The nuclear club members......

[Papaumau]

If any of you are like me you would have thought about the risk that is displayed when more and more "unsteady" if not totally unstable countries get the bomb.

When the cold war was at it's height it was only Russia, ( the soviets ,) and America and France and us that had any serious capability to deliver nuclear weapons but now that this "club" of nations is widening all of the time we find that even if many of these states do not have serious delivery systems they DO have useable nuclear weapons. Among these states ( the ones that we worry about the most ) are China, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea and a few of the ex soviet-bloc countries that STILL hold stockpiles of such weapons even after the Soviet Union collapsed.

Now we see the likes of Iran scrabbling to get enough uranium processed, ( concentrated ), to be able to build a nuclear weapon - and this progress now seems unstoppable.

Even more stable states like Pakistan, ( seen as Western allies ), have recently also been seen by a powerful Harvard think-tank as insecure enough to not be able to guarantee that some of it's nuclear arsenal will not get into the hands of international terrorists.

See This: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/12/pakistan-nuclear-weapons-security-fears

I worry that as time goes by and more and more countries get this technology it is only a matter of time until some group of lunatic extremists get their hands on a transportable nuke.

Am I just being paranoid here or do you folks think that there might a possibility of this happening in the future ?

[John]

Russia was the Country that once was portrayed as unstable when  it came to nuclear matters.

It appears that you have taken the propaganda on these matters, hook line and bunker.

There is no Country liable to wage war and bomb places to bits as the US. With the UK in tow.

Obviously those wars must be waged on Countries that have no real defences, armed
forces to speak of. They must have the appearance of David's.



 

[Papaumau]

I think you miss the point here John !

I am not talking about mutually assured destruction or ( MAD ) - as it was called during the cold war, no, I am talking about small and unstable countries that don't give a damn about what would happen if one of these transportable nukes, ( often called suitcase nukes ), is deployed in a Western city.

The more countries that get this capability the greater the chance that EVENTUALLY it will be stolen by a terrorist state or group and set off where we live.

I don't even think it is a case of IF, I think it is a  case of WHEN.

[cheddar-caveman]

A bit of paranoia here I think, and too much time on your hands so you just think up a post for the forum

[Papaumau]

"A bit paranoid" CC...maybe !

I just thought that as it IS a possibility we might, ( using the old heads here at The Pensioners Forum ), discuss the possibilities that COULD be a result of more and more unstable regimes getting their hands on nukes.

It does not matter how much we pull the duvet over our heads so that we can push the world out of our thoughts, the bad things in the world are just going to keep on happening. Not thinking about them does not make them any less liable to happen.

I know that enriched uranium cannot be made into very small nuclear weapons even if very small amounts of plutonium CAN, but I think that as there is a lot of this stuff - plutonium - still floating around the  ex-Soviet-bloc countries like Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia and around eleven others which used to house nuclear weapons in missile-silos situated there during the cold war; who has their hands on this stuff now ?

On top of this there are all of the new members of the nuclear club that are growing apace as the years go by and just like the easy-availablility of guns in low gun-law countries show lots of incidences of these weapons being used, I think that eventually one of the terrorist groups are going to get their hands on enough of the fissionable material that is floating around the world so that they too can use it to forward their evil desires.

By dismissing what I have postulated are you saying that you believe it is NEVER going to happen ?

[cheddar-caveman]

Er no! Just think there are more important things to worry about than the remote chance that some nuthead might get hold of some uranium - like Labour winning the election. A much greater threat to this country at the moment

[Papaumau]

I guess that subjects for discussion all suffer from "degrees" of importance as people value them - OR NOT !

I just think that because we have a few acute problems here in Britain at the moment that we SHOULD discuss does not mean that we should not discuss other subjects too.

I find it quite interesting and not a little irritating how some people are able to put bad memories out of their heads just because thinking about them makes them feel a bit uncomfortable.

After 9/11 and 7/7 and many of the other atrocities that we see reported across the world every day I just think that we should keep such terrorism to the fore in our minds as by remembering this stuff we also remember just how wicked these people can be if they get even half a chance.

Of course I do not mean that we should dwell on such subjects or get mindsick about them but I do feel that if we do not discuss them and keep thinking about them they are liable to happen again and again in the future.

The governments in all of the "free" countries of the West keep telling us to be vigilant about such matters but if we refuse to discuss subjects like this we are liable to get jaundiced about them and to just sleepwalk into the next terrorist attack.

I have talked about true nuclear devices beeing a possibility in the future but I have not mentioned the risk of what is now known as "dirty bombs" - which are much more easy to build and explode in populous areas.

These nasty bits of kit do not even need to have enriched uranium in them as any kind of radioactive material can be used in their manufacture. Once one of thse things has been deployed in a Western city many thousands of people down-wind of the explosian will die and be plagued by numerous cancers for the rest of their lives. ( Remember Chernoble ? ).

Then again, if these facts disturb you or anybody else too much then you can always pull the duvet over your heads again I suppose. 

[John]

In the end there are plenty of other ways apart from nuclear means of bringing mass destruction.

Those means are already in the hands of deemed unstable countries - so what is stopping them?

Surely it could not be because they have no intention of doing anything?

Lets not forget the written word. Lies passed as intelligence. The US could make a case
for making war on itself.

At least we have rid of the US Lapdogs - Blair & Brown to assist and support them on that decision.

[Papaumau]

Although I don't agree with the massive cost of renewing Trident 2, I do think that we should keep in with America. I would far rather have America as a friend than as an enemy.

John....

While I am sure that you will agree that the cold war with the Soviet bloc is now over and as such we no longer need a fast and submerged nuclear deterrent any more, I do agree with you that there are still a number of WMDs out there in the form of bacteriological and chemical weapons.

Even IF a terrorist group get their hands on a nuke, ( as this is probably going to be the only way that one will be used in anger now ), the western free countries would not know who to retaliate against with nukes in such a case.

I honestly cannot see China or India or Pakistan or even North Korea or Iran EVER using a nuclear weapon against the west as this could still ensure a ( "MAD" ) "mutually assured destruction" response.

[John]

Gas supply and Oil is the sweetness of 'good relations'.

I don't feel the US will ever be an enemy of the UK.

But we should not be led by the nose even with the promise of spoils.

[Papaumau]

I, for one, certainly agree about that !