Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
Flare Sci-Fi Forums
»
Community
»
The Flameboard
»
Stupid Bastards
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message:
HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Baloo: [QB] As far as testing goes, I really don't think it's necessary (note that I am not a nuclear engineer. I'm going by what I've read -- every bit of it from public libraries). There are a few reasons to test nuclear weapons. [list=1] [*]To see if the darn things actually work. The U.S. knows its designs actually work, so that is no longer a valid reason. [*]To determine if a new model will actually function as designed. [*]To gather data that may be used to increase yield (bigger boom), reduce the size of the next generation of warheads, or diminish the undesirable effects of nuclear blasting (radiation, fallout, etc. [/list] As far as I know, we have computer software to handle the last two aspects of testing. What kind of treaty suits the U.S? I suppose it's one that will actually prevent proliferation and allow the U.S. to reduce the size of its stockpile while still retaining enough nukes to discourage military adventurism. What kind of treaty can do that? In my opinion, none. Any country that would abide by a non-proliferation agreement of that sort is probably going to halt testing once they understand how their nukes work well enough to design more without testing, and once they have enough data to design new warheads. Nations who won't sign (such as North Korea) will continue testing until they feel that the political gains of signing outweigh the military advantages of being able to test. No treaty will prevent nuclear proliferation. A treaty will permit foreigners (them, whoever they happen to be) to come into the mother country (us -- whether US is the U.S. or some other country) and do who knows what kind of spying. A good treaty will necessarily give the guys in charge of security fits. Any treaty that does not include provisions to detect and penalize violators is not worth the paper it's printed on. Any nation that signs such a treaty may continue testing with impunity if it is in their own interest to do so. Some will. A treaty with "teeth" will only be signed by nations that will not violate it anyway. Either way, whoever wants to test will. The main purpose of such a treaty is to tell the world that you intend to do what the treaty says. Why not sign the first one that comes along? It might be that it contains provisions that compromise national security, or not allow you to be reasonably certain that others will comply. The above does not negate one important fact: it's nearly (if not totally) impossible to test a nuclear bomb without doing serious damage to the environment. That's enough reason for many countries to desire a ban, whether they plan on becoming a nuclear power or not. --Baloo [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
© 1999-2024 Charles Capps
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3