Report: Risk of nuclear warfare rising

[Muscletang]

SOURCE

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - The world's top military powers are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms, but all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the risk of atomic warfare, a Swedish research institute said Monday.

In its annual report on military forces around the globe, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also said the rising number of nations with nuclear weapons is raising the risk such arms could be used.

"The concern is that countries are starting to see these weapons as useable, whereas during the Cold War they were seen as a deterrent," said Ian Anthony, a nuclear expert at the institute.

SIPRI for the first time counted North Korea among the world's nuclear countries, because of its underground test explosion of an atomic device last October. While saying it remains unclear whether the communist country has developed a deliverable nuclear weapon, the institute estimated North Korea could have produced about six nuclear bombs, based on its stockpiles of plutonium.

Iran is a potential member of the nuclear club if it decides to turn its uranium enrichment program to military use, Anthony said — something the U.S. and its allies suspect is the Tehran regime's plan but Iranian leaders deny.

"Iran could appear on this list, but at the earliest five years from now," Anthony said.

The U.S., Russia, China, France, Britain, Pakistan and India are known to have nuclear weapons, while Israel is thought by most experts to have them.

The report estimated those nations had 11,530 warheads available for delivery by missile or aircraft at the start of 2007, with Russia and the United States accounting for more than 90 percent — 5,614 in Russia and 5,045 in the U.S.

Both countries are reducing their stockpiles as part of bilateral treaties, but are developing new weapons as they modernize their forces. Britain, France and China also plan to deploy new nuclear weapons, the institute said.

India, Pakistan and Israel each have dozens of warheads, but their stockpiles are believed to be only partly deployed, the institute said.

"India and Pakistan are both thought to be expanding their nuclear strike capabilities, while Israel seems to be waiting to see how the situation in Iran develops," it said.

The United States remained the world's biggest military spender last year, devoting about $529 billion to its military forces while China overtook Japan as Asia's top arms spender, the report said.

U.S. military spending grew from $505 billion in 2005 mainly because of the "costly military operations" in Iraq and Afghanistan, SIPRI said. "This massive increase in U.S. military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the U.S. economy since 2001," it said.

The U.S. was followed by Britain and France in military spending, while China's expenditures reached nearly $50 billion, making it the fourth biggest arms spender in the world, SIPRI said. Japan was fifth at $43.7 billion.

Russia, which spent $34.7 billion on arms, has used its energy wealth to revive national pride, to restore its influence "in surrounding countries and to maximize its geopolitical power," SIPRI said.

All the numbers were figured in 2005 dollars.

International arms sales have grown since 2002, with China and India being the biggest importers and the U.S. and Russia the two major exporters, the report said.

Five Middle Eastern countries were among the top 10 importers of weapons.

"While much media attention was given to arms deliveries to Iran, mainly from Russia, deliveries from the USA and European countries to Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were significantly larger," the report said.

Ego crazy penis envy countries trying to get nukes. And the problem is?

[tenguzero]

Sometimes I wish the military powers of the world would just take the shit and launch all nuclear weapons at each other in an outright bid for "my dick is bigger than yours" supremacy, or get of the pot and just agree to a complete and utter nuclear disarmament -- globally.

Seriously -- who cares if one or two rogue countries can't get over their penis envy? It's not like all the other reasonable nations of the world don't have more than enough of everything else explosive to keep them in their place until they CAN be "shown the light" and disarmed. No one will EVER launch a nuclear weapon at another country again. I really don't think the MAD approach is even feasable anymore. That kinda went by the wayside with the end of the Cold War.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by tenguzero

It's not like all the other reasonable nations of the world don't have more than enough of everything else explosive to keep them in their place until they CAN be "shown the light" and disarmed. No one will EVER launch a nuclear weapon at another country again.

You assume that everyone with nuclear weapons is rational and interested in self preservation.

That does not take into account the extremists who are anxious to become martyrs and take the rest of us with them in the process.

No, I am not talking about Islamists only. They do not have a lock on lunacy. There seems to be enough of that to go around these days.

[Muscletang]

Well here is the thing, I'm sure most countries want to disarm but just don't trust anybody.

I saw in a MAD magazine the different between genius and idiot on this matter. You're a genious if you draft a bill that has your country and another country disarm their nuclear weapons. You're an idiot though if you follow through with it and trust them to do the same.

