Re: Confront China's Support for Iran's Nuclear Weapons.

On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:38:34 GMT, Haines Brown
<brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Aha, you have come around to this scenario where we can conduct a
sensible debate.

Not as easily as you hope. The reason is that I lack the expertise to
do so effectively.

The substance of the remainder of your post in large part is that
nuclear weapons are just like other weapons, only more destructive. I
fear you grossly underestimate the distinctive character of such
weapons. People are still dying from the effects of the bombs in Japan
and from Chenobyl, and I believe I recall discussion of the health
consequences of the test bombs in the U.S. that were covered up.

First a timely article
The unknown impact of Chernobyl
Apr 20th 2006
From The Economist print edition

ON THE eve of the 20th anniversary of the nuclear disaster at the
Chernobyl power station a row has broken out over its true human
impact. A year ago a group calling itself the Chernobyl Forum said the
accident would lead to far fewer deaths from cancer than had at first
been predicted. The Chernobyl Forum comprises a number of United
Nations agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency and
the World Health Organisation, and also the governments of Belarus,
Russia and Ukraine.…

60 years of data on the Hiroshima and Nagasaki dirty bomb have also
been less alarming than predicted. The cancer rates are no worse or
better than the general population, etc. There should be more than
enough sources on the Internet to confirm this (I don't have the time
to look them up.)

The point here is the damage and aftermath effects are not that
devastating as claimed by the anti-nuclear lobby and by the military.
If the politicians can convince in the minds of the general public
that a nuclear holocaust is unthinkable then the threat is enough to
stop starting one. Everyone will agree that this is indeed a desired
result.

My argument for down playing the destructive effects is that state
leaders should know the limitations of using nukes as a weapon to
blackmail or to actually deploy them. They aren't that effective and
cannot knock out the enemy's country. Small countries can never,
never use nuclear blackmail because they have no capacity to wage a
nuclear exchange. The very act of uttering the threat can cause the
other country (the US) to totally destroy them and justifiably so.
Iran is on the edge by claiming the right to develop nuclear arms.
But that is not the same as threatening to use them.

Nukes can knock out key targets like a hardened bunker complex, a
carrier group or an invading army. This is the extent of their
usefullness. The aggressor will hesitate to commit an expensive and
valuable force to such a venture into the victim's land. That is all
the victim wants or needs. That is all he should aim for. I think by
now we should also agree that outside nations do not have the right to
intervene in another country's internal affairs. We do have the moral
obligation to mitigate any excesses that regime might inflict on its
own people. But that is not the same as invading them and destroying
whatever little law and order they may have left. The chaos in Iraq
and Afghanistan is not the acceptable alternative to what was before.




Contrary to netiquette, I'm appending a letter I received this
yesterday from a group of people who indeed have some expertise. This
letter concerning the petition of 1800 physicists is to President
Bush:

Dear Mr. President:

Recent articles in the New Yorker and the Washington Post report that
the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran is being actively
considered by Pentagon planners and by the White House. As members of
the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, we urge
you to refrain from such an action that would have grave consequences
for America and for the world.

1800 of our fellow physicists have joined in a petition opposing new
U.S. nuclear weapons policies that open the door to the use of nuclear
weapons in situations such as Iran's. These policies represent a
"radical departure from the past," in the words of Linton Brooks,
National Nuclear Security Administration director. Indeed, since the
end of World War II, U.S. policy has considered nuclear weapons
"weapons of last resort," to be used only when the very survival of
the nation or of an allied nation was at stake, or at most in cases of
extreme military necessity. Instead, the new U.S. nuclear weapons
policies have significantly lowered the threshold for the potential
use of nuclear weapons, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they are
being considered as another tool in the toolbox to destroy underground
installations that are "too deep" to be destroyed by conventional
weapons. This is a major and dangerous shift in the rationale for
nuclear weapons. In the words of the late Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace
Prize recipient for his efforts to prevent nuclear war, "the danger of
this policy can hardly be overemphasized."

Nuclear weapons are unique among weapons of mass destruction: they
unleash the enormous energy stored in the tiny nucleus of an atom, an
energy that is a million times larger than that stored in the rest of
the atom. The nuclear explosion releases an immense amount of blast
energy and thermal and nuclear radiation, with deadly immediate and
delayed effects on the human body. Over 100,000 human beings died in
the Hiroshima blast, and nuclear weapons in today's arsenals have a
total yield of over 200,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Using or even merely threatening to use a nuclear weapon preemptively
against a non-nuclear adversary tells the 182 non-nuclear-weapon
countries signatories of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that
their adherence to the treaty offers them no protection against a
nuclear attack by a nuclear nation. Many are thus likely to abandon
the treaty, and the nuclear nonproliferation framework will be damaged
even further than it already has, with disastrous consequences for the
security of the United States and the world.

There are no sharp lines between small "tactical" nuclear weapons and
large ones, nor between nuclear weapons targeting facilities and those
targeting armies or cities. Nuclear weapons have not been used for 60
years. Once the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the
probability that others will too. In a world with many more nuclear
nations and no longer a "taboo" against the use of nuclear weapons,
there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional conflicts could
expand into global nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our
civilization.

It is gravely irresponsible for the U.S. as the greatest superpower to
consider courses of action that could eventually lead to the
widespread destruction of life on the planet. We urge you to announce
publicly that the U.S. is taking the nuclear option off the table in
the case of all non-nuclear adversaries, present or future, and we
urge the American people to make their voices heard on this matter.


I do agree with everything this esteemed group says. The onus is on
the US not to threaten to use nuclear devices to impose its will
against small counties. The US certainly won't threaten the same
against a big country (Russia, China). But if the US does use nukes
against a small country, probably because it cannot afford to mire its
ground forces in an invasion, it is not likely that Russia or China
can respond with nukes. By default the US will impose world hegemony
and of course increase world instability and the risk and
inevitability of an even bigger nuclear conflagration involving all
nuclear possessing nations. For this reason my argument that a small
country, that the US covets (for its resources), will benefit from the
possession of a nuclear bomb or two for defensive purposes (re my
previous arguments.) If the US cannot invade and regime change small
countries at will then the US will have to use normal diplomacy. That
is all the world wants.
.

Relevant Pages

  • War, War and More War is What Bush Really Wants
    ... Syria and Iran are lumped together as "allies of terror" in the 2006 ... U.S.-Israeli, military action against Iran, possibly involving nuclear ... proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations in the coming ... negotiations aimed at eliminating nuclear weapons everywhere. ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Bushs Insane First Strike Policy
    ... By the mere act of contingency planning for the first use of nuclear ... by the U.S., will seek to obtain either nuclear weapons, or some other ... The rushed announcement Tuesday by Iran that its scientists and ... It is clear from Bush policy over the past five years that nations ...
    (soc.culture.cuba)
  • Re: Images: Cindy Sheehan Protest
    ... >>> According to the CIA's report, ... U.S. government case that Iraq posed a nuclear threat. ... Saddam Hussein, more potent as an argument for war, began with weaker ... scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Images: Cindy Sheehan Protest
    ... >> that they are seeking nuclear weapons. ... Saddam Hussein, more potent as an argument for war, began with weaker ... scenes -- made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as ... speak on the record for this report about the administration's nuclear ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: The Coming War Against Iran
    ... I see so they want to use nuclear weapons against those who cannot ... The Coming War Against Iran ... > and NATO are gearing up for an attack on Iran. ...
    (soc.culture.iranian)