Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Evil Knievel]

It seems that maintaining the appearance of nuclear strike capability involves continuous testing, aka demonstration of that ability. A good demonstration:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY
(Click close to the end if you don't want to enjoy 15 minutes of *bling* *bling*...)

Once you've established that you got nuclear ability*, you don't need to blow up stuff anymore. Hell, you don't need to be recognized anymore, just leak some documents to the other's spy service.

*Recognized as nuclear state, amongst others

My opinion is that this is not entirely true. I believe the fact that all the world will know without any doubt once you blast an atomic bomb gives a great muscle-play potential. And how assured can you be that your weapons actually scare others any more if your last test/demonstration has been 20 years ago.

I think that the reason for performing more than 2000 successful tests is hardly only science:

In favour of this is the skewed distribution between nuclear powers: France and Britain test only a fraction as much as the USSR and USA. Have they got less effective bombs?

If there were a lot of fails (which of course we would not know of), I could say: ok, more testing is required. But just the vast amount of successful tests leads me to assert that it is unlikely to have a similar magnitude in fail rate.

Nuclear warheads are not rocket science after all (the delivery is, but that's another matter ).

[Sheb]

Well, you gotta test each variations on the weapon system, and test various applications. (Is it good at creating EMP blasts? As anti-submarine depth charges? As anti-ships surface weapons? To destroy infrastructure? As tactical weapons? Does your variable-yield system works over its intendend range?)

Anyway, the US haven't detonated a single bomb over the last 20 years, but no one doubt they could blow any reasonable-sized country into a big pile of smoke and ashes.

[Evil Knievel]

Anyway, the US haven't detonated a single bomb over the last 20 years, but no one doubt they could blow any reasonable-sized country into a big pile of smoke and ashes.

Yes, point taken - actually true for most countries. Nuclear tests are kind of banned for most nations since 1996.

Now they try to use computers instead. Research goes on, but they don't detonate anymore..

[burningpet]

I rather give the equivalent of skynet an atom bomb rather than a religion governed country.

At least skynet operates on logic, hence it can be reasoned with. religion operates on belief and ignorance.

[Scoops Novel]

On another topic, I'd like to discuss the links between political parties in Europe, and the status of links further afield in particular. Global codependency on resources and often workforce is well known. At the very least, the rest of the world's alternatives to your own economic pride and joy's are well known. In Europe, there's a good deal of discussion and awareness about the importance other countries in the region play in achieving your economic goals, and even some continent spanning political parties. However, lofty goals such as economic reform needs international involvement, and all that aside, political aims and needless to say point-scoring remains depressingly local. Do you think this is likely to change?

[10ebbor10]

I rather give the equivalent of skynet an atom bomb rather than a religion governed country.

At least skynet operates on logic, hence it can be reasoned with. religion operates on belief and ignorance.

OW, the less Holy Than thou crowd again. There goes any hope of a sensible argument. Let's cut the derail about Iran off, shall we.

On another topic, I'd like to discuss the links between political parties in Europe, and the status of links further afield in particular. Global codependency on resources and often workforce is well known. At the very least, the rest of the world's alternatives to your own economic pride and joy's are well known. In Europe, there's a good deal of discussion and awareness about the importance other countries in the region play in achieving your economic goals, and even some continent spanning political parties. However, lofty goals such as economic reform needs international involvement, and all that aside, political aims and needless to say point-scoring remains depressingly local. Do you think this is likely to change?

Maybe, but it's unlike that it's going to happen without another crisis. Nobody wants to change the system, and free Europe from it's bogeyman role while they still use it.

[Scoops Novel]

Maybe, but it's unlike that it's going to happen without another crisis. Nobody wants to change the system, and free Europe from it's bogeyman role while they still use it.

There's a lot of things you could mean by that. I'm guessing you mean countries outside Europe, but please explain.

[10ebbor10]

Bad quote.

Maybe, but it's unlike that it's going to happen without another crisis. Nobody wants to change the system, and free Europe from it's bogeyman role while they still use it.

There's a lot of things you could mean by that. I'm guessing you mean countries outside Europe, but please explain.

I meant, nobody wants to say that they themselves, and not the European Union are responsible for their troubles.

[10ebbor10]

Kinda fixed it better.

[Sheb]

What 10ebbor mean is that it's a tradition in Europe for national government to blame the EU for unpopular policies ("Brussels is forcing us into austerity!") even when they're the one voting said policies in the European Council.

As such, the EU is now in part a tool for government to impose unpopular policies without enduring the consequences. As such, they have no interest in changing stuff to make the EU a positive force rather than a boogeyman.

[Scoops Novel]

What of countries outside Europe? Do you think ties will strengthen? I should also say rather then just political parties, whether movements and popular support will shift in this direction. I'm aware of many international protest groups etc, but as yet I haven't seen a concerted effort of cooperation for political goals other then marching further then a few countries away.

