Sign in to follow this  
AJ Oliver

Help Abolish nuclear weapons

Recommended Posts

So this is a "go fund me" .

Could you please explain what VFP hope to achieve  with this trip other than a symbolic representative cohort of US veterans turning up to bow their heads at the anniversary of Hiroshima?

Don't get me wrong, I regularly turn up to demonstrations as a symbolic representative of this cause or that..But while I'd love to go to Japan I don't ask others to pay for my trip. 

Is this boat planning on taking on Nuclear armed boats in the pacific like Sea Shepherd does Japanese Whalers ? (Or indeed as The Golden Rule attempted in the late 50's according to the Projects website)

Pardon my skepticism but this looks like a "Please help me fix my boat and I'll wave to Hiroshima for you" deal.

You sure it's VFP approved? I ask because for example. Change.org have many such appeals with a disclaimer that they are not official.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

 Meli hit it dead on - a lot cheaper to just fly to Hiroshima.

Well not exactly. It depends on what the crew and skipper intend to do once there. Represent VFP and speak at some forum perhaps?

I'm not knocking the project, just trying to find out what they are up to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry,  but the USA will never give up its weapons, be they to defend their person with a small firearms, or their military ability to destroy entire nations.

Next dream ? 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, atyourcervix said:

what happens when we give up all our nukes and Iran gets a bunch?

Trump will claim that he's made a wonderful deal, the best, and now we're much much safer from Iran

Bigly

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Send the first peace vessel across the blue Pacific 

(this is a non-profit venture, but if the mods think we should buy an ad, we will do so cheerfully) 

http://www.vfpgoldenruleproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-02-12-eBlast-from-Constant-Contact-1.pdf

Um.

 No.

This looks like a bunch of wannabes who want other people to pay for their transpacific voyage.

 A good intention, but no means of meeting a goal.

 Sailing across the pacific in a wooden yacht, isn't going to do squat about denuclearization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are you at getting the toothpaste back in the tube?

Nukes are with us until something more destructive comes along.

Time you got used to it.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

How are you at getting the toothpaste back in the tube?

Nukes are with us until something more destructive comes along.

Time you got used to it.

Yep.

I can't think, offhand, of *any* technology that once invented has been summarily discarded. Superceded & then obsolete, sure, but nobody has made an un-invention machine.

Countries that have nukes aren't going to give them up. Fact of current existence.

Try something simple to work up to it - maybe Canute was wrong, give that a go, see how you get on.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

How are you at getting the toothpaste back in the tube?

Nukes are with us until something more destructive comes along.

Time you got used to it.

I think perhaps the aim is to leave that technology  in a locked cupboard and throw away the key.

Naysayers produce nothing and have no value to innovation.

We have successfully restricted or prohibited the legal use of many many things and or practices to the point where practice or demand and manufacture is not viable

Naysayers are responsible for millions of avoidable deaths.

Don't be a naysayer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I think perhaps the aim is to leave that technology  in a locked cupboard and throw away the key.

Naysayers produce nothing and have no value to innovation.

We have successfully restricted or prohibited the legal use of many many things and or practices to the point where practice or demand and manufacture is not viable

OK, list them. They have to be tech that every country in the world has agreed to restrict/eliminate, AND ACTUALLY DONE IT.

I'll wait.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have to be anything. Do you expect everyone to jump to your command? Fuck off.:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good questions, and some less good. 

Yes, the Golden Rule is an official project of Veterans For Peace. Since her rebuild in 2015 she has voyaged the US and Canadian west coasts for peace and nuclear abolition. I was honored to be among the crew of the first post-rebuild voyage from Eureka CA to San Diego. 

The Rule was the direct granny of Greenpeace - through Marie Bohlen who was part of both projects. 

The Rule was an important part of the successful effort to ban atmospheric testing - last one was by France in 1980 or so. 

There is an robust international movement to ban nukes, a treaty to do so has already been ratified by dozens of nations. Vets for Peace is part of ICAN - they are doing great work. 

https://www.icanw.org/    You ought to read up on them before spouting off. 