That's the thing, it's like we have 10 people and all of them have their gun drawn. Who has the balls to drop their gun first? How do you get everybody to drop their gun at the same time? Things are a little stable right now but all it takes is an itchy trigger finger (North Korea, Iran) and all hell breaks loose.

Also, it's not as easy as just "dropping your gun" and that's it. How do you know if somebody has no nukes? The entire world may disarm one day but does that not mean a couple of countries may save one in case of a rainy day?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Things are a little stable right now but all it takes is an itchy trigger finger (North Korea, Iran) and all hell breaks

Which one of these countries has invaded another nation and displaced its governing authority in the last 5 years?

1. North Korea

2.Iran

3. YOU GET THE IDEA.

I get awfully tired of self-righteous Americans trying to tell us that the biggest threat to peace is someone else. So far, only one country has used nukes, ever.

[stieh2000]

^^^ just hit those countries with an EMP bomb, pretty hard to launch a nuke w/o any computers.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Which one of these countries has invaded another nation and displaced its governing authority in the last 5 years?

1. North Korea

2.Iran

3. YOU GET THE IDEA.

So since the U.S. invaded Iraq we're now as bad as Iran or North Korea?

Originally Posted by taranaki

I get awfully tired of self-righteous Americans trying to tell us that the biggest threat to peace is someone else. So far, only one country has used nukes, ever.

Yes we are the only country to use nukes, over 60 years ago, but if memory serves me right there was a declaration of war, Japan had not surrendered, and dropping the bombs was a better alternative to Operation Downfall.

We dropped two bombs and since then we haven't done it again. We've had nukes since the 1940s and there hasn't been a nuclear war. Yet American is the threat to peace? I seem to recall no nuclear weapons being used in Iraq.

Originally Posted by stieh2000

^^^ just hit those countries with an EMP bomb, pretty hard to launch a nuke w/o any computers.

Nuclear weapons already generate an EMP when they go off.

[Gohan Ryu]

Originally Posted by taranaki

Which one of these countries has invaded another nation and displaced its governing authority in the last 5 years?

1. North Korea

2.Iran

3. YOU GET THE IDEA.

I get awfully tired of self-righteous Americans trying to tell us that the biggest threat to peace is someone else. So far, only one country has used nukes, ever.

Do you actually believe the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is staffed by self-rightous Americans? Or are you just trolling again?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

So since the U.S. invaded Iraq we're now as bad as Iran or North Korea?

realistically, worse.

. We've had nukes since the 1940s and there hasn't been a nuclear war. Yet American is the threat to peace?

So you just shot down your own argument.Well done.You have asserted that one of the most militarily active countries in the world can develop and retain nuclear weapons for 60 years without using them. Several other nations have developed them and not used them, including enemies of the American government of the day.

Remember the U.S.S.R.? The great commie Satan that was going to rape all of our daughters and then blow us all to kindom come if we didn't get in behind the narrow-minded hatemongers of the right? They had nukes, lots of them, and all of a sudden......nothing happened.


So....why is this crock of xenophobic shit any different from the scare tactics used in the 50's, 60's and 70's?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Gohan Ryu

Do you actually believe the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is staffed by self-rightous Americans? Or are you just trolling again?

Have you actually read this thread Gohan? or do you see two regulars [one of whom does not share your views] and decide to jump in with pointless accusations of trolling?

Originally Posted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

The world's top military powers[my emphasis] are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms, but all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the risk of atomic warfare,

Originally Posted by some idiot

Ego crazy penis envy countries trying to get nukes. And the problem is?

Obviously, the thread starter has not even read the article properly, it merely suits him to use it as a platform to launch into yet another episode of his favourite argument.Too bad that the article has nothing to do with the topic that he chooses to assert.


The self-righteous American then goes on to one of his favourite arguments, despite it having absolutely no relevance to the article he quoted.

Originally Posted by some idiot

Things are a little stable right now but all it takes is an itchy trigger finger (North Korea, Iran) and all hell breaks loose.

Clearly, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is not staffed by self-rightous Americans. That does not stop such fools from seizing on their reports and trying to link them to their own ill-informed and groundless beliefs.

[Muscletang]

Warning, I am about to enter the "no spin zone".

