View Full Version : Nuclear Weapons - Countdown to Zero
Countdown to Zero - An interesting documentary I streamed on Netflix last night. I think it's a very important topic that is often overlooked by the vast majority of people. The film details on several occasions how close we've come to an all out nuclear war and the potential devastation that was narrowly avoided.
I won't say I agree with everything in the film but it is thought provoking and does have a very interesting cast that was interviewed to include Tony Blair, Jimmy Carter, Mikhail Gorbachev, Robert McNamara, Valerie Plame Wilson, Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few other heavy hitters.
Netflix link: http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/Countdown_to_Zero/70129456?trkid=496624#height1825
SeriousStudent
12-30-10, 14:48
Just an FYI, if we are not a Netflix member, the provided link does not work for us. Not hating on you, I am betting it was a very interesting show.
Put in the que, thanks Irish. I streamed Matt Helm / Ambushers today, not quite as informative..
http://movies.netflix.com/Movie/The_Ambushers/70121769?trkid=2361637#height1452
Just an FYI, if we are not a Netflix member, the provided link does not work for us. Not hating on you, I am betting it was a very interesting show.
Sorry. Here's the official trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mn-1LuLhrw
SeriousStudent
12-30-10, 15:00
Kewl, thanks! That's an interesting trailer.
I do agree that a world with zero nuclear weapons is an admirable goal. However, as long as people like ImANutJob over in Iran is building them, I'd like for us to keep a few stashed here.
I do agree that a world with zero nuclear weapons is an admirable goal. However, as long as people like ImANutJob over in Iran is building them, I'd like for us to keep a few stashed here.
I agree completely. With over 40 countries in the world having nuclear weapons how soon will we see an accidental launch? How soon will the bad guys purchase one and detonate it in one of our major cities? What will be the consequences of their actions? The film asks a lot of these questions and more and I think it's very relevant.
When people say "just nuke'em", when referring to our enemies, I hardly think they've put any thought into the matter and the aftermath of actually using a nuclear weapon against another nation. The consequences, and retaliation, from actually firing a nuclear weapon and the resulting chaos and insurrection would be biblical.
Complication
12-30-10, 15:44
I used to think that while 0 nukes might be ideal, it would be practically impossible. The biggest thing I took away from this documentary is the analogy drawn between nuclear weapons and chemical/biological weapons.
If the mass majority of nations signed on and with strict and invasive inspection procedures, nuclear weapons could be similarly taboo.
Is it the best idea? Who knows.
Would it take a long time and be very difficult? Most certainly.
Is this a topic which deserves long and hard consideration even though few people give it any? Absolutely.
Certainly an interesting movie, definitely worth the queue slot.
I don't see any way to achieve zero nukes since nukes can be made as small as an artillery shell or a backpack or a standard aircraft bomb. Thus it is completely unverifiable.
There is no way to reliably insure that all have been eliminated. The country that claimed that they eliminated them and did not would be the world's sole nuclear power. I don't see any country trusting everyone else to this extent.
Complication
12-30-10, 20:45
I don't see any way to achieve zero nukes since nukes can be made as small as an artillery shell or a backpack or a standard aircraft bomb. Thus it is completely unverifiable.
There is no way to reliably insure that all have been eliminated. The country that claimed that they eliminated them and did not would be the world's sole nuclear power. I don't see any country trusting everyone else to this extent.
You can make the exact same argument for chemical weapons.
As somebody who worries about things like asteroids... methinks that there is an extremely remote possibility that thermonuclear warheads might potentially be what (ironically) keeps the human race extant.
Belmont31R
12-31-10, 00:27
Nukes will always have their place. The idea of zero nukes its retarded, and putting the lives of perhaps billions in jeopardy.
Without nukes we would have had at least 1 if not 2-3 large WW2 style wars since WW2. Nukes make people not do things they wouldn't have thought twice of 70 years ago.
Nukes will always have their place. The idea of zero nukes its retarded, and putting the lives of perhaps billions in jeopardy.
Without nukes we would have had at least 1 if not 2-3 large WW2 style wars since WW2. Nukes make people not do things they wouldn't have thought twice of 70 years ago.
This.
A world with no nukes is "admirable" but nothing more than another leftist utopian crackpipe dream.
You can make the exact same argument for chemical weapons.
But chemical weapons aren't nearly as decisive and devasting as nukes.
If they were, we could have dropped one or two chemical bombs and forced Japan to surrender. So a hidden cache of chemical weapons are not going to have the effect. Plus there is a worry that if any country uses large scale chemical weapons against us we could move up the WMD scale to nukes.
How much damage would it have done if Sadam Husein managed to hit a base in Saudi Arabia with a missile with a chemical warhead? Compare that to if he hit it with a nuke.