[XXSockXX]

What of countries outside Europe? Do you think ties will strengthen? I should also say rather then just political parties, whether movements and popular support will shift in this direction. I'm aware of many international protest groups etc, but as yet I haven't seen a concerted effort of cooperation for political goals other then marching further then a few countries away.

Probably not. It's difficult enough to keep the EU together, from a political perspective, since there is so much diversity of interests. The current economic crisis doesn't help either, we can only hope that it wont re-nationalize european politics too much. As much as I dislike EU bureacracy, it's actually an astonishing achievement to get 25 countries to cooperate on that level. Interests and mentalities are so different, even within countries, it's remarkable that the EU isn't in much bigger disarray than it already is.

As for social movements and protest groups, there is none that is both really relevant and focused on international cooperation. Even if these groups have some common goals, they are very different locally, due to different socio-political and economic structures, mentalities etc.
I would argue that there really has not been an internationalist movement since 19th/early 20th century socialism and social democracy, and these parties are easily pitted against each other because of their focus on the (local) economy. The green/eco movement was a big thing, but relatively limited to the West, and that too is a pretty diversive bunch today. So far nothing new of that scale has emerged, and I don't really see that happening soon. The Pirate/internet freedom parties are just getting started, and again are mostly a Western phenomenon. In terms of social movements I can't even think of one that is all that relevant, Occupy proved to be rather inconsequential, didn't really gather much support and didn't even formulate goals to potentially found a political party on.

[hector13]

Iran didn't do to much bad things lately. It's mainly bad press from the US because they held their embassy hostage all those years ago.

They're enriching uranium. As in, something you need to do before getting nuke-yelir weapons. They may claim they're developing a civvy energy program, but I imagine, of the almost 20,000 centrifuges they have for enrichment, it would be quite easy to 'lose' some to a secret project for weaponising it.

Please find any non-US supplied proof of that. I mean, Iraq had nuclear weaponry too, didn't they. ((Also, Pakistan has nuclear weaponry too, and isn't the most stable of states. I don't see the problem about them getting their own Nuclear program.))

Iran themselves, for example? though I was slightly mistaken. They have 18,000, but only 10,000 are operational.

The guy may not be the best source, given his interests in fluffing his own feathers, but even if he is exaggerating the numbers, they still have the ability to do it.

The problem with Iran is they're an Islamic republic. One thing that religion is good at, is producing extremists, irrespective of their religious manual and bent. If an extremist individual gets their hands on a nuclear weapon, I don't think any nuclear power can convince them not to use it.

Extremists are not insane. They might sound like that, but they won't shoot for no reason. As long as you don't provoke them.

Besides, the US is just as capable of electing warmongering leaders.

Indeed, but they also need the support of all the bits and pieces of their government (senate and such) before they can (allegedly) do things like declare war on someone.

Extremists may not be insane, but they aren't exactly the most accepting of people. Even if you're a group in the same religion (Catholics and Protestants, Sunni and Shiite for example) they more or less say that if you don't follow what they believe, you'll end up in whatever type of hell they believe. The violent ones might even try to send you there.

On another topic, I'd like to discuss the links between political parties in Europe, and the status of links further afield in particular. Global codependency on resources and often workforce is well known. At the very least, the rest of the world's alternatives to your own economic pride and joy's are well known. In Europe, there's a good deal of discussion and awareness about the importance other countries in the region play in achieving your economic goals, and even some continent spanning political parties. However, lofty goals such as economic reform needs international involvement, and all that aside, political aims and needless to say point-scoring remains depressingly local. Do you think this is likely to change?

I think it's impossible for a body the size of the EU to be able to help make reasonable decisions on a local scale for any of its members. Greece, for example, when they were being bailed out had to make ridiculous cuts in order to get more loans (which, in itself, is a pretty stupid way to try to get out of debt) which pissed off a lot of the local populace, and now they're getting far-right local parties like the Golden Dawn gaining power. Anyone remember Germany in the late '20s and '30s?

I like some of the things about the EU (freedom of movement for citizens, freedom of trade etc.) but, as someone who's very cynical of the political class, I feel that most members of the EU parliament are going to be looking out for themselves (meaning as an individual and for their country) rather than what's best for the EU as a whole. The bureaucracy lets it down.

Politics isn't really a game of give and take, it's a game of trying to get as much as you can while giving away as little as possible. Europe is no different, it's just on a much more grand scale. I don't see that changing, for the EU or anyone, anytime soon.

[10ebbor10]

Iran didn't do to much bad things lately. It's mainly bad press from the US because they held their embassy hostage all those years ago.

They're enriching uranium. As in, something you need to do before getting nuke-yelir weapons. They may claim they're developing a civvy energy program, but I imagine, of the almost 20,000 centrifuges they have for enrichment, it would be quite easy to 'lose' some to a secret project for weaponising it.

Please find any non-US supplied proof of that. I mean, Iraq had nuclear weaponry too, didn't they. ((Also, Pakistan has nuclear weaponry too, and isn't the most stable of states. I don't see the problem about them getting their own Nuclear program.))

