NK apparently got its nuclear capability with the help of Pakistan and, well, us. I think Iran is in the same boat, but got it's plant from, if memory serves, Germany. Both got nuclear reactors and components from the west. Perhaps one way of deterrent would be to quit giving countries certain parts?
NK has a thriving arms export business. Not totally positive, but I think it's their main source of income. Dovetailing on the previous point, I think NK would be more than happy to sell, if not a working bomb, sell parts, expertise and fissile material to other persons who want to build a bomb, which is bad, bad, bad.
OSC also didn't mention the 'dirty nuke'. From what I understand this is the biggest nuclear threat.
With that in mind, I think the main issue right now is making sure all possible sources of plutonium are guarded to the nth degree; that the transport and use of those materials is monitored and guarded.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Perhaps one way of deterrent would be to quit giving countries certain parts?
I believe the idea was "we'll give you nuclear technology if you promise not to make bombs with it and let us inspect." Don't know how smart that was, but that was the idea.
OSC kind of got hosed by bad timing on the Iran issue - a new national intelligence estimate puts the likely timeframe for them achieving a nuclear bomb at 10 years now.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The dirty bomb hardly qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction; if set off in, say, downtown Manhattan, it would kill a few thousand people over a period of years (plus however many died in the explosion.) In a way, it's a very humane weapon : People wouldn't act rationally, because they're superstitious about radiation, so they'd evacuate Manhattan, causing vast dislocation and costing enormous sums; but there would be relatively few deaths.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that's a huge generalization, depending on the amount of plutonium in the device, people in the area, exposure, etc.
Also, I think evacuation of Manhattan and the resultant panic would further be a mass destruction of finance at least and, thus, U.S. infrastructure.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A dirty nuke would have to have a lot more radioactive material than a working nuke in order to be particularly deadly; spread out even over a few hundred feet, the nuclear material from a standard bomb might be the equivalent of a strong x-ray.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have access to actual plutonium, using it in a dirty bomb is a bit of a waste; I was thinking of more run-of-the-mill radioactives like cesium. Plutonium is probably more efficient as a chemical than as a radioactive, anyway; incredibly tiny doses of it are deadly.
I do feel that 'weapon of mass financial destruction' is kind of stretching the concept.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've long held the idea that the prominent religious beliefs of a nation have had a lot to do with the "success" of Mutually Assured Destruction.
It goes like this, and it is a vast generalization. Western nuclear powers like the US, UK and France are predominantly Christian nations. Their belief system says that there is only one shot at this life and when it is over, you have to be held accountable for your sins. Pop a nuke and life may be over and you'll have a ton of explaining to do.
For Communist nations, which ostensibly push for atheism, well, when life is over, its over -- no takebacks. It's a one-trip pony and it's awfully hard to push that button and yell "Game Over!" when it's the only game in town.
What worried me greatly was when India and Pakistan developed nukes. India, mostly Hindi, adheres to a faith that espouses reincarnation. The game's not up when this life ends, you either move into the bonus round or the penalty box for a bit. The end of life as it's known might not be as big of a deterrent for someone with this mindset.
And for Pakistan, which is home to some radical, fundamentalist Islamic people, might have someone with their hand on the button who could view the end as having a reward for them, especially if the nuke is used against the infidels and despoilers of the faith.
Those two scare me quite a bit, but we're fairly blessed that their delivery systems are pretty much UPS at this point.
But when you move to North Korea ... the state religion is a cult of personality and when Kim says it's time to go, he must be right. In his mind, the world begins and ends with him. He could simply let fly because, well, he's tired of all of this. Or because of some perceived slight. Or to settle a score cooked up in his, admittedly fractured mind.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