You cannot succeed if you do not try - as I wrote in the enews we owe it to our kids and grandkids to do so. 

(The US has already destroyed its stocks of chemical weapons, and until Trump stopped deploying land mines.) 

Do you really trust Trump's finger on the button? I sure don't. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yep.

I can't think, offhand, of *any* technology that once invented has been summarily discarded. Superceded & then obsolete, sure, but nobody has made an un-invention machine.

Countries that have nukes aren't going to give them up. Fact of current existence.

Try something simple to work up to it - maybe Canute was wrong, give that a go, see how you get on.

FKT

The US is univenting nuclear weapons as we speak, because the capability to design, develop and produce nuclear weapons in the US decreases every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

How are you at getting the toothpaste back in the tube?

Nukes are with us until something more destructive comes along.

Time you got used to it.

You want the good news or the bad news?

The good news, nukes are on the way out. Pinpoint accuracy weapons are better at disabling an enemy than blasting the whole countryside and leaving it poisoned for millenia. Nukes however are a great emotional club to wield, when the point is to extort other countries.

The toothpaste isn't going back into the tube, it's just going to lay around and harden in little crusts around poorer, less stable, countries. Which is what the USA is becoming............

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

We have successfully restricted or prohibited the legal use of many many things and or practices to the point where practice or demand and manufacture is not viable

name three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in the mid-80s, Gorbachev and Reagan bantered back and forth on ridding the world of nukes.  Both wanted to do it but the military of both countries were firmly against it. 

The immediate reaction in Washington to Reagan's desire to rid the world of nukes was met with a "We've been trying to do that since the 40s.  It will never happen" attitude. 

And then there was the trust issue.  If trust was an issue with Gorbachev, who was light years away from Putin in terms of supporting democracy, how could we hope to accomplish now what couldn't be accomplished then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

No weapon ever invented has been given up and eliminated.

Nope - as mentioned above, chemical weapons. And the trebuchet? 

https://www.npr.org/2019/03/23/706143989/last-u-s-chemical-weapons-stockpile-set-to-be-destroyed

And anti-personnel land mines are on the way out . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

name three.

Napalm, Mustard gas, spike pits. all legally banned.

13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

We have successfully restricted or prohibited the legal use of many many things and or practices to the point where practice or demand and manufacture is not viable

 

image.jpeg.5ebf1ba6aa2b9207a251a528c6c7f390.jpeg

 

As an aside.

Germany is banning it's coal industry

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-18/australia-climate-how-germany-is-closing-down-its-coal-industry/11902884

Whereas the subject is nuclear, your objections really seem to be about protesting. (and FKT)

Protest works as much as it doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Saorsa said:

No weapon ever invented has been given up and eliminated.

how very profound.

Image result for catapult

or perhaps you could mention tiny canons?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Some good questions, and some less good. 

Yes, the Golden Rule is an official project of Veterans For Peace. Since her rebuild in 2015 she has voyaged the US and Canadian west coasts for peace and nuclear abolition. I was honored to be among the crew of the first post-rebuild voyage from Eureka CA to San Diego. 

The Rule was the direct granny of Greenpeace - through Marie Bohlen who was part of both projects. 

The Rule was an important part of the successful effort to ban atmospheric testing - last one was by France in 1980 or so. 

There is an robust international movement to ban nukes, a treaty to do so has already been ratified by dozens of nations. Vets for Peace is part of ICAN - they are doing great work. 

https://www.icanw.org/    You ought to read up on them before spouting off. 

You cannot succeed if you do not try - as I wrote in the enews we owe it to our kids and grandkids to do so. 

(The US has already destroyed its stocks of chemical weapons, and until Trump stopped deploying land mines.) 

Do you really trust Trump's finger on the button? I sure don't. 

Thanks, but I really wanted to know what the plans are once they get to Hiroshima. I dont mind actively participating in and donating to peace protests, anti Nuclear protest, climate change protests and workers rights protests, but I do like to see some practical application of the raised funds.

