My Greatest Fear Regarding Nuclear Weapons

[ThomWV]

I'm not much worried about Iran getting an atom bomb, North Korea either for that matter. Of the nations that have nuclear weapons the vast majority not only do not threaten anyone with them but they have never detonated one against an enemy. Only one of the nations that has the things has ever opened the evil box and used it. That same nation, or nation, now threatens others with its storehouse of death. My greatest fear is that we will use one again. I fear it because if we do use one again it will open the door for every nation that has one to use it. Possibilities like Pakistan against India, North Korea against Japan, or Israel against multiple targets come immediately to mind once the taboo of first-strike has been broken.

I'm not afraid of 'terrorists' who can do little harm to our country, I'm afraid of George Bush.

Impeach now!

[valerief]

1. We're all afraid of GWB. nt

[Hydra]

10. Anyone who isn't afraid of him or his handlers

is certifiable.

[valerief]

16. Yeah, and those people are hired for Blackwater. nt

[Hydra]

20. yeah, the christian royal guard

:puke:

[wtmusic]

2. Unless we take the lead in putting these things away for good

the planet is doomed.

[Cleita]

3. Well said and I agree.

I will take it one step further. If there was ever another civil war in this country, I have no doubt the reich wing will use nukes on their own citizens.

[Vidar]

4. Couldn't agree more.

[Rick Myers]

5. Here's a scary thought...

EVERY single person involved with nuclear weapons is put thru the must stringent Human Reliability testing, from mental health, security clearances, medical evaluation, etc. EVERY SINGLE person in the chain but ONE!

George W. Bush

[Jim__]

6. The US has to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

It's hardly a justifiable position to go around forbidding everyone else from having them and threatening to use them on anyone it disagrees with. We should take the lead in negotiating nuclear disarmament for everyone.

[kimmerspixelated]

8. The hypocrisy of it all,

is the most frightening, indeed.

[Megahurtz]

9. Agreed. n/t

[DangerDave921]

19. Agreed

I also think the police should get rid of its weapons in order to convince the criminals to get rid of theirs. What right do policemen have to use weapons and yet forbid other people to do the same?

[lonestarnot]

7. K & RRRRRRRRRRR

[Riktor]

11. I'd have to Disagree

To me, the scariest thing about nuclear weapons is that India and Pakistan possess them. Don't get me wrong, I've experienced nothing but good times in the presence of Indians and Pakistanis, but between them is a hatred with such an intensity that it is unmatched the world over.

A good deal of people say, "Don't worry, both countries have the bomb, so there's plenty of deterrence."

I don't buy that.

The Soviet Union and the United States averted nuclear war through MAD because both countries were relatively stable and both countries kept a very close eye on their nuclear stockpiles. Pakistan and India have advanced into the nuclear age having barely placed one foot in the industrial age. They have the weapons, but not the infrastructure to make sure there's no accidental launches. Furthermore, there were always open lines of communication between the US and USSR, which averted a number of "close calls". In India and Pakistan, religious violence breaks out yearly, and is often overlooked by the police or military. All we need is some general sympathetic to an anti-Muslim or anti-Hindu death squad to slip them the bomb and, in effect, ignite a nuclear war across the Indian subcontinent.

While we would all like to think Baghdad holds this title, but the most dangerous place on Earth is Kashmir and Jammu.

[DaveJ]

12. I agree

It's not a terribly popular POV around here, but I know that is what most Dem politicians also believe, whether or not they often express it openly.

[bananas]

15. Yes, this is a very dangerous situation, and it is escalating.

Welcome to DU.

[CrispyQ]

13. I think Cheney is just itching to try a bunker buster on a live population.

That & the number of nukes in so many unstable countries, I fear the Doomsday clock should really be set somewhere between 2-3 minutes until midnight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

[followthemoney]

14. The Russians have been doing a little sabre ratling lately.

A unipolar world is dangerous. So is a bipolar Bush. I hope his conversations with Prosac are happy.

The U.S. only talks about a first strike against non nuke nations.

[Blackhatjack]

17. The real danger is using a 'tactical nuke' and a 'conventional nuke' is used to retaliate...

The difference between the two is like that between day and night.

A tactical nuke does indeed open the door to the possibility that 'dialing back' the lethality of nukes makes them usable.

The whole idea of conventional nukes is that they are so powerful they cannot be used, and mutual assured destruction between nations possessing them means that neither will use them(deterrence).

I am not afraid of a country with dozens of conventional nukes. I am terrified of a country which has even a handful of tactical nukes, or an extremist group that gets its hands on any kind of nuke.

I predict that once a tactical nuke is used, that door will never be shut again.

[Hydra]

21. Of course the door will never be shut again

You should see how popular those are in RTS wargames- the benefits(if you ignore the fallout) are the ability to cripple an enemy without setting foot outside of hardened bases...kinda like the ones we have in Iraq right now.

Tie that with an effective "missile defense shield," and you have the makings of nuclear nightmare.

So much for the idea that we monkeys are "civilized."

[Javaman]

18. Huh, and my greatest fear about them was them actually detonating. nt