Nuclear Iran

[zara]

ok, i yield to your more informed military knowledge then..

just seems like soon everyones gonna have a bomb thats all.

[Officer of Engineers]

The NPT, the CTBT, and the current Fissile Material Cut Off are attempts to stop nuclear proliferation.

[zara]

The NPT, the CTBT, and the current Fissile Material Cut Off are attempts to stop nuclear proliferation.

They don't seem to be doing too well. Why is no-one trying to get Israel, India and Pakistan to give up theres?

The world currently has 8 nuclear armed countries (9 is you count Korea), give it ten more years and its gonna be double that.

[astralis]

zara,

They don't seem to be doing too well. Why is no-one trying to get Israel, India and Pakistan to give up theres?

The world currently has 8 nuclear armed countries (9 is you count Korea), give it ten more years and its gonna be double that.

look at the history of the NPT and the CTBT. i'd say it has been amazingly successful given how long nuclear technology and know-how has been out there.

[Officer of Engineers]

The actual number has not changed. We knew Pakistan and India and Israel had the bomb since the 1980s. South Africa had the bomb and gave them up. Korea currently has the bomb, so, 9 has been the number since late 1980s.

While the number of countries may be too big for your liking, the actual nuclear weapons warheads numbers have come down drastically. From a high of 50,000 plus to less than 20,000 today and by 2012, less than 10,000.

The Fissile Material Cut Off is the current drive to reign in all nuclear weapons production no matter who is a nuclear weapons power or not.

[zara]

While the number of countries may be too big for your liking, the actual nuclear weapons warheads numbers have come down drastically. From a high of 50,000 plus to less than 20,000 today and by 2012, less than 10,000.

Well thats encouraging, but I guess its not the number of bombs thats the issue, rather the number of fingers on the trigger

[pChan]

Yes. We make no distinction between nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons deployment.

Sir,

I have heard that chemical weapons do not have anywhere near the same effects like nukes. A Japenese sect used sarin(which is said to be the "poor man's atomic bomb") in the tokyo attack and yet the casualties were not catastrophic. Chemical weapons are also easier to produce & nation states that use non-state actors can easily supply them.

Given that their effects seem to be far more limited why do you consider them to be in the same vein as nukes?

[Luke Gu]

While the number of countries may be too big for your liking, the actual nuclear weapons warheads numbers have come down drastically. From a high of 50,000 plus to less than 20,000 today and by 2012, less than 10,000.

Officer，do you think what is more dangerous，Increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons, or increase in the number of nuclear weapons？

[tankie]

Officer，do you think what is more dangerous，Increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons, or increase in the number of nuclear weapons？

Well for me Luke ,its the amount of countries .

[Luke Gu]

Well for me Luke ,its the amount of countries .

Me too。So I don't we’re safer though the actual nuclear weapons warheads numbers have come down drastically。

[Officer of Engineers]

Given that their effects seem to be far more limited why do you consider them to be in the same vein as nukes?

The revulsion stems back to WWI and the horror that it created. By treaty, chemical weapons were banned from the battlefield shortly after that war. So much so that during the most desperate hours of WWII, no one used chemical weapons.

That convention, now named the Chemical Weapons Convention, and its sister, the Biological Weapons Convention, deemed the usage of such weapons to be illegal.

Officer，do you think what is more dangerous，Increase in the number of countries possessing nuclear weapons, or increase in the number of nuclear weapons？

India and Pakistan don't have the weapons to reach across the globe, so in effect, the nukes are now localized and as such, the immediate effects are localized.

I am not a nuclear weaponsneer, so I cannot answer if an Indo-Pak exchange would lead to a world wide exchange but the world is much safer since the big 2 climb down on the threat level.

[Luke Gu]

I am not a nuclear weaponsneer, so I cannot answer if an Indo-Pak exchange would lead to a world wide exchange but the world is much safer since the big 2 climb down on the threat level.

I don't believe the big 2 will do stupid things in this aspect。

India and Pakistan don't have the weapons to reach across the globe, so in effect, the nukes are now localized and as such, the immediate effects are localized.

Sir，India and Pakistan are trying to increase the range of missiles。And it seems India want to drag China into the nuclear arms race with her。Though the nuclear arms race now have more regional color，I think it's easier to break out than cold war。Of course，it‘s more likely just bring a disaster to an area。

[zara]

I don't know why the US has given its blessing to Indian nukes. Really stupid move in my opinion.

[Luke Gu]

I don't know why the US has given its blessing to Indian nukes. Really stupid move in my opinion.

US Is not an impartial judge。She have her interest。And India can make nukes is a fact。What can she do？When China can make nukes，I can image what Venomous words US would say。

[zara]

but China is one of the 5 countries 'allowed' to have nukes.

India isnt. One of the biggest security issues for the US is nuclear proliferation - Theyre trying to stop Iran and North Korea getting them (and thought Iraq did)

So why would they sanction another country to get them?