There's no time left for tokenism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

They don't have to be anything. Do you expect everyone to jump to your command? Fuck off.:rolleyes:

IOW, you pulled some pious hope out of your rectal orifice and posted it here as fact. As usual.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poison gas has NOT been eliminated. It was not used in WW II because all sides had seen how horrible it was in WW I and had enough of it stocked up to make the other side decline to use it. AFAIK the only people gassed in WW II were either in concentration camps or were around an Allied ship in Italy that got bombed and released some of its mustard gas cargo what was presumably going to go sit someplace and scare the Germans into not using theirs. Iraq and Syria both have been recent uses of gas on mainly their own people.
Chemical warfare is not a thing between major powers because of the doctrine that gas = WMD and a WMD attack would be met with a WMD response. WMDs include nukes, so the calculus was you gas us and we nuke you. It has worked so far.

As far as nukes go, if I could magically make them all vanish, would I just be making the world safe for another conventional world war :o??

I'll start with we could get by with about 1/4 of the ones we now have and I would concentrate on ridding the world of anything that looks like a first strike weapon, tactical weapon, low yield weapon, or anything else that has any purpose whatsoever other than discouraging others from using nukes. Right now nuking the USA is a losing game unless you can take out every single deployed boomer at once and every land based ICBM too. We seem to be covered and then some for the time being ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Thanks, but I really wanted to know what the plans are once they get to Hiroshima. I dont mind actively participating in and donating to peace protests, anti Nuclear protest, climate change protests and workers rights protests, but I do like to see some practical application of the raised funds.

The Golden Rule mission is to educate, and help mobilize opposition to nukes. In Hiroshima we will arrange for notable speakers as an outreach tool. 

And we'll be there to show our solidarity with the Japanese anti-nuke movement. 

And If I am there (don't know yet), I will apologize as deeply and sincerely as I am able for that infamous crime. 

Vets for Peace now has a chapter in Oz     http://ozpeacevets.blogspot.com/

(Not to suck up to you, but I enjoy your posts) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

The US is univenting nuclear weapons as we speak, because the capability to design, develop and produce nuclear weapons in the US decreases every year.

Yeah and at the same time North Korea is building new ones and improving their grasp on both the design theory and build tech with each generation.

I didn't ask if the USA was giving up the tech, I asked for examples where the entire world had agreed to abandon & forget about the tech.

After WW1 there was an agreement not to use chemical weapons in warfare. Except they got used in the Iraq-Iran war and internally by both Iraq on the Kurds and Syria on its own population, plus the tech is still well known.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

As far as nukes go, if I could magically make them all vanish, would I just be making the world safe for another conventional world war :o??

I'll start with we could get by with about 1/4 of the ones we now have and I would concentrate on ridding the world of anything that looks like a first strike weapon, tactical weapon, low yield weapon, or anything else that has any purpose whatsoever other than discouraging others from using nukes.

The US is obligated by Art. 6 of the Non-proliferation Treaty to work to abolish nukes. 

But we are "exceptional" so wtf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Poison gas has NOT been eliminated. It was not used in WW II because all sides had seen how horrible it was in WW I and had enough of it stocked up to make the other side decline to use it. AFAIK the only people gassed in WW II were either in concentration camps or were around an Allied ship in Italy that got bombed and released some of its mustard gas cargo what was presumably going to go sit someplace and scare the Germans into not using theirs. Iraq and Syria both have been recent uses of gas on mainly their own people.
Chemical warfare is not a thing between major powers because of the doctrine that gas = WMD and a WMD attack would be met with a WMD response. WMDs include nukes, so the calculus was you gas us and we nuke you. It has worked so far.

Oh yeah, I clean forgot about the Italians using mustard gas on the Ethiopians back in the 1930's.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could not a huge amount of time and money be saved just flying to Japan? I remain deeply suspicious of about every single Go Fund my Airplane or Boat to Raise Awareness of <Insert Cause Here>.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah and at the same time North Korea is building new ones and improving their grasp on both the design theory and build tech with each generation.