Iran themselves, for example? though I was slightly mistaken. They have 18,000, but only 10,000 are operational.

The guy may not be the best source, given his interests in fluffing his own feathers, but even if he is exaggerating the numbers, they still have the ability to do it.

Sure, 19000 sounds like a lot, but a majority of that goes to (re)processing fuel for their nuclear power plants (Including experimental plants). Even if they were to convert all their stocks, they could only build 6 warheads at best, before running out.

And I doubt they'd get away with doing nuclear detonation tests. I mean, their economy is collapsing as it is, due to embargoes and the like.

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors criticized Iran after an IAEA report concluded that before 2003 Iran likely had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability.[9] The IAEA report details allegations that Iran conducted studies related to nuclear weapons design, including detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle.[10] A number of Western nuclear experts have stated there was very little new in the report, that it primarily concerned Iranian activities prior to 2003,[11] and that media reports exaggerated its significance.[12] Iran rejected the details of the report and accused the IAEA of pro-Western bias.[13] and threatened to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.

The problem with Iran is they're an Islamic republic. One thing that religion is good at, is producing extremists, irrespective of their religious manual and bent. If an extremist individual gets their hands on a nuclear weapon, I don't think any nuclear power can convince them not to use it.

Extremists are not insane. They might sound like that, but they won't shoot for no reason. As long as you don't provoke them.

Besides, the US is just as capable of electing warmongering leaders.

Indeed, but they also need the support of all the bits and pieces of their government (senate and such) before they can (allegedly) do things like declare war on someone.

Extremists may not be insane, but they aren't exactly the most accepting of people. Even if you're a group in the same religion (Catholics and Protestants, Sunni and Shiite for example) they more or less say that if you don't follow what they believe, you'll end up in whatever type of hell they believe. The violent ones might even try to send you there.

Which wasn't a problems most of the time. Just  wait for a major crisis, and capitalize on it. Hell, if they really want to, the US can probably stage one too. I mean, the US negated most of the world's privacy laws with a single incident, and it's not like the entire thing isn't a corporate front anyway.

Point is, Iran isn't an extremist nation. Maybe a bit fundamentalistic , and strongly conservative, but they're not insane. Insane people don't stay in charge for long. Sure there are outliers, but those exist everywhere. Evidence is that religious minorities have reserved seats in the parliament, several rulings that attempt to protect minorities. They'll do everything to convert you, and prevent you from converting others, but they don't use violence.

Also, the Islam apparently forbids the deployment (and usage) of Nuclear weaponry. Hence why the Sha's nuclear weapon program was disbanded after the Iranian revolution. To be fair, the Nuclear program was restarted after the Ayatollah's death, but there's still significant resistance.

On another topic, I'd like to discuss the links between political parties in Europe, and the status of links further afield in particular. Global codependency on resources and often workforce is well known. At the very least, the rest of the world's alternatives to your own economic pride and joy's are well known. In Europe, there's a good deal of discussion and awareness about the importance other countries in the region play in achieving your economic goals, and even some continent spanning political parties. However, lofty goals such as economic reform needs international involvement, and all that aside, political aims and needless to say point-scoring remains depressingly local. Do you think this is likely to change?

I think it's impossible for a body the size of the EU to be able to help make reasonable decisions on a local scale for any of its members. Greece, for example, when they were being bailed out had to make ridiculous cuts in order to get more loans (which, in itself, is a pretty stupid way to try to get out of debt) which pissed off a lot of the local populace, and now they're getting far-right local parties like the Golden Dawn gaining power. Anyone remember Germany in the late '20s and '30s?

To be fair, there's nothing else they could do. They had/have a massive debt, massive budget hole, and farspread corruption and clientilism (Buying voters with government money). Sad thing is that it seems like the rich politicians, who caused these troubles, are going to get away mostly unscatched, but there's nothing Europe can do about that. They demanded extra taxes on the rich, and extra luxury taxes, but so far those haven't been realized (IIRC). Can't do much more without taking charge directly.

I mean, what should they've done. Greece was pardoned of a good 50% of it's debts already, IIRC.

I like some of the things about the EU (freedom of movement for citizens, freedom of trade etc.) but, as someone who's very cynical of the political class, I feel that most members of the EU parliament are going to be looking out for themselves (meaning as an individual and for their country) rather than what's best for the EU as a whole. The bureaucracy lets it down.

Politics isn't really a game of give and take, it's a game of trying to get as much as you can while giving away as little as possible. Europe is no different, it's just on a much more grand scale. I don't see that changing, for the EU or anyone, anytime soon.

Sadly, you can't make it a direct popular vote either, because that would just result in complete domination of Germany in the EU.

[Sheb]

Germany only has 15% of EU's population. That's like saying that California would totally dominate the US (12% of population) if they switched to popular vote. Although I guess people identify with their country more than within their states.