Originally Posted by taranaki

realistically, worse.

So America is worse than North Korea and Iran. You said it, not me.

Originally Posted by taranaki

So you just shot down your own argument.Well done.

No you just twisted it.

"I get awfully tired of self-righteous Americans trying to tell us that the biggest threat to peace is someone else. So far, only one country has used nukes, ever."

You talk as if it's America that's the unstable one right now that could blow the world up because we're the only ones to use nukes. It was over 60 years ago, like I said. What argument is shot down? None.

Originally Posted by taranaki

So....why is this crock of xenophobic shit any different from the scare tactics used in the 50's, 60's and 70's?

Who says anything about xenophobic? We have Iran who publicly talks about wanting to take Israel off the map and then reveils they're trying to get nuclear weapons.

We then have North Korea whom we've already been to war with once. They're not to far from many American soldiers stationed in South Korea. Hell they don't need a rocket or plane, they can catapult the things at us.

You may ask what the difference is between them and Russia, well for one these guys are a little off their rocker. I seriously believe they would enter a fight and as long as they could get the other guys, they wouldn't care if they went down as well. Russia on the other hand didn't want to get blown up.

Originally Posted by taranaki

Obviously, the thread starter has not even read the article properly, it merely suits him to use it as a platform to launch into yet another episode of his favourite argument.Too bad that the article has nothing to do with the topic that he chooses to assert.

Just what is my favorite argument?

Also, I don't think you read the article.

"In its annual report on military forces around the globe, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute also said the rising number of nations with nuclear weapons is raising the risk such arms could be used.

"The concern is that countries are starting to see these weapons as useable, whereas during the Cold War they were seen as a deterrent," said Ian Anthony, a nuclear expert at the institute."

So from this it says more countries are getting nukes and that they can be seen as usable. What countries are getting nuclear weapons? Well for starters North Korea and Iran. What countries can been seen using these weapons? Well, North Korea and Iran for starters.

Now I'll ask you a question. Lets just say that tomorrow, Iran and North Korea both get nuclear weapons and have a means to launch them 6,000 miles in any direction. Would you not be just a little worried?

Originally Posted by taranaki

The self-righteous American then goes on to one of his favourite arguments, despite it having absolutely no relevance to the article he quoted.

That is?

Originally Posted by taranaki

Clearly, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute is not staffed by self-rightous Americans. That does not stop such fools from seizing on their reports and trying to link them to their own ill-informed and groundless beliefs.

I just pointed out in the article how it talks about new countries getting these weapons and the threat rising as such countries seeing them as usualbe.

Of course I can see that doesn't matter. When a person goes on to mud slinging the validity of the argument goes down.

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

You may ask what the difference is between them and Russia, well for one these guys are a little off their rocker. I seriously believe they would enter a fight and as long as they could get the other guys, they wouldn't care if they went down as well. Russia on the other hand didn't want to get blown up.

Your comparison of N. Korea with Russia is very interesting. I wanted to point this out:

Like Russia/USSR, the US Government is also painting N.Korea as something sinister. How easy it is! N.Korea is also behind an iron curtain, communists, publicly against US foreign policy and lead a life and culture the West doesn't understand. Oh, that and they have firepower aimed at US troops (who are in S.Korea).

Now can I point out it was only well into the ending phases of the Cold War that the West and the US realised that Russia was not "off their rocker". After they resumed diplomacy with the USSR i.e. the fall of the Berlin Wall and breaking up of the USSR etc, did the USA propaganda machine run out of bullcrap and people suddenly realised, oh hang on, these Russians aren't so different from us.

Now taking all this into account, I find it ludacris to suggest that you would think "Russia on the other hand didn't want to get blown up."

Who the FUCK in their right mind wants to or see their country "get blown up"?

Are the N.Koreans right to be doing what they are doing? Probably not.

But for a country like American, whose historical roots lie in fleeing from persecution and protecting oneself and having the "right to bear arms", I find it amazing that some Americans can't understand why countries like Iran and N.Korea want nuclear weapons! They are both countries that, yes, have very radical ideals; I don't agree with them, and obviously most nations don't. So with that much hate for them in the world, is it at all a surprise they want to be armed to the teeth?

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Like Russia/USSR, the US Government is also painting N.Korea as something sinister. How easy it is! N.Korea is also behind an iron curtain, communists, publicly against US foreign policy and lead a life and culture the West doesn't understand. Oh, that and they have firepower aimed at US troops (who are in S.Korea).

Painting them as sinister? Just do a google search on "North Korea human rights" and you'll find your answer.

Concentration camps
Camp 22 Hoeryong concentration camp
North Korea is testing new chemical weapons on women and children
re-education centers
starvation
malnutrition
media and global blackouts

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Now taking all this into account, I find it ludacris to suggest that you would think "Russia on the other hand didn't want to get blown up."

Who the FUCK in their right mind wants to or see their country "get blown up"?

Here is how I see it, Kim Jong-il is a nutcase. If he tortures and kills his own people, seeing them get the bomb dropped on them wouldn't affect him the way I see it.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

I find it amazing that some Americans can't understand why countries like Iran and N.Korea want nuclear weapons! They are both countries that, yes, have very radical ideals; I don't agree with them, and obviously most nations don't. So with that much hate for them in the world, is it at all a surprise they want to be armed to the teeth?

Maybe if they didn't go and actually try to generate a buzz people probably wouldn't mind.

If I have a country and come out and say "Australia should be destroyed and whipped off the map" then it'll cause an outrage.

One year later I admit I'm trying to develope nuclear weapons. What would you think?

The same thing is happening between Israel and Iran, North Korea and South Korea/Japan.

[Right_LiRrr]

Please clarify: is your beef with the N.Koreans or Kim Jong Il? Because imo, there is a big difference.

If you look at the N.Korean people, the ones who haven't been brainwashed by the dictator, are the same as the Koreans living in South Korea - people who just want a better life. But in the case of the N.Koreans, there's a tiny hurdle.

But my main point still stands, if you threaten a country, this is how they react. Who is right and who is wrong is irrelevant when both sides have nukes.

And you know what, look up China and Human Rights on google and see what you get. You don't see the Western world painitng the same picture of China to the rest of world - well, not anymore since we in the West realised they were vital to the future of all our economies. So don't even try to start with the human rights stuff.

Yes it's terrible what Kim Jong Il does to his own citizens - but it's got nothing to do with this debate about nuclear weapons. If the N.Koreans just hated Americans or Australians or whoever for whatever reason, and the West painted this picture of them that we have now, they would still be trying to get nukes.

It comes back to the same story, you try to destroy our sovereignty, and we're gonna fight back. In this case in our modern world, a nuke is much easier than 5 aircraft carriers and 2 million tanks. You can develop nukes in secret and they do more damage.

Oh and this b"buzz" you speak of, has it got anything to do with the phrase "axis of evil". Hmm...was it the N.Koreans who started that "buzz"?

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Please clarify: is your beef with the N.Koreans or Kim Jong Il? Because imo, there is a big difference.

I don't have a "beef" with North Koreans. If it's Kim Jong Il though then yeah I do. I seriously believe this guy is a threat. The same can be said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Are the people of these countries a threat? No. Are the leaders? Yes.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

And you know what, look up China and Human Rights on google and see what you get.

tiananmen square
Falun Gong

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

You don't see the Western world painitng the same picture of China to the rest of world - well, not anymore since we in the West realised they were vital to the future of all our economies. So don't even try to start with the human rights stuff.

Hey I know it's not right. We're not the only ones though, look at the International Olympic Committe.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Yes it's terrible what Kim Jong Il does to his own citizens - but it's got nothing to do with this debate about nuclear weapons. If the N.Koreans just hated Americans or Australians or whoever for whatever reason, and the West painted this picture of them that we have now, they would still be trying to get nukes.

I think it paints a picture. If a country has all this crap going on then you worry if they're trying to get nuclear weapons. You can bring up Guantanamo bay for the U.S. Is it bad? Yes. The U.S. doesn't have concetration camps set up all over the place.

As for China, it's hypocritical. Wish we'd cut ties with them. We won't though because we like the cheap commie labor. Sounds like we're fucking ourselves in the ass if you ask me.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Oh and this b"buzz" you speak of, has it got anything to do with the phrase "axis of evil". Hmm...was it the N.Koreans who started that "buzz"?

Nope.

I've heard Korean War stories from some of my family members. I seriously don't want a couple of my friends stationed over there to go through the same stories.