
Cheers
That is what I am saying, IT MAY happen from any of the nuclear power states including Pakistan. I MAY fly to the moon, so? We are working on big IF but being very selective about it. Better part of my question was WHEN did those "islamic fundamentalists" EXPRESSED desire or feeling or will to nuke another country? They are in government opposition but can't even get their bills to pass or take care of things domestically to let alone be a threat to a foreign power. Even if they were in power, they would NOT have the control of Pakistani nuclear weaponry, that is Military's job and multiple levels of command has to approve the use of nuclear strike under certain circumstances. Why do we prop up the fear when nothing that would suggest an automatic nuking of another country if Islamic fundmentalists take power. The social fabric? It is the same social fabric which has approved operation of Pakistan army to operate within Pakistan to kill terrorists. After United States, who has reserved more troops in war against terror? Pakistan.
CIA knew.... the world knew about other nations developing nuclear weapons as well as testing them, of course nothing was done to stop that. Every country does what they need to do for protection of their borders and that is what Pakistan did and that is the reason behind Pakistan acquiring nuclear technology, every country has the right to defend it self right?
Say what? One hand you are singling out "islamic fundamentals" as the threat and those who MAY use nuclear weapons and only other hand you are saying you don't want to count people as Islamists? Make up your mind, will ya?
The missing Russian nukes? Former Soviet states? Do a google on 'em.
I'm not sure what you mean... a lot of countries get help from many other countries. How do you think countries got the nuclear and missile technology? Pakistan got help from china, rest of the countries had their technologies delivered from hell by satan, right?
Search on google for nuclear reactor accidents... happened in Russia, US? Ukraine, India? But yeah, an accident MAY happen in Pakistan...
That is not answer to my question... buying nukes is not same as buying bread from the super market. Get real will you? It takes years of research, huge plants, scientists, etc. to MAKE nuclear weapons before you can sell them and to sell to who? Guy with a pickup truck? Excuses, excuses, excuses to ignore all weapons buildup, all other nuclear powers but one.
We are not talking about density, it is simple logic. The more cars you have on the road, the more probable chances of accidents happening.
Some articles for you to read:
IAEA lauds Pakistan’s nuclear command, control steps: Report
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan has got a boost in its ratings with the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), and it has been after a long time that Pakistan’s efforts in nuclear matters has been singled out for appreciation.
Approval for Pakistan’s conduct is contained in the IAEA latest report on “Illicit Trafficking of Nuclear and Radioactive Material Database”. The blame this time, says the IAEA, lay with certain European countries though it does not name them.
Pakistan not figured in IAEA Illicit Trafficking Database: IAEA
By Madeline Hersiegar 'Pakistan Times' Foreign Correspondent
VIENNA (Austria): International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) appreciating Pakistan's efforts and measures to secure its nuclear materials declared that there is not a single incident of illicit trafficking of nuclear materials by Pakistan.
According to a report of IAEA, "Pakistan has taken stringent measures to secure its nuclear materials and is continuously pursuing to meet international standards in regulating its nuclear activities".
I'm more worried about Islamic militant elements in Pakistans military and command structure then any "civilian Goverment. We cant forget that Pakistan is in large measure the birthplace of Islamic Fundamentalism, or at least its womb. Much of Al Qaeda and Islamic militants can claim the Madrassas, or religious schools, in Pakistan as their Alma Mater and any comfort in the fact that no religious parties hold office, or that Musharraf holds power, is less comforting when remembering Tehran circa-1979 and the Shah.http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/pakistan/
And this is the same Musharraf who says he didnt know it when his top nuclear scientist, and father of his bomb, went to North Korea on a Pakistani civilian jet liner holding a briefcase filled with the designs for the North Korean bomb. A design originally Chinese. Even less comfort now?
The extremists simply moved into Tribal Pakistan. The same Tribal Govt.s Musharraf just signed a treaty with that effectively says "dont ask and dont tell" regarding terrorists on their Lands. The same treaty promises no military incursions into the Tribal Lands which are effectively their own country within a country.
So yes, Pakistan going south might not be worse then Iran or North Korea but with the Khan network its kind of hard figuring out where one place starts and another one ends. I'll say this tho, at this time Pakistan has a far larger and more sophisticated arsenal then the other two have put together.
Iran has a fairly capable IRBM capability already and growing larger, and more sophisticated all the time. And they realize just by having nukes they will have far more influence in regional and world affairs. And were talking about people here who say they cant wait to die and go to paradise. The kind who would fly airplanes into buildings. The mental stability of the unelected ruling Mullahs of Iran give me even less comfort. But a even scarier, and probably more possible scenario would be a small group of lunatics getting their hands on a weapon. And/or poor handling or storage of these weapons along with untested command and control.
I'll take a commie who enjoys wallowing in luxury over a religious fanatic anyday.
No, Im sorry, but the activities of The Khan network cast the entire Pakistani nuclear program into a sinister light. It will grow even more sinister when Iran builds their bombs.
And all this changes should their unelected Military strongman get ousted by a populist revolt. I myself question the Pakistani commitment to fighting Islamic Fundamentalist terror. The two are like two wolves in the same cage to begin with Pakistan has a long history of collusion with Al Qaeda. Hell, they are the ones who created the Taliban in the first place.
So.... for all the above reasons I wouldn't believe any statements made by the Pakistanis regarding their nuclear arsenal. Most of all their assertion they have the weapons in a dismantled state in the first place. After that entire Khan network charade they played I wouldn't believe anything they say. But none of my statements are made as an insult to anyone. We have to live in the real world here and we should be just as concerned with these weapons in any 3rd world country. Including China and Russia.