The US had a treaty in place with North Korea in the 1990's, but the GOPPERS blew it up. 

KInda like they blew up the Iran deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kent_island_sailor said:

 

I'll start with we could get by with about 1/4 of the ones we now have and I would concentrate on ridding the world of anything that looks like a first strike weapon, tactical weapon, low yield weapon, or anything else that has any purpose whatsoever other than discouraging others from using nukes.

 

I'll think you'd find we could "get by" with less than 1% of what we have now, but that's the direction I wish more of my generation would take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

The US is obligated by Art. 6 of the Non-proliferation Treaty to work to abolish nukes. 

But we are "exceptional" so wtf

Compare and contrast 1890-1950 to 1950-2020. I know which one I would pick and not because internet porn got invented in the latter one :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AJ Oliver said:

The US had a treaty in place with North Korea in the 1990's, but the GOPPERS blew it up. 

KInda like they blew up the Iran deal.

You assume that NK was actually going to follow through on what they agreed to. That comes squarely into the category of 'hope over experience'.

Besides they didn't agree to destroy all their tech data, manufacturing plant and shoot all their nuke scientists & engineers now did they? The knowledge base was still going to exist. All else is engineering details.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The Golden Rule mission is to educate, and help mobilize opposition to nukes. In Hiroshima we will arrange for notable speakers as an outreach tool. 

And we'll be there to show our solidarity with the Japanese anti-nuke movement. 

And If I am there (don't know yet), I will apologize as deeply and sincerely as I am able for that infamous crime. 

Vets for Peace now has a chapter in Oz     http://ozpeacevets.blogspot.com/

(Not to suck up to you, but I enjoy your posts) 

Thanks, that's good enough for me and If you are personally involved your word is good enough for me.

Small donation on the way :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Could not a huge amount of time and money be saved just flying to Japan? I remain deeply suspicious of about every single Go Fund my Airplane or Boat to Raise Awareness of <Insert Cause Here>.

Be as suspicious as you like - but whether or not you are persuaded, the Rule is a historically important vessel. 

Since you are spouting off, how about if you read around in the VFP Golden Rule Project website so you know of which you write. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

The US is obligated by Art. 6 of the Non-proliferation Treaty to work to abolish nukes. 

But we are "exceptional" so wtf

Very exceptional....:blink:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Be as suspicious as you like - but whether or not you are persuaded, the Rule is a historically important vessel. 

Since you are spouting off, how about if you read around in the VFP Golden Rule Project website so you know of which you write. 

Will do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, kent_island_sailor said:

Could not a huge amount of time and money be saved just flying to Japan? I remain deeply suspicious of about every single Go Fund my Airplane or Boat to Raise Awareness of <Insert Cause Here>.

well probably not, I don't know how many crew there are but their only asking for $30,000 and a crew of 10 would cost a tad more than that to fly to and be accommodated and fed in japan..you also get a beautiful boat restored and save carbon emissions.

Who owns the boat BTW?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much money do I need to send to be sure ? ....I'd be OK with it as long as we can replace them with Neutron bombs...they are much more practical ...and answer how could anyone stand up to China without WMD's...the approved kind :D...and what in mans history makes you believe war is not part of man and the human condition ?  Heck right here on a  internet message board persona's have been killed off by despots 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

well probably not, I don't know how many crew there are but their only asking for $30,000 and a crew of 10 would cost a tad more than that to fly to and be accommodated and fed in japan..you also get a beautiful boat restored and save carbon emissions.

Who owns the boat BTW?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5Fgp-KihIA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah and at the same time North Korea is building new ones and improving their grasp on both the design theory and build tech with each generation.

North Korea has built maybe 3-4 dozen. There’s 1/6th the number of warheads that there were in the late 1980s globally and except for a couple pariah country’s like North Korea and Iran interested in self defense nukes aren’t much use anymore. They never really were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

North Korea has built maybe a dozen. There’s 1/6th the number of warheads that there were in the late 1980s. Except for a couple pariah country’s like North Korea and Iran interested in self defense they aren’t much use anymore.

Agree because most of the countries with the tech & resources to build them already have. India & Pakistan come to mind. North Korea. Israel.

They're not much use because the first party to use one is going to get it back in spades. I don't see them as an effective offensive weapon any more.

If you don't have them, OTOH, and you attract the ire of a country that does have a big conventional military, then you're SOL. As Iraq could testify.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have recovered and restored the original peace ship, the Golden Rule, that set sail in 1958 to stop nuclear testing in the atmosphere, and which inspired the many peace makers and peace ships that followed.

That seems like a worthy goal, the boat did something of historical significance. One of the few that isn't just "I want to sail to X or fly to Y and here is my bullshit reason you should pay for it" :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

well probably not, I don't know how many crew there are but their only asking for $30,000 and a crew of 10 would cost a tad more than that to fly to and be accommodated and fed in japan..you also get a beautiful boat restored and save carbon emissions.

Who owns the boat BTW?

Just to be accurate, that is just current enroute repairs, not the entire cost of the entire trip.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Agree because most of the countries with the tech & resources to build them already have. India & Pakistan come to mind. North Korea. Israel.

They're not much use because the first party to use one is going to get it back in spades. I don't see them as an effective offensive weapon any more.

If you don't have them, OTOH, and you attract the ire of a country that does have a big conventional military, then you're SOL. As Iraq could testify.

FKT

North Korea ranks ~115th or whatever in GDP. I’d expect most any nation richer than it to be capable of developing weapons given significant will. I’d easily expect Germany, Japan, Italy, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, Australia, Spain & Mexico to be capable of development. But such programs are expensive with a poor ROI. China is much more interested in other weapons than increasing their nuclear arsenal substantially (increased 20% or so last decade)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the Ban The Bomb types here equate superseded weapons like the trebuchet and mustard gas with voluntary elimination of classes of weapons. I'm sure the Kurds will agree.

Like I said earlier - just like them, nukes will be eliminated when something bigger & better comes along.

No-one is going to take it on faith that they have been eliminated by anyone who has them - the Genie ain't going back in the bottle.

Chamberlain had a piece of paper once too.

Oh, and Trump has O/K'd land mines once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

I see the Ban The Bomb types here equate superseded weapons like the trebuchet and mustard gas with voluntary elimination of classes of weapons. I'm sure the Kurds will agree.

Like I said earlier - just like them, nukes will be eliminated when something bigger & better comes along.

No-one is going to take it on faith that they have been eliminated by anyone who has them - the Genie ain't going back in the bottle.

Chamberlain had a piece of paper once too.

Oh, and Trump has O/K'd land mines once again.

something bigger and better has come along. The NPT.

No country in the world is going to use nuclear weapons. The prohibition has held for 75 years. Why? Because even without a nuclear response the economic consequences would destroy them. We will never get rid of all nuclear weapons and nor should we. But those that exist should largely be destroyed ..like 99,9% and the rest be managed by the five "poorest" countries in the world..... and New Zealand :D

We pay them to do it and pay them well.

We now live in a global economy ,

edit  and the more I think about it, that idea from you're resident unicorn has merit.

solve wars in Africa, develop their economies, save us from ourselves and probably save us a ton of money

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:
2 hours ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

North Korea has built maybe a dozen. There’s 1/6th the number of warheads that there were in the late 1980s. Except for a couple pariah country’s like North Korea and Iran interested in self defense they aren’t much use anymore.

Agree because most of the countries with the tech & resources to build them already have. India & Pakistan come to mind. North Korea. Israel.

They're not much use because the first party to use one is going to get it back in spades. I don't see them as an effective offensive weapon any more.

If you don't have them, OTOH, and you attract the ire of a country that does have a big conventional military, then you're SOL. As Iraq could testify.

You're assuming that other countries who might have/use nuclear weapons use logic similar to yours... or use logic at all

You're also assuming that the threat of nuclear weapon use comes solely from states, from governments.

In a world where suicide bombing is a daily occurrence, I'd prefer to not bank of either of those assumptions. Keeping these kinds of playtoys out of the wrong hands is a difficult, maybe impossible, and certainly thankless, task

- DSK

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You're assuming that other countries who might have/use nuclear weapons use logic similar to yours... or use logic at all

You're also assuming that the threat of nuclear weapon use comes solely from states, from governments.

In a world where suicide bombing is a daily occurrence, I'd prefer to not bank of either of those assumptions. Keeping these kinds of playtoys out of the wrong hands is a difficult, maybe impossible, and certainly thankless, task

- DSK

Yeah but that cuts right across Jiblet's assertion that they aren't useful any more.

And you're right - I was assuming State actors with territory, cities et al to be hostages to their good (enlightened self-interest) behaviour. Frankly I don't believe that even a massively well-resourced individual can build up the expertise & equipment to manufacture a say 10 kilotonne functional nuke without detection. Possibly buy one from somewhere, sure. Perhaps in that case the punishment in kind gets visited on the seller - as I understand it the USA and others an tell the source from the mix of isotopes etc.

But note that I'm not one of those saying that nukes can or should be eliminated nor am I claiming that they're good for nothing these days. I'm merely decrying the lovely thought that one can un-invent a technology. Though I'll grant there are a few scenarios where it may be possible, but far too late to matter.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Yeah but that cuts right across Jiblet's assertion that they aren't useful any more.

And you're right - I was assuming State actors with territory, cities et al to be hostages to their good (enlightened self-interest) behaviour. Frankly I don't believe that even a massively well-resourced individual can build up the expertise & equipment to manufacture a say 10 kilotonne functional nuke without detection. Possibly buy one from somewhere, sure. Perhaps in that case the punishment in kind gets visited on the seller - as I understand it the USA and others an tell the source from the mix of isotopes etc.

But note that I'm not one of those saying that nukes can or should be eliminated nor am I claiming that they're good for nothing these days. I'm merely decrying the lovely thought that one can un-invent a technology. Though I'll grant there are a few scenarios where it may be possible, but far too late to matter.

FKT

Agreed on all points.

Nukes aren't useful to a major power with better weapons and rational goals. Doesn't that sound nice?

Unfortunately it's NOT reassuring when you look at the facts. The Taliban's connections in Pakistan could well deliver them a nuke. The Saudis could certainly buy one or build one and hand it over to one of their crazies. Or a hundred other scenarios.

I can't do anything about it so I don't lose sleep over it.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Agreed on all points.

Nukes aren't useful to a major power with better weapons and rational goals. Doesn't that sound nice?

Unfortunately it's NOT reassuring when you look at the facts. The Taliban's connections in Pakistan could well deliver them a nuke. The Saudis could certainly buy one or build one and hand it over to one of their crazies. Or a hundred other scenarios.

I can't do anything about it so I don't lose sleep over it.

- DSK

I live on a small island off a bigger island in the Southern Hemisphere.....

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kent_island_sailor said:

China has figured out no one cares if you nuke them once or 100 times, they save their money for other things.

Lately they have been spending the money producing better ways to deliver those nukes, or conventional warheads.

 

 

ahh yes the “we don’t fucking matter, we’ll come out ok from a nuclear exchange “logic””

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Who owns the boat BTW?

The Rule is owned by Vets For Peace - she is in no way a recreational vessel (such as, for example, my spiffy S2 7.9 

Lots of errors above. In no particular order . . . 

Lots of countries could build nukes, and some have cancelled active nuke weapons projects - Argentina, South Korea, South Africa. Germany, Japan, and a number of others could build them in short order. Trump just transferred key technology to Saudi, and they may be going down that road. Most civilized countries have figured out the huge costs involved - environmental, psych, and $ for openers (US has around $ 7 TRILLION into it since 1945. 

And this makes no sense whatsoever . . . 

4 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

You assume that NK was actually going to follow through on what they agreed to. That comes squarely into the category of 'hope over experience'.

You argue that a treaty the US took years to develop, and which was working, should be broken by the US  itself because the country they had the deal with would not follow it. 

