 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Owulezi
Joined: Apr 4, 2006
Posts: 438 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Imo
City: Owerri
|
What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
February 22, 2007 - 08:17 AM
|
|
Nuclear matters has been the top agenda this days; I forseen God doing nothing to distroy His hand made which is the world and it fullness, but people themselves can damage the environs with their own inventions and inproper use of it.
[link="http://www.nci.org/nci-nt.htm "]
How do you see this challenge facing our world today?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
manosijm
Joined: Feb 16, 2007
Posts: 80 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 24
Country: Canada
Province/State: Quebec
City: Montréal
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
February 22, 2007 - 10:54 AM
|
|
The challenge is there only because we make it so. I am confident that a nuclear device will not be used in South Asia. Also, DPRK realise that a nuclear deployment on their part will only make them lose in what is an unbalanced war.
As for Iran, I believe the trick is to engage them in dialogue. I also believe the EU and Russia ought look into the matter, without letting American hotheadedness get in the way.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Hayk
Joined: Dec 20, 2005
Posts: 964 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
 Virtual Volunteer
Country: Egypt
Province/State: Al Qahirah
City: Al Qahirah
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
February 22, 2007 - 02:14 PM
|
|
At no point since the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945, has humanity been closer to the unthinkable, a nuclear holocaust which could potentially spread, in terms of radioactive fallout, over a large part of the Middle East.
All the safeguards of the Cold War era, which categorized the nuclear bomb as "a weapon of last resort" have been scrapped. "Offensive" military actions using nuclear warheads are now described as acts of "self-defense".
The distinction between tactical nuclear weapons and the conventional battlefield arsenal has been blurred. America's new nuclear doctrine is based on "a mix of strike capabilities". The latter, which specifically applies to the Pentagon's planned aerial bombing of Iran, envisages the use of nukes in combination with conventional weapons.
As in the case of the first atomic bomb, which in the words of President Harry Truman "was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base", today's "mini-nukes" are heralded as "safe for the surrounding civilian population".
Known in official Washington, as "Joint Publication 3-12", the new nuclear doctrine (Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations , (DJNO) (March 2005)) calls for "integrating conventional and nuclear attacks" under a unified and "integrated" Command and Control (C2).
...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060222&articleId=2032
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Anu maheshwari
Joined: Jun 14, 2005
Posts: 1148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Virtual Volunteer
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
February 23, 2007 - 01:23 PM
|
|
The youth should be motivated enough to denounce Nukes....
and stand against their respective govts for acquiring nukes or wasting tax money on upgrading the arsenal
Instead of celebrating the acquisition of Nukes or more weapons we should be mourning 
check this out !!!!!!!!!!!!!
[link="http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/01/17_ward_clock.htm"]
[i]Doomsday Clock Reset for an Alarming World
Global warming, new nuclear perils shift symbolic hand
by Olivia Ward, January 17, 2007
Be afraid. Be more afraid.
For the first time in five years, the elite board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the minute hand on their Doomsday Clock closer to the fatal hour of midnight.
The clock – a symbol of the perils facing the human race – is expected to shift two minutes, from the current seven minutes to midnight to five, a figure the Bulletin would not confirm before its news conference today.
"This is a sober and highly alarming judgment by a group of people who are knowledgeable and experienced," said Nobel laureate John Polanyi, a faculty member in the University of Toronto's chemistry department.
"The most immediate hazard we face is also the most easily addressed, namely the thousands of nuclear-armed weapons aimed at Russia and the United States, and left pointlessly in a state of high alert. The fact that they are is an appalling failure to step back from the brink."
The clock, which hangs in the University of Chicago, was first set 60 years ago to focus on the danger of nuclear weapons. But for the first time it will take into account the perils posed by global warming, which has sparked renewed interest in building nuclear power plants.
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded by former Manhattan Project scientists who turned against nuclear weapons after developing the first atomic bomb.
"The major new step reflects growing concerns about a 'Second Nuclear Age' marked by grave threats, including: nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, the continuing launch-ready status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the U.S. and Russia, escalating terrorism and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks," said a statement released before a news conference today.
The clock was first set in 1947 at seven minutes to midnight, and plunged to an all-time low of two minutes in 1953, when the United States and Soviet Union both tested hydrogen bombs.
.
........................................................................................[/i]
read on
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Prince Charles Jiduwah
Joined: May 14, 2006
Posts: 240 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Lagos
City: Lagos
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
February 25, 2007 - 01:01 PM
|
|
Global Terrorism is not just a war that will be fought on the pages on the newspapers, its a real threat to our collective lives.
With nuclear Polification in the balck market we sure have a great fight ahead. But not to worry we shall win the battle.
As we all know its a battle between the good and the evil.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Vandana
Joined: Mar 15, 2002
Posts: 33 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 21
Country: India
Province/State: Delhi
City: Delhi
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
March 1, 2007 - 02:53 AM
|
|
I think nuclear terroirm should be stopped and weapons should be used for scientific progress only.
Tanisha
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Owulezi
Joined: Apr 4, 2006
Posts: 438 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Country: Nigeria
Province/State: Imo
City: Owerri
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
March 3, 2007 - 01:04 AM
|
|
pallavi wrote:
I think nuclear terroirm should be stopped and weapons should be used for scientific progress only.
Tanisha
Is there any means or way to know/ verify and make nuclear only for scientific progress and not for weapon?*
This post was edited on: 2007-03-03 at 01:05 AM by: plato123
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 748 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 53
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: What do you think of Nuclear Terrorism we are facing today?
March 5, 2007 - 08:18 PM
|
|
I think something is missing from the discussion here. During the Cold War only a few countries had nuclear weapons, but the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" kept them from using them against each other. Each country knew it would get annihilated, if it were to first use the nuclear weapons.
Today, we are faced with Islamic terrorists whose greatest wish is to die for Islam so they can go to "paradise." It is very likely Al Quaida is working overtime right now to make a nuclear device. They recently issued a call for Muslims with "nuclear expertise" to join their cause. When they set off their first device in an American city, how will the Americans respond? Whom do we retaliate against?
I think countries like Iran or North Korea getting the nuclear bomob is bad, but at least they might be constrained by the MAD principle. It is a little hard to complain about Iran making a nuclear bomb when Israel has them and, as a previous post points out, the Bush administration is talking about using nuclear weapons in the battlefield.
I frankly don't think Al Quaida can be stopped. They are hell-bent on punishing America for its "meddling" in the Middle East. The only thing that can stop them is a concerted effort by the governments and religious authorities in the Middle Eastern countries to root them out and to issue fatwas against terrorism. Maybe a "surrender" by America might do it, too, but none of these things is going to happen.
This is probably not what you had in mind when you started the thread, but another shocking use of nuclear terrorism occurred recently, when the Russians murdered a KGB defector who had attained U.K. citizenship and was living in London. They used the highly radioactive element Polonium to poison him. Talk about "overkill." British Airways planes, apartments in Germany, restaurants in London, all had traces of the radioactive element. Many, many people were exposed to the radiation. I would call this nuclear terrorism, too.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
