Jump to content
Peter

Trump is the President

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, goughy said:

So, genuine question.... Why exactly does NK have to do away with it's nukes?  America still has them.  So does Russia, the pommies, frenchies etc.  So why can't NK have any?

"the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals"

Before 1967, world powers had not recognised the threat to civilisation and the world from nuclear power. Though you have to ask why given Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the period after WW2. Though the roots of NPT can be traced to the late 1950's when Eisenhower expressed concerned about the risks of nuclear weapons.

US and USSR idealogical and proxy state cold war made it challenging to limit the arms race. Cuba in 62 brought home the perilous position we found ourselves in. Breshnev pursued detente with the west (though he invaded places). While he sough to ease strained relations which had risen under Kruschev. However both sides had poor under standing of the others and none had interest in nuclear attack, though some senior US military and Kissinger thought Limited nuclear war was posiblle. Read they think they can take out command and control centres, destroy major conventional forces in such a way that would limit or stop a response. Clearly deluded.

Cuba was enough of a scare and we ended up with the NPT. As bad as it is having the US, USSR and others with weapons, they engaged with each other, entered into treaties like SALT. And they are sophisticated nation states, extreme states like NK don't follow any rules of diplomacy and are the very definition of rogue.

It is a very good thing that n one else obtains nuclear capability and it will be a great thing for the NPT members to disarm. Having said that the USSR and US were very close to war a number of times, 1983 comes to mind. The people in the group know what they are doing and understand the balance and are unlikely to use them. New entrants disrupt the balance. I'm good with not having rogue states threaten our existence

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, I'm not saying NK should have them.  I'm very happy with the thought of them not having any.  I'm stoked with the thought of no one having any.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BarryBevan said:

 

Cuba was enough of a scare and we ended up with the NPT. As bad as it is having the US, USSR and others with weapons, they engaged with each other, entered into treaties like SALT. And they are sophisticated nation states, extreme states like NK don't follow any rules of diplomacy and are the very definition of rogue.

It is a very good thing that n one else obtains nuclear capability and it will be a great thing for the NPT members to disarm. Having said that the USSR and US were very close to war a number of times, 1983 comes to mind. The people in the group know what they are doing and understand the balance and are unlikely to use them. New entrants disrupt the balance. I'm good with not having rogue states threaten our existence

 

US and USSR leaders fit definition of rogue to me, throw them in with rocket boy and they have half a brain between them. Trump is likely to mix up his twitter login and launch codes at 3am and Putin just doesn’t give a fig

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t get why the u.s can sit on a nuclear arsenal and then demand Korea de-nuke. 

When obama was in office at least then you could use the argument that the us was in safe hands and Korea was run by a nutjob, now it’s much of a muchness and I don’t see how the u.s can claim the moral high ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, roxii said:

I don’t get why the u.s can sit on a nuclear arsenal and then demand Korea de-nuke. 

When obama was in office at least then you could use the argument that the us was in safe hands and Korea was run by a nutjob, now it’s much of a muchness and I don’t see how the u.s can claim the moral high ground. 

It's about non profileration, not morality

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

It's about non profileration, not morality

Yeah sure but that should be global not just Korea. I don’t see the us offering to whittle down their stockpiles. 

They keep using the fact that they have nukes and that trump says he is prepared to use them as a threat, that’s hardly an incentive for Korea to de-nuke. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's not a lot happening at the moment, but they certainly have reduced their previous stockpile. Mind you, a single warhead these days is probably equal to half a dozen form the 60s/70s, both in power and strategic deployment.

555px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading something years ago that Kim Jong Il was using his personal fortune to help fund their nuclear program, as the country couldn't afford it.  Hence, he didn't do all that much, certainly compared to his son.  If that was true, then the same could have been happening recently, which could explain his sudden decision to seemingly stop.  He's burning through his own wealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, roxii said:

Yeah sure but that should be global not just Korea. I don’t see the us offering to whittle down their stockpiles. 

They keep using the fact that they have nukes and that trump says he is prepared to use them as a threat, that’s hardly an incentive for Korea to de-nuke. 

They are. Though the numbers show a bit of lip service to NPT. Risk comes when there are one or two, eg WW2, some one actually uses one. When there are thousands people don't as they are assured of destruction.

Chomsky and others refer to the US as a rogue state. Also referring the term as suiting US imperial agenda. If you don't do what I want you are rogue and justify attacking you, even though I do many of the things you do.

Nukes are bad, however it is almost certain that having lost of them avoided another large scale war. Not sure proxy states having war fought out on their turf are better of for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, roxii said:

I don’t get why the u.s can sit on a nuclear arsenal and then demand Korea de-nuke. 

When obama was in office at least then you could use the argument that the us was in safe hands and Korea was run by a nutjob, now it’s much of a muchness and I don’t see how the u.s can claim the moral high ground. 

the US is part of both nato and the UN and also a democracy.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can't believe Mrs Trumps jacket whilst visiting the Mexican immigrants,   "I really don't care, do u?"

what imbecile members of staff wouldn't tell her that it may not be appropriate?

and the circus rolls on....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He said it's a comment on the fake media, and that Melania has learnt what they're like!  Sure their own staff must shake their heads some times.  But she did oppose his policy of separating these kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

July's Time magazine cover

 

images.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/06/2018 at 6:10 AM, BarryBevan said:

Nukes are bad,

Not ALL nukes are bad !!!!!! :nuke::unsure:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/06/2018 at 8:36 PM, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Mind you, a single warhead these days is probably equal to half a dozen form the 60s/70s, both in power and strategic deployment.

Possibly not. Both USA and Russia use multiple warhead design on their missiles to make it harder to defeat them, but plutonium is heavy and the weight of each warhead (it's quoted at around 1000kg => 1MT yield) and the size/thrust of the vehicle required to launch it, means that there are practical limits the size of each warhead in a MIRV design - I believe that around .5MT is the biggest the USA uses on their ICBMs, and most are much smaller.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've screwed way too many people to wear white!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putin must have some friggin awesome stuff on Trump - I mean I thought it might of have been good stuff, but it must surely be completely outstanding!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×