Putting my non-jingoist hat on here, I have to ask . .  Which of those two countries (US or NK) has the better record of honoring treaties it signs? 

Same issue with the Iran non-deal. 

And there is the infrastructure designed and in place to police a global nuke testing halt. The seismic detectors are in place and operating. 

And lots of you assume that nation-states are rational actors. But . . . Trump?  Seriously? 

Why are so many of you so downright fatalistic? For millennia it was thought, and argued by the Very Important People, that the subjugation of women and slavery would always be with us - a part of our "natures". 

But we are proving them wrong, are we not?  Get off you fat butts. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AJ Oliver said:

You argue that a treaty the US took years to develop, and which was working, should be broken by the US  itself because the country they had the deal with would not follow it.

Sorry, not arguing anything of the kind.

I'm ASSERTING that NK had a long and inglorious history of breaking/ignoring treaties any time it suited them to do so.

You're claiming that the US record is worse, not arguing that point, it's irrelevant.

Would NK have kept their word had the USA not abrogated their side first? It's nice that you think so, but contrary to all evidence up to that point.

The fact is that NK has functional nukes and a delivery system of sorts. Despite the Non-proliferation treaty. With a lot of help from Pakistan, developed also despite the NPT. And now both can provide expertise & materiel to other countries. Iran for example.

And you want us to believe you can put the genie back in the bottle.

Call me a fatalist if you like, I prefer realist. I grew up during the Cold War, the thought of even limited nuclear weapon use isn't anything new. The way the USA has used & abused its conventional military forces is a damn good encouragement for medium sized nations to acquire nukes, quite frankly, so you'll stay home. And then there's China and its current expansionist trend.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

how very profound.

Image result for catapult

or perhaps you could mention tiny canons?

 

300px-60mm_mortar_round_being_launch_(cr

Throwing a bomb is still around.  The energy source is changed.

41X5Y1N6GWL._AC_.jpg

You can have it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Sorry, not arguing anything of the kind.

I'm ASSERTING that NK had a long and inglorious history of breaking/ignoring treaties any time it suited them to do so.

You're claiming that the US record is worse, not arguing that point, it's irrelevant.

You are indeed "asserting", but w/o any evidence. 

What treaties has NK violated? 

What treaties has the US violated?  

Not to be a NK apologist, but there really is no comparison. 

I think I'm being sorta charitable here since your claim that most nations that can build nukes have done so . .  

is off the wall. 

Read widely and think deeply before you post. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the cold war would have turned hot in their absence?

Hell, even with them it came to a razor edge more than once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the cold war would have turned hot in their absence?

Hell, even with them it came to a razor edge more than once.

I don't think that anyone can deny the deterrent effect, while still hoping for no more to be dropped. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SloopJonB said:

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the cold war would have turned hot in their absence?

Hell, even with them it came to a razor edge more than once.

Yeah, thought I'd made that point.

Even possession of a small handful of relatively low powered nukes is sufficient to deter attacks from the most heavily armed nation on the planet.

Then there's India and Pakistan - might be occasional flareups (Kashmir) but nobody really wants it to escalate. Though I'd put nothing past the Pakistanis if they thought they could use a catspaw and not have it come home to them.

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to mooching in the name of a futile gesture, I draw the line at Rimas. 
 

Sorry A.J.  You’re an insufferable prick who desperately tries to equate everyone who votes Republican to being a Nazi. Because of that I will never, ever, donate to a cause you’re pushing. Perhaps if a better person had tried, I might have donated. 
 

You’re a hate filled man and have no place on a peace delegation, let alone one you want us to pay for. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Monkey said:

When it comes to mooching in the name of a futile gesture, I draw the line at Rimas. 
 

Sorry A.J.  You’re an insufferable prick who desperately tries to equate everyone who votes Republican to being a Nazi. Because of that I will never, ever, donate to a cause you’re pushing. Perhaps if a better person had tried, I might have donated. 
 

You’re a hate filled man and have no place on a peace delegation, let alone one you want us to pay for. 

