How aware is the western world, that the US has been upgrading their arsenal and those of their friends for years. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2779069.stm Check the date this was reported in 2003 (Wednesday, 19 February, 2003, 17:06 GMT ). And we are more worried about Global Warming while they've been honing their marketing.
Last week, it gave a quiet yet final go-ahead to a controversial research project into the bunker-buster. The move effectively ends a 10-year ban on research into 'low-yield' nuclear weapons. Critics fear it may lead other countries to push ahead with developing such weapons. It also comes at a highly sensitive time diplomatically, with the US lobbying countries such as Iran and North Korea to abandon their nuclear plans. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1096298,00.html Speaking with senior military leaders in Moscow on Wednesday, President Vladimir Putin said research and testing are underway for new missile systems unlike anything in other countries' arsenals. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2004/11/17/russia-missiles-041117.html SEOUL, South Korea - A North Korean diplomat said Sunday that Pyongyang is ready to start disabling its nuclear programs now that it has shut down its sole operating reactor, as long as Washington lifts all sanctions against the communist nation. Kim Myong Gil, minister at the North's mission to the United Nations in New York, confirmed the reactor was shut down Saturday after receipt of a South Korean oil shipment, and said U.N. inspectors would verify the closure Sunday. "Immediately after the arrival of the first heavy fuel oil, the facilities were shut down and the (International Atomic Energy Agency) personnel will verify that," Kim told The Associated Press by telephone. IAEA inspectors were expelled from the North in late 2002 at the start of the nuclear crisis. A 10-member team arrived Saturday in North Korea to make sure the reactor at Yongbyon was switched off - the first step by the North to scale back its weapons program since the standoff began. Kim also raised hope for further progress on disarmament and noted that the next steps included the North making a declaration of its nuclear program and disabling the facilities. http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/07/15/ap3914829.html Life is complicated.
Relations are becoming strained between Putin and the west over missile defense systems that the U.S. is working on and could install near Russia. "Among the systems thought to be in the works for Russia's military is a new type of warhead designed to outwit the missile defence shield being developed by the United States. " http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070608/D8PKN4J00.html .
Another article about Putin. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070705/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_6 Putin recently said he wouldn't abide by one of the previous agreements regarding limiting Russia ground troops near its borders (can't find the article right now). Yahoo news said it was more of a symbolic gesture of disapproval of the way the U.S. is going ahead with the missile defense system near Russia. .
What happened to the end of the cold war, and nuclear disarmament? Could it be that Bush and Cheney have undone the work of many administrations? You are all posting about the other nations of the world developing new weapons...what about our promises?
More strong weapons = a more secured superpower I wanna see U.S. vs Russia in war just so it might change the world and create more liberty and equality.
Yeah let the nuke fest begin,it will be a glorious time.I can just see it now...People being melted,dead babies everywhere, total chaos.Then peace,love & liberty...
Talk of ''new systems'' etc etc etc does not negate the work towards nuclear disarmament and the defrosting of the ''cold war'' imho. These are little spats and posturing not full scale freezing back to ''cold war'' doctrines imho. It is complicated [hence my remark] and i'll add convoluted. We on the whole only see one side of the equation - when the media reports on ''stuff'' like Shaggie and you have highlighted. A little digging like I know we all like to do - and a plethera of more meausured info can be found. No - infact imho it equals and in some respects surpasses. http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/d...=2007&m=June&x=20070629134750sjhtrop0.9074823 http://www.state.gov/t/isn/wmd/nnp/c21893.htm These are new weapon systems as far as I can see - a renewal / redesign of old weapons - just putting on a new jacket as it were. No new weapons grade material is being produced - as far as I am aware. Will we see a complete disarmement in our life times ? unfortunatly not.
If you want to believe no new nuclear arms are being developed keep your head in the sand. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/85/8512gov1.html
Imho since 1968 - we are about 1/3rd there imho - so give it another 80 years and we might get there. Who knows with modern science we could be alive to see it. I don't think I said no new weapons are being produced. It seems I may have been wrongly assumeing you meant thet the US was adding to their stockpiles - therefore hypocriticaly preventing other countries such as N.korea from developing NEW stockpiles. I'm sorry if I was mistaken. You said it your self the US is ''upgrading'' - they are not adding to their stockpiles. I've known for a long time it will occur - up untill the last warhead is disposed of. Every country ''allowed'' nuclear weapons will ''upgrade'' their weapons and their systems.
Just how are these allowed countries, disposing of their outdated weapons, that they are replacing? Or are they just adding new weapons to a stockpile?
The warheads don't alter the delivery systems attached do. They junk the delivery systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons#United_States The actual warheads are disposed of in varying ways. No these countries are NOT ADDING weapons to their stockpiles. Like I said if this is not true - i'd like to know. The only fudge to this could be that Britain says ''we will gety rid of x ammount'' - giving their stockpile to another country. This is pure speculation though. The same amount of warheads are still ''out there'' just in other countries ''control''. I WILL look into that more - just a random thought at the moment. I have a feeling this is against a few IAEA regulations - overall all countries are reducing the amount of warheads they have ''control'' over. http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloads/rw/meetings/source-safety-ac-plan2004.pdf http://www.nci.org/c/cidisarm.htm
So you agree the western world is stockpiling nuclear warheads. We can't really get rid of them...unless we are selling them, which we shouldn't be doing. But the US and Britian are going full speed ahead developing new ones in the New Mexico desert. I think I am more afraid of that than Bin Laden or Al Qaeda.
No I don't agree per se. Please do not twist my speculation into fact. Yes countries ''allowed'' nuclear weapons ARE storeing [stockpiling if you wish] nuclear weapons - they have been for decades. This is their responsibility under many treaties and responsibilities. I do not know if they are ''selling'' them or shifting ownership of the worlds stockpiles between consenting countries. I did not say I think this is TRUE or IS happening. Maybe they are relinquinishing responsibility as to shift power and prestige between nations - this was speculation not fact. I highly doubt this to be true though. I only said that they COULD be moving the stockpiles between countries. The ''western world'' is getting rid of them slowly but surely. So YES we can get rid of them. Yes they are maintaining/updating/modernising their current arsenal. So YES America and the UK and every other country with managed/controled and inspected nuclear weapons are developing ''new'' weapons. This does NOT mean [like I said] that they are producing MORE to ADD to the stockpiles of warheads. They are it seems developing new delivery systems and weapons - based on and including the current levels of warheads available. Again NOT ADDING to the stockpiles of weapons. You SHOULD be more afraid of Bin Laden or Al Qaeda as the informed world actually knows what countries with nuclear weapons - that are following treaties and maintaining their responsibilities - are doing. Just because we it seems are ignorant to what they are doing - does not mean we should be afraid.
What happened to Nuclear Non Proliferation, isn't that what little Chelsea Clinton called for one Christmas back in the eighties or nineties? Now we just want to save the polar bears.
Nuclear non-proliferation doesn't mean just not allowing new countries to gain the capability, at the time it meant reducing our arms and destroying old outdated arms, not selling them to our friends, while developing new ones. As far as I know Al Qaeda, the Taliban and Hamas don't have the bomb, but the US, Israel, India and Pakistan do. And it wouldn't surprise me to know that somewhere in Saudi Arabia, they also have the capability.
For those of you that weren't alive then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty Seems that since the treaty has passed, the only thing that holds true is that these weapons have proliferated. Says a lot for society doesn't it?
Sorry. Have to apologize it wasn't Chelsea, should have know it wouldn't have been. It was little Amy Carter: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,949025-2,00.html