Though its inconvenient and slows you down, encumbers you, and greatly increases fatigue, you can wear protective gear that deals with chemical weapons. Not so with nukes.
jklaughrey
12-31-10, 08:56
Pandora was let out. You can't put her back in. And while our nuclear stockpile has been a great deterrence measure. We would be naive to think that all other countries would give up this power. It makes a shit 3rd world country get notice and standing in the world. Now why would they give that up when it gets them a seat at the head dinner table with the adults? Our problem is that we have this power and are too afraid to use it...again! Other nations are not so afraid to "let one fly", if they feel the need. Not to mention most other nations fail safes are virtually non existent.
Nukes will always be that 1000 lb Gorilla just waiting in the corner at the party ready to act a fool. We just need to make sure he is doped up with thorazine and haldol, sitting in the corner licking his nuts forever.:big_boss:
A world with no nukes is "admirable" but nothing more than another leftist utopian crackpipe dream.
What does leftist have to do with it?
Did anyone else watch the film? The part with Gorbachev was very interesting and in fact we're very lucky we didn't have all out nuclear war with the Russians.
Did you know we accidentally dropped one on South Carolina? http://www.thecolumbiastar.com/news/2008-03-21/news/036.html and we lost one over the coast of Georgia too http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18587608 and there are many more "accidents" that have been perpetuated by the U.S. in the past 60 years, Google away.
Nukes will always be that 1000 lb Gorilla just waiting in the corner at the party ready to act a fool. We just need to make sure he is doped up with thorazine and haldol, sitting in the corner licking his nuts forever.:big_boss:
The problem is what happens when we run out of peanut butter? And we will.
jklaughrey
12-31-10, 09:37
I am doing my part!:sarcastic:
Complication
12-31-10, 13:48
What does leftist have to do with it?
Irish, that's the post where I gave up on this thread. It seems that in every other forum, people hold up this ideal that unless you have experience with the issue at hand or know what the hell you're talking about, you tend to stay quiet and read and educate yourself. But in GD the rule appears to be off the cuff reactions which can only make sense if the person making them hasn't even read the OP, let alone the rest of the thread (and hoping that they might spend 30 seconds reading the IMDB summary is completely foolish).
With ARs it's all about hands-on experience, extensive research, and real-world testing. With GD: if it's in line with your political ideology, you blindly support it; if it's not, spit out a couple one-liners that may or may not have anything to do with the topic.
Belmont31R
12-31-10, 14:12
The problem is what happens when we run out of peanut butter? And we will.
The Cold War had a lot of close calls but it would have been a hot war without them. No doubt about that. The only thing that prevented a third world war was we were both nuclear at that point. Instead of fighting each other we played proxy wars.
And yes nukes are a huge risk in our future but getting rid of them puts the world at even bigger risk. We cannot simply disarm ourselves of nuclear weapons.
What does leftist have to do with it?
They are the ones who believe they can turn wishful thinking into reality. 'Let's agree to get rid of nukes and everyone will go along and abide by it and the nukes will go away,' just like 'let's outlaw firearms and they will go away.'
It's a good film, what this thread is about, that interviews heavy hitters from the left & right and regardless of their political or philosophical leanings all agree that the reduction in number of nuclear devices is a good thing. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
It's a good film, what this thread is about, that interviews heavy hitters from the left & right and regardless of their political or philosophical leanings all agree that the reduction in number of nuclear devices is a good thing. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Seemed like all the people were saying the goal would be to have *zero* nuclear weapons. That is impossible and probably dangerous.
FromMyColdDeadHand
12-31-10, 18:17
Eliminate all nuclear weapons, because trench warfare is the better alternative.
We don't have enough bullets to stop all the Chinese.
Zero, is anti-technology, anti-western and immoral.
Perhaps if our great ancestors hadn't developed the atlatl, we wouldn't have risen above the beasts and we'd all be happy and content, until a cougar ate us.
Oh, by the way. The story about Yeltsin and the sounding rocket leading to nuclear strikes becomes MORE likely the closer you get to zero.
It would be nice to uninvent nuclear weapons, but that will never happen. So instead, we ought to be prepared to rain hate from the sky on anyone, as needed.
I say we get rid of half our nukes first :)
we just deliver them to every country supporting terrorists and those that hate us :) of course a live demo will commence when they arrive :)
I actually think we should partner with Russia on a reliable replacement warhead. Make 2,000, split them down the middle and get rid of the rest of the warheads. I'm not worried about Russian nukes as long as they stay under the Kremlins command.
Thomas M-4
12-31-10, 23:42
I actually think we should partner with Russia on a reliable replacement warhead. Make 2,000, split them down the middle and get rid of the rest of the warheads. I'm not worried about Russian nukes as long as they stay under the Kremlins command.
Russia can keep there shitty ass nukes I wouldn't give them one piece of our technology they can steal it and half ass re-engineer it just like everything else they have done with our nuclear technology.
Heavy Metal
12-31-10, 23:51
Given the current state of the Russian arsenal, I suspect the dud rate woud be astonishing, like in excess of 90%.
Thomas M-4
01-01-11, 00:23
I agree completely. With over 40 countries in the world having nuclear weapons how soon will we see an accidental launch? How soon will the bad guys purchase one and detonate it in one of our major cities? What will be the consequences of their actions? The film asks a lot of these questions and more and I think it's very relevant.
When people say "just nuke'em", when referring to our enemies, I hardly think they've put any thought into the matter and the aftermath of actually using a nuclear weapon against another nation. The consequences, and retaliation, from actually firing a nuclear weapon and the resulting chaos and insurrection would be biblical.
MAD is what has kept nuclear weapons from being used. You are going to have to make the prospect of using nuclear weapons so un- thinkable that no one in there right mind would do it there is no other way. Any thing less is inviting there use.
I started the stream last night, going to view it again. I worked with iridium 192 and cobalt 60 some 30 years ago. I had no idea that enriched uranium / yellow cake has such a low level emission and can be transported without detection. I do agree that Pakistan is more of a risk than N. Korea with one of the commentators.
I started the stream last night, going to view it again. I worked with iridium 192 and cobalt 60 some 30 years ago. I had no idea that enriched uranium / yellow cake has such a low level emission and can be transported without detection. I do agree that Pakistan is more of a risk than N. Korea with one of the commentators.
It's a pretty informative film. I'm glad someone else is taking the time to watch it. Post your impressions after you've viewed it in it's entirety. Happy New Year!
MAD is what has kept nuclear weapons from being used. You are going to have to make the prospect of using nuclear weapons so un- thinkable that no one in there right mind would do it there is no other way. Any thing less is inviting there use.
Kinda like running airplanes into skyscrapers. The people we're dealing with aren't in their right minds. Between us and the Russians I don't think there's too much to worry about, it's the other 40 or so countries that have nukes that you need to worry about and who they're selling them to and for what purpose.
Thomas M-4
01-01-11, 12:23
Kinda like running airplanes into skyscrapers. The people we're dealing with aren't in their right minds. Between us and the Russians I don't think there's too much to worry about, it's the other 40 or so countries that have nukes that you need to worry about and who they're selling them to and for what purpose.
That is why we have to hold the countries that develop them responsible for there stockpiles. Countries like NK , Iran and Syria that openly state that they want to use them need to be prevented from building them by any means possible including military action if it comes down to it.
Irish, that's the post where I gave up on this thread. It seems that in every other forum, people hold up this ideal that unless you have experience with the issue at hand or know what the hell you're talking about, you tend to stay quiet and read and educate yourself. But in GD the rule appears to be off the cuff reactions which can only make sense if the person making them hasn't even read the OP, let alone the rest of the thread (and hoping that they might spend 30 seconds reading the IMDB summary is completely foolish).
With ARs it's all about hands-on experience, extensive research, and real-world testing. With GD: if it's in line with your political ideology, you blindly support it; if it's not, spit out a couple one-liners that may or may not have anything to do with the topic.
:rolleyes:
The quote you've decided to get your panties in a wad over has nothing to do with the movie, it has to do with the anti-nuclear movement as a whole. BTW, I've seen the film. Really not the best documentary I've seen on the subject.
Besides, what's your real-world relevant experience, that you are the sole outspoken lefty? Political discussions are invariably opinion-based, just like politics themselves. If the political realm were "hands-on experience, extensive research, and real-world experience" a lot of these discussions would never take place. Nuclear weapons would not exist because the scientists and politicians involved would have been able foresee the unintended consequences of letting the genie out of the bottle (which, oh by the way, is what LEFTIST anti-nuke activist fail to recognize, the knowledge is not destructable). Economics wouldn't be handled by socialists, because socialism fails (both theoretically and in situ). Scientific research wouldn't be politically manipulated (by one side or the other). But that ain't the real-world champ.
Technical discussion is what it is. Politics isn't technical. It's not based on hard data. If you've ever tried to have a rational discussion with an anti-nuclear activist (as I have) you'd realize that. Anti-nuclear activism is; A. indelibly linked to the political left and, B. predicated on the sophist notion that knowledge can be uncreated. Much of their argument is based on the stultifying idiotic perversion of existentialist philosophy that existence demands purpose, making nuclear war an inevitability, thus for nuclear war to be made unpossible (NewSpeak used intentionally) all nuclear weapons must be destroyed. How is a such an argument based on "hands-on experience, extensive research, and real-world testing." (The funny thing is that the film tangentially danced around this very topic) How does one approach it? Rationality sure as Hell doesn't work. So you know what, I call it what it is, a pipe dream of loony-tune leftists.
And what's my real-world experience?
Navy nuke machinist mate. Served on a ballistic missile submarine as part of the nuclear deterrent triad.
What is yours?
You know what Complication, for all your bemoaning of the lack of data-based arguments, you don't add much to most of these discussions, other than to bitch that people (GASP!!!) sometimes engage in hyperbole. I'd be real impressed if you went to left-leaning political discussion boards and played the same game.
What does leftist have to do with it?
Did anyone else watch the film? The part with Gorbachev was very interesting and in fact we're very lucky we didn't have all out nuclear war with the Russians.
Did you know we accidentally dropped one on South Carolina? http://www.thecolumbiastar.com/news/2008-03-21/news/036.html and we lost one over the coast of Georgia too http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18587608 and there are many more "accidents" that have been perpetuated by the U.S. in the past 60 years, Google away.
Other than the fact that leftists were involved in the production and were nearly the only people interviewed and that anti-nuclear activism is a product of the political left? Gee, IDK.
This film only surreptitiously maintains political neutrality. It's not an outright polemic, but the conclusion that is meant to be drawn by the way in which the material is presented is pretty clear. Nuclear proliferation is indeed a very real problem, and yes, the threat of terrorists attaining a nuclear weapon is horrific and real. Nuclear accidents can and do happen. But what is the answer? If we are to follow the Carter/Brzezinski school, total unilateral disarmament.
"Perpetrated?" Wow, I wonder if you have an axe to grind.
I said my peace and I'm out.
kaiservontexas
01-03-11, 09:58
Zero? bah! MORE! ;)
That movie reminded me of the lies during the Cold War. The same lies they spewed then about getting rid of weapons. It is not just nuclear weapons either that some of those idiots would love to see smelted. Then we can all dance in circles singing this is the Age of Aquarius.
It would be nice if there were no militaries to worry about, I admit that one. It is also unrealistic, and we all have to live in the real world, feet on the ground. As such I want the biggest war hammer in our inventory and not their's.
Other than the fact that leftists were involved in the production and were nearly the only people interviewed and that anti-nuclear activism is a product of the political left? Gee, IDK.
Bullshit.
"Perpetrated?" Wow, I wonder if you have an axe to grind?
Get over yourself.
Bullshit.
Get over yourself.
Oooooohhh, doesn't it just hurt so bad when somebody sees through your prevarications....
And a sigline quote from a socialist? HAHAHAHAHA!!!!! A glimpse of what Babs thinks of dissent and rebellion when the shoe is on the other foot......
But as the Tea Partyers keep reminding us in their nasty and demented ways, these are revolutionary times.
:sarcastic:
You and Complication are quite a pair. :rolleyes:
SWATcop556
01-03-11, 14:29
Knock off the bickering or this thread is done.
Other than the fact that leftists were involved in the production and were nearly the only people interviewed and that anti-nuclear activism is a product of the political left? Gee, IDK.
It's fundamentally flawed to throw out the Left's arguments simply because they're from the left; it is also self-defeating to not hear their arguments, as it is our duty as responsible citizens to know what our rivals are touting as fact. Last but not least, the Left commonly has valid points, it's simply that they use those points to come to the wrong conclusions.
If you approach everything from a "left vs right" perspective, you force yourself to label everything as "right" and as "left," when in reality it's not. You also end up painting yourself as a radical (and to the side you oppose, a villain). The problem with radicals is that no one wants to follow them or listen to them, even when they know they are right.
I get what you're saying, but you need to step back and realize most of the people aren't promoting WHO said what in this documentary, simply that it's thought-provoking to hear the other side of debate that hasn't been heavily looked at since the Cold War.
I get what you're saying, but you need to step back and realize most of the people aren't promoting WHO said what in this documentary, simply that it's thought-provoking to hear the other side of debate that hasn't been heavily looked at since the Cold War.
Nuclear disarmament is just as dangerous an idea now as it was then. BTW, the anti-nuke crowd back in the cold war were basically working for the USSR, and the movement is still run by people on the far left who want to hurt the United States. Same shitty ideas recycled for a new time. Taking steps to avoid nuclear proliferation and developing missile defenses makes a lot more sense, but the anti-nuke crowd doesn't support that. Why is that? Makes you wonder what their real agenda is doesn't it?
ForTehNguyen
01-04-11, 09:23
you know its funny but the nuclear weapon should win a Nobel Peace prize for all the wars it prevented and the lives it saved. The nuke made mass wars like WW1 WW2 obsolete, saving countless lives military and especially civilian. War shrunk into more localized skirmishes instead of these world wars. People have to think twice about starting crap when the major powers have nuclear weapons. If nukes were around when Hitler invaