Apocalypse Now

[threaded]

definitely.

But everyone knows I try and spell definately wrong in tribute to some anal type at the PCG who used to get upset about it.

Other words are fair game tho'

[wendigo100]

So nuclear testing in the Nevada desert in Feb had nothing to do with the US? Hmm...

That wasn't really nuclear testing, was it. It was a subcritical test. No nuclear explosion. Subcritical tests are carried out to investigate the safety and reliability of old weapons.

Furthermore, they are carried out underground, and would hardly register at the desert surface, let alone blow up huge swathes [sic] of it.

[ALM]

That wasn't really nuclear testing, was it. It was a subcritical test. No nuclear explosion. Subcritical tests are carried out to investigate the safety and reliability of old weapons.

Furthermore, they are carried out underground, and would hardly register at the desert surface, let alone blow up huge swathes [sic] of it.

I think you might be arguing technicalities and missing the general point of the mucky lady. Do you not think it is slightly hypocritical on our part to object to other nations acquiring nukes when we ourselves already posses and plan on spending £billions more on developing new arsenals?

Sure, if we could have everything our way we would be the only power in the world which held nukes. That would be very nice indeed but how realistic is this aspiration? How long can we keep this cat in the bag? How many nations are we realistically supposed to police and go to war with in order to prevent proliferation? I'm not sure whether Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons or not but it must look at it's neighbours, Pakistan and India, and observe that not only have they acquired the ultimate insurance policy against invasion but also command a great deal more respect and political clout in the international community since doing so.

IMO as long as the US continues it's aggressive foreign policy, nations (especially in the oil rich middle east) will seek to develop nukes more in defence than attack.

[ladymuck]

That wasn't really nuclear testing, was it. It was a subcritical test. No nuclear explosion. Subcritical tests are carried out to investigate the safety and reliability of old weapons.

Furthermore, they are carried out underground, and would hardly register at the desert surface, let alone blow up huge swathes [sic] of it.

<sigh>
Subritical tests are a loophole in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, involving shocking plutonium with explosives. You are correct that there is no nuclear explosion (my comment about blowing up deserts being in a different post).

Such a 'test' can be used to aid in the development of nuclear weapons and sends completely the wrong message to the rest of the world. The CND certainly believe that the test was not purely for safety purposes.

In May 1996 the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research released a report which showed that there has not been a single aging-related nuclear safety problem in the U.S. arsenal and that nuclear safety problems arose in the context of warhead design, not aging, despite the DoE maintaining they are required to ensure the reliability and safety of the stockpile they are supposed to be disarming.

Very few people get to hear about these tests. I wonder why?

[Dundeegeorge]

And if there were no nuclear weapons

and the middle-east could somehow find a path to peace and black, and white men could live in peace and harmony......
you're still going to die, so what the **** does it matter?

[wendigo100]

ALM - As I said to Ladymuck earlier, that you cannot uninvent the nuclear bomb. Therefore it would be silly not to maintain your own arsenal while there is a reasonable possibility of a potential enemy obtaining them and holding them against you.

LM - You are delving deep into conspiracy theories. Nobody is in any doubt where you stand on this by the way you earlier completely mis-represented the effect of these tests.

If you have any equipment, whether it it is a nuclear bomb, a fire engine, or a bouncy castle, the professional thing to do is monitor and test it. We soon jump on any lapses at Sellafield. Sure there have been very few problems so far, if any, but that doesn't mean there never will be. Tony Blair hasn't had cancer yet, but that doesn't mean that he is immune.