Does anyone else find it amazing that most contries don’t have nuclear weapons? I mean, think about how long ago nukes were invented. Compare nukes to every other tehcnology invented in the 1940’s, and you’d think we’d be able to by nuclear bombs for like 15 bucks at Wal-Mart by now. Even coming from a ‘protected military technology’ side of things, it’s still pretty amazing. I mean, we don’t care if some evil dictator gets there hand on 1940’s era tank or jet technology, that would be a joke.
AS nuclear technology becomes more and more obselete (I mean, they’re way older than 8-tracks), won’t it become harder and harder to keep other countries from figuring it out?
From what I’ve read and seen on TV about the subject it’s very difficult to actually build a bomb. Things like heavy water and enriched uranium isn’t easy to come by. Then combining everything together required certain types of machines and components. As these things are custom, only a couple of places make them, so it becomes easier to track. What’s stopping rogue countries from building their own plants to build these components, little other then the threat of war and America keeps a very close eye on these things through espionage.
PV
And of course the non-proliferation treaty.
I think if anyone else builds a nuke, it would still be considered copyright infringement. That’s why other countries haven’t built any yet. Kind of like the zipper.
Those who still argue for Truman and his unnecessary dropping of two nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki use the following argument. That, as far as the US government’s short-term goals were concerned (bringing to an end, the threat Japan posed to their security), allowing the final stage of the Manhattan project to be implemented was not necessary. The threat and deterrence had clearly worked, and Japan had officially surrendered, giving the US their victory. However, the perspective Truman and his advisors were adopted was a much more long-term view as to the projected security of the ‘free’ world. Following the vast diplomatic efforts which followed WW1, only itself to be followed by another period of economic uncertainty and another war which (finally) provoked in all observers - public and private - was a consensus to regard war with abject horror. The words ‘Never Again’ would ring loud.
The actual use of a weapon that would force humanity into asking the most ultimate question regarding its existence, would seemingly instil enough importance on politics peace and consensus so as to avert war and conflict indefinitely.
Not just the impending ideological divide (with Russia’s imperialist aspirations), but what was fresh in the minds of Truman and his advisors was seemingly an excuse enough for them to overcome any feeling that the use of the bomb was unnecessary. For the nuclear bomb to be used, twice, a signal would have been made which would discourage against resorting to any sort of diplomatic stand-off in the event of a disagreement.
Ideally, of course, the presence of nuclear weapons should not be needed. And the build-up of nuclear weapons does little but create anxiety and uncertainty in the economic and political sphere of human activity. The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty was an important achievement, but with the spirit of consensus and solidarity that accompanied its creation now having been broken following North Korea’s pulling out, the nuclear deterrent as a diplomatic card takes a very different guise.
The fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War, a dawn broke on for a new international order. A diplomatic free-for-all. Political leaders knew perfectly well that owning nuclear weapons gives you greater influence in your region. This explains the keen-ness of so many states to acquire them. Israel, North Korea, South Korea, Pakistan, India, Iraq?, even Iran!
(source C.N.D.)
(Country - number of independent nuclear warheads)
USA-10600, Russia-8400, China 400-450, Fance-288, UK-200, Israel-200, Pakistan-48, India-30-35. undeclared nuclear powers, and suspected potential nuclear powers-South Korea, North Korea, Iraq, Iran
Is the nuclear deterrent dead?
Can any of you actually envisage the use of nuclear weapons within our lifetimes?
Has the word ‘nuclear’ become so demonised that scientific developments in the field of nuclear energy are being obstructed from translation to real-life benefits for societies the world over?