Fuck off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Fuck off.

Found me that list of un-invented technologies yet?

FKT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Fuck off.

Seems to be your standard reply.

As for someone who equates anyone with a different idea with being a Nazi, they can take your advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mid said:

Goal post shift. I wasn't the one making the claim, I was the one challenging the possibility of any such thing happening. Meli has dropped the subject like a hot rock, as per usual when someone asks her to back up one of her 'I wish it were so therefore it is' claims.

FKT

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Found me that list of un-invented technologies yet?

FKT

de invented?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

de invented?

Not really a word as the concept is impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the cold war would have turned hot in their absence?

Hell, even with them it came to a razor edge more than once.

It's definitely shifted the theater.

Instead of invading and shooting, the strategy is to fund insurgents and try and foment rebellion from within.  I was watching an article describing the war between Egypt and Ethopia that's being fought over the Nile dam project basically through proxies.  I had no clue it was even going on.

One of the big downsides is that it use to be 'more definitive' to 'win'.  You beat the other guy to death or submission and started over.  Now, these processes take years and even decades to resolve, if ever. Its better than nuclear holocaust - but I'm not sure it's THAT much better if you happen to live in a region that's being contested.  It also means places like North Korea exist.. forever?

The next big thing is going to be when something like SpaceX's Satellite internet is deployed and it becomes even more difficult to censor communications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

For punkin chunkin?

His is gravity launched, the weight is sling attached so it gives a cam-like whip at the end of the throw - fuggin' think will move a pumpkin thru the air.   We practiced with all kinds of stuff - melons, bags of potatoes ( once - the bag split open and the damn things scattered like schrapnel).  He's not competed recently, so the thing's sitting behind his garage in Bel Air, MD. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

Fuck off.

Your dog bite you or something? For someone who works in a place full of words you seem to be lacking them lately :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

One thing that no-one has mentioned here is that nukes have had one major success - they put an end to large scale war.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that the cold war would have turned hot in their absence?

Hell, even with them it came to a razor edge more than once.

What it has done is outsource wars to the third world. Everyone picks a side, gives them some weapons, and then sits back to see how they all work. Ever notice Nicaragua stopped their civil war about 20 minutes after the USSR dissolved and quit paying their share and then the CIA decided if the KGB won't pay, neither will we. War kind of sucks if you have to pay for it yourself :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:
3 hours ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

For punkin chunkin?

His is gravity launched, the weight is sling attached so it gives a cam-like whip at the end of the throw - fuggin' think will move a pumpkin thru the air.   We practiced with all kinds of stuff - melons, bags of potatoes ( once - the bag split open and the damn things scattered like schrapnel).  He's not competed recently, so the thing's sitting behind his garage in Bel Air, MD. 

I designed a gravity-powered catapult... a trebuchet... using a cam to connect the weight to the arm, so the throwing tip velocity increased exponentially. Should have patented it, although I've seen some similar concepts I still haven't seen anything quite like it. The test model had a 14" arm and threw a one-pound weight so far out of my yard that I suspended testing. The full size version keeps getting put off to a "one of these days" project.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

I designed a gravity-powered catapult... a trebuchet... using a cam to connect the weight to the arm, so the throwing tip velocity increased exponentially. Should have patented it, although I've seen some similar concepts I still haven't seen anything quite like it. The test model had a 14" arm and threw a one-pound weight so far out of my yard that I suspended testing. The full size version keeps getting put off to a "one of these days" project.

- DSK

You might have seen this, but, I still like watching it: 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Gissie said:

Not really a word as the concept is impossible.

The whole point.

Very succinct of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Its better than nuclear holocaust - but I'm not sure it's THAT much better if you happen to live in a region that's being contested.  It also means places like North Korea exist.. forever?

It's better than things like WW II.

Nothing has since come close.

Because of nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

 

Punkin Chunkin is the only event I have seen that has as many people laughing as figure eight trailer racing.

Some of those people are nuts though. Essentially devoting your life to building machines to toss pumpkins seems a tad trivial somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites