Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
Glenfiddich wrote in
:
Those 'bunker buster' nukes have been proposed for destroying and
sterilising buried stocks of germ warfare material.
For THAT purpose, their use is eminently sensible and logically
defensible.

The alternatives - allowing an enemy to deploy such weapons, or
acccidentally dispersing them with a conventional attack - are NOT
attractive.

Not to mention the fact that it would very conveniently free the US of
the burden of proving that such weapons existed in the first place.
Instead of merely claiming the weapons are there, but kind of hard to
find, it could now claim huge stockpiles existed, and were wiped out
with 100% success by the nukes. Very neat.

Rob

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why
are US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have
been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current
administration," surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first
place and not lost so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.

If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their
WMD programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and
our triad of effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear
inventory was NOT used to "bully" anyone into compliance with the
Non-Proliferation treaty. (we certainly have not nuked anyone since
Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless.

Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.


As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.


Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force
have some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad. It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney


They certainly plan to destroy the chemical weapons stored at Pueblo Army
Depot, Pueblo Colorado, as an in-place project as they do other places. I
believe the destruction facility at Dugway is already in place.

Tex Houston

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 21:17:38 +0200, "David Nicholls"
wrote:



David


"BUFDRVR" wrote in message
...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral
example!!!


The US, UK and Russia have all deactivated and are destroying their
Chemical &
Biological weapons.


In terms of the US removing their chemical weapons program they have
stopped
the Chemical Weapon Convention proposed inspections of potential sites
wthout warning, because the US would not tolerate them. It also forced
the
change of the head of the organisation because he did not realise that
the
US was above suspicison!

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad.

Not completely true. Another destruction facility is also nearing readiness
for use at Dugway, IIRC, and the Army signed Bechtel up to do a design/build
job at Richmond, Kentucky this year.

It's also not someplace that's going to be too
adversely affected, either. Some parts are still a bit hot after a
Thor IRBM taking part in Operation Starfish (The high altitude Nuke
shots that pointed out the potential of high altitude EMP effects)
blew up on the pad.

IIRC that was Starfish Prime?

Brooks


The way they're doing it is pretty interesting. A super
high-temperature/high pressure furnace that breaks up all those nasty
molecules, and then consumes itself when it's finished, to avoid
residual contamination.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

"Peter Stickney" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott Ferrin writes:

Most of the chemical weapons the US has I wouldn't even dare to put on
a plane if it were up to me. They're OLD. We were going to build
binary munitions but I think it got canned. Also a place where they
destroy them (Dugway) is a few dozen miles away and there for a couple
years it was ALWAYS in the local news.

Erm, teh actual destrustion of the materials is taking place at
Johnston Island, which is in the missle of the Pacific. This of
course, has the advantage of there not being any neighbors to evacuate
if things go bad.

Different depots, different disposal sites; I believe in most cases it
will be on the depot grounds. Johnston Atoll was the pilot facility and
is in the process of being shut down if it isn't already done.

"John Keeney" wrote:

Different depots, different disposal sites; I believe in most cases it
will be on the depot grounds. Johnston Atoll was the pilot facility and
is in the process of being shut down if it isn't already done.

There's a big noise going on at Anniston, Alabama. The government spent
$1 billion building an incinerator, and some residents of the area are
suing to try and stop the process.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.


So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

"Blair Maynard" wrote in message .. .
So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

Not really. It is my opinion that using nukes would produce a terrible
backlash against the US. Not everyone shares that view, and the US
might consider it worth the price even if it were commonly accepted.
That's one hell of a risk to take. It's going to be a bit difficult to
enjoy the backlash effects while permanetly fused to a molten country
(I know, that's exagerating the effects of nuclear attack, but you get
the idea)

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?

It's part of the total package. What the US seems to be saying, is
that it will use conventional force only, unless the opponent of the
day does something it really doesn't like, in which case it will go
nuclear. Being sufficiently successful against the US itself (not US
troops) definately seems to be a criterion these days. Of course, it
is rather unlikely that any single nation could be that effective in
the current situation.

Rob

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds. In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.
As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.


Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea. Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.


Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

Rob

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then
they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power
of
possessing nukes.

Which of course proves my point. There seems to be, at least in your
mind, doubt that whoever uses nukes would become an outcast. We both
have the luxury of discussing these matters from the safety of our
homes, but this is exactly the sort of doubt that makes the threat
credible. You just can't risk it when dealing with real nukes.
Even if the threat of becoming an outcast is taken seriously, that
doesn't automatically make having nukes useless. The only real point
during the cold war was the MAD doctrine, and that still holds. In
other words, they can be very usefull in convincing a nutcase who
couldn't care less about his status in the world not to throw some
nukes at you. That calles for a strategic nuclear ability though, not
for tactical weapons.

Which begs the question of what you define as a "tactical weapon". FYI, the
US retired all of its ADM's, and all of its nuclear artillery rounds, about
a decade plus back. Tactical does not equate to "small, low yield"--there
may indeed be a reason for using a small, low yield weapon in a "strategic"
role--which is why some of the current enventory of weaponms retain
selectable yields down in the low kT range. In fact, any use of nuclear
weapons by the US in the current or immediate future would by definition be
of a strategic nature--there are no plans afoot to go back to the bad ol'
days of the Cold War where we envisioned the use of nuclear warheads against
enemy military formations, logistics points, transport hubs and the like up
near the FLOT.


Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even
today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem
to
work very well or for very long.

Aside from the fact that the US threw its entire nuclea arsenal at
Japan, and couldn't have done more damage even if it wanted to, I
suspect you're right. This was also a time when the full effect of
nuclear weapons was largely unknown, and they were mostly considered
just another big bomb. The world has changed a bit over the last 60
years.

So you equate any use of nuclear weapons in the modern era with the utter
annihilation, or attempt thereof, of the opposing side? That would be an
unrealistic assumption IMO.

As for the effectiveness of boycotts, we just don't know, and
hopefully never will. I expect some nations would still trade with the
US, but I think result in a cold war style polarisation, with the US
taking the part of the USSR.

The US is still the dominant economic power in the world--any nations
choosing to join in such a boycott do so at the extreme risk of completely
decimating their own economic wellbeing. I find it odd that someone can even
consider the likelihood of any anti-US boycott, given the example of
European defference to the likes of the economic power of the PRC; all it
took to render the past sales of advanced weapons to Taiwan by various
Euro-nations a distant memory was the mere threat that those nations would
not be welcome in the growing PRC marketplace. The US economy still dwarfs
that of the PRC, and you find that nations may be willing to boycott the US?



Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya
instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.

The USSR would not have gone to war over Libya. However, this might
have convinced them (or the Chinese) that using a few of their own
might be a good idea. Use of nukes could have become an accepted way
of doing business. With the number of score to settle in the world at
large, things could very well have escalated quickly, in any number of
possible unpleasant directions.

I hate to tell you this, but those nations already regarded the use of nukes
as being an accepted form of general warfare. Read the since-declassified
warplans of the WARPAC, and peruse the past statements from senior Cold War
era Soviet military leaders--nuclear weapons were considered to be just
another tool for use on the battlefield, just as chemical weapons were. If
anything the US demonstrated much more reticence in regards to unleashing
the nuclear genie in the event of a major attack against NATO, at least from
the late sixties onward--it was regarded as a likely contingency
requirement, but it was not planned for use in the initial defense. The bad
guys, on the other hand, planned to use them from the onset of hostilities.



Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.

Depends on what you consider direct weapons effects. Both among
inhabitants of the Pacific isles near thest sites, and among observers
of tests in the US, deaths due to cancer and birth defects are much
more common than among those who were never anywhere near nuclear
detonations. Cause and effect might be separated by decades, but that
doesn't break the link between them.

How many of those vets also lived in brick homes which dosed them with
higher levels of radon? What was the effect of increased solar radiation?
Etc. etc., ad nauseum. You will have to do better than that to demonstrate a
distinct link, and if you want to make it relevant to the possibility of
continued testing, you will have to show that underground testing maintains
the same threat level--and you are not going to be able to do that.

Brooks

Rob