The world should be getting rid of these things instead of more nations striving to get them.
radiosilence
jints
excellent insights webmaster. it would also be informative if a pakistani member can comment on their command and control as well the current leadership(military/civilian) structure.
edit: found this article after i submited my post.
edit: found this article after i submited my post.
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/060809/kyodo/d8jcsvcg0.html
Last edited:
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #30
Hmm..
Good posts again, Rich and WebMaster, but got one small question for the Webmaster's and Moderators , I have been following this forum for last one year and I see very strict and immediate reaction when any topic changes course, Why has'nt that happened in this topic ?
WebMaster replied to all my questions, but did not answer to my last two posts , Why ? Was that not necessary ? Or is that we have digressed the topic to Islamic Fundamentalism and its Effect on Pakistan a Myth. Shall we rename the topic ??
My question was different and it did not talk about Pakistan or to such a deviation, So why were'nt the original questions answered ?
One more small point, I think I posted a small mesage saying that my big post was having couple of spelling erros becoz of keyboard fault, Why was it deleted ? I find many other SINGLE LINE MESSAGES which do not make any sense, but still are there ? My Post was to let know that people dont misuderstand my post, It did not contain any inflammatory messages, So I was thinking why such experienced people deleted it!!
Anyway , Lets get back to the topic, Rich has answered some of questions , So I would not talk the difficulty of typing the same things. My post will follow....next
Good posts again, Rich and WebMaster, but got one small question for the Webmaster's and Moderators , I have been following this forum for last one year and I see very strict and immediate reaction when any topic changes course, Why has'nt that happened in this topic ?
WebMaster replied to all my questions, but did not answer to my last two posts , Why ? Was that not necessary ? Or is that we have digressed the topic to Islamic Fundamentalism and its Effect on Pakistan a Myth. Shall we rename the topic ??
My question was different and it did not talk about Pakistan or to such a deviation, So why were'nt the original questions answered ?
One more small point, I think I posted a small mesage saying that my big post was having couple of spelling erros becoz of keyboard fault, Why was it deleted ? I find many other SINGLE LINE MESSAGES which do not make any sense, but still are there ? My Post was to let know that people dont misuderstand my post, It did not contain any inflammatory messages, So I was thinking why such experienced people deleted it!!
Anyway , Lets get back to the topic, Rich has answered some of questions , So I would not talk the difficulty of typing the same things. My post will follow....next
The "need" is based on contingencies. For example, weve always maintained we need a Triad of strategic forces in order to keep a legitimate retaliatory capacity against a Soviet first strike. I say "Soviet" because we are still stuck somewhat in that time frame. Our triad of forces includes bombers, Ohio class SSBNs, and ICBMs, which will shortly consist only of Minuteman-lll. Along with the strategic picture was/is the Theatre picture where NATO also maintained theatre nuclear weapons to offset the vast Soviet conventional superiority. We used to have a much larger arsenal of both types of weapons. As far as I know our only "theatre" option now is gravity bombs where'as we used to have both IRBMs and artillery weapons in Europe.TheOne said:Hi there,
I think you me and everyone has read about nuclear weapons and stockpiling. At the height of the cold war, both US and USSR had enormous stockples of nuclear weapons( Fission, Fusion nd Stuff). I think each nation had an excess of over 10,000 of these. They had SALT I, SALT II stuff, but what happened? They led to lowering of arsenals to 5000-6000 odd, that too with more deadly MIRV's.
Now my question is whats the need of having so many nuclear weapons, Was the nationalistic attitude of the countries or narrow mindedness of the nation is responsible for this.
Each nation could have been contented with 1000 or odd , but both nations had created enormous stockpiles which have to be take care off.
Now, we know that USSR broke up and the nuclear weapons presented a big problem for western nations , that they may fall into hands of fundamentalists or dictators or "AXIS" nations.
But in future, Imagine, even US breaks down( its also confederation of states), or may be some other different problem , How will it be tackled?
Why does either US/Russia/China/UK/France do something in this aspect ? Or do they think that having 10000+ nuclear weapons would help their supremacy or being counted as P-5 in the world.
Cheers
So.....while weve made progress in reducing our arsenal its slow going because we are still both trapped somewhat in The Cold War. Both America and Russia need to maintain roughly comparable capabilities in order to keep MAD viable, "Mutually assured destruction". If there was a reason for building the arsenals in the first place it was mutual distrust. We certainly didn't trust a Totalitarian empire.
We did move quickly when the Soviet union broke up. Its the American taxpayer thats paying for the dismantling of much of their old weapons. We also both stepped back from the perpetual state of high nuclear alert we were in during the cold war. For instance when I was in we had hundreds of hot loaded B-52s on alert ready to launch in minutes. Nowdays both we and the Soviets only have our ICBMs on such an alert. And that state of readiness is inherent in their design.
"If" the USA "broke up" or into a civil war those responsible for these weapons would still answer to their chain of command, which would end at the President no matter what happened. I guess you'd have to have experience this matter personally, all it takes is a trip to a recruiter
, to appreciate the seriousness taken regarding maintenance, security, and command and control of American special weapons. This scenario is far less possible then say an accident.I dont understand your last question about
I also dont want to speak for the Mods but they do allow leeway for a thread to evolve as long as its done respectfully. I have many Pakistani friends and surely dont intend anything I say to be an insult. I think, and hope, the future between us will be friendly. But Musharraf is in a very difficult position and we should both be grateful, Pakistanis and Yanks, Hes in power. I myself admire the man but my eyes are also wide open.
One, I hope I answered, or partially answered, your questions.
Last edited: