I’m not an American (I was born and live on a Caribbean island), but boy am I glad that America possesses these weapons, otherwise some stupid freak like Chavez or Castro would definitely have “acquired” a few islands (and their inhabitants as personal slaves) for themselves.

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be living in – and thus automatically protected by – a big country with a huge army and an even larger arsenal of weapons. It’s the U.S. that thas provided us with this “blanket of freedom and peace” and shall continue to do so for the foreseeable future, however fragile that freedom/peace may seem.

Please look beyond your nose before commenting on grave matters like these.”[/quote]

It’s good to see someone who doesn’t hate us Americans if we were to disarm our missiles, it would be the stupidist thing ever, countries like Russia, China, and North Korea would take us over and America would be no more. If that happens which i hope doesn’t all you 0ther countries that rely on us and help us will be in danger.
Were only having the missiles to protect ourselves from invasion. Were not like Russia who sees nukes as oversized toys.

Comment on this

If it’s a country that the superpowers feel threatened by, or will feel threatened by when/if they obtain nuclear weaponry, they will go to great extent to eradicate this “problem”. This can come in many forms- via the UN Inspectors, Sanctions (North Korea), or even a downright military invasion.

Is this justifiable? I will not say yes or no… everyone is entitled to their opinion on it.

Is it a smart thing to do? In most cases, yes- the countries that are trying to achieve nuclear status are the ones that we really need to be worried about. Countries have proven they can peacefully have nuclear reactors, when their thoughts turn to uranium and plutonium enrichment, that’s when things get dicey.

As for the US being “allowed” to have nuclear weapons- we are currently in treaties to disarm our nuclear arsenal… which is slowly but surely being done. The surge numbers we were reaching in the cold war have dwindled, and as we disarm weapons or they come to the end of their shelf life. However, there is news circulating in the military circles of new designs for nuclear weapons to replace the aging nuclear stockpile. Keep your eyes peeled on the news… I’m sure if this does come to be, things will become quite interesting in the form of other nation’s opinions on the matter…

To be honest, nuclear weapons scare the living hell out of me. But now that everyone seems to want them, it seems to be an assurance of peace. We can just pray they don’t fall into the wrong hands…

As Einstein said…

“I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.”

-Dan

With that out of the way, I’ll move on to the topic at issue: I have often questioned why the US is allowed to have nuclear weapons, but no one else is. I’ve asked several knowledgeable people about this and they mention the Geneva Convention but it still doesn’t quite satisfy my question.

I guess we learn something new every day. ;)”[/quote]

Nothing Don said would indicate it being carcinogenic. The issue is tissue damage. Too much microwave radiation will cook you to some degree. It’s a standard demonstration to put a turkey on a pole, then raise it in front of a radar for like 30 seconds. Then take it down and have a turkey dinner. It’s not an issue of whether or not microwaves _can_ hurt you, but rather how much does it take? In the case of a microwave oven, you have more than enough power to cause injuries, thus you have to take leaks seriously. After all, the microwaves are cooking your food, and if they get loose, they start cooking YOU…. The worst is that sufficient microwave exposure (and we’re talking about rather a lot) can cause cateracts and reproductive damage.

Minor leaks from microwave ovens, however, and other short term lower level exposure, have not been shown conclusively harmful in any study that I know of. The jury is still out on long term low level exposure, though so far nothing really severe has shown up….

Not everyone is fortunate enough to be living in – and thus automatically protected by – a big country with a huge army and an even larger arsenal of weapons. It’s the U.S. that thas provided us with this “blanket of freedom and peace” and shall continue to do so for the foreseeable future, however fragile that freedom/peace may seem.

Please look beyond your nose before commenting on grave matters like these.”[/quote]
These remarks are volatile sentiments, not thoughts. Anyone engaged in reason would conclude that keeping the world on the brink of potential destruction for close to half a century is a good way to prevent local aggressions needs to review his thought processes.

We have gotten so deeply into the quagmire of this sort of knee-jerk irrationality, even at the highest governmental levels, that our prospects are quite grave. Brinksmanship and MAD (mutually assured destruction) are not viable solutions. They are the essence of the problem.

There have been other dangerous incidents, some of them major, which were not mentioned in the article. It doesn’t matter. It only takes one. And the frequency of such incidents continues to increase. We must find ways of choosing our leaders with greater care and intelligence.

The accepted mantra in the ongoing American political campaign is “change.” Both parties are using it as their slogan. The truth is, the changes that have occurred during the current administration have been tragically destructive, and there are no examples of sound thinking in any of the candidates. One may be better than another, but it is a photo finish. We must think beyond the sound bites and slogans.

Since it’s the Air Force’s job to watch for nuclear launches and to launch counter-attacks, the article should have stated that the “airmen” manned their stations, as opposed to “soldiers”.

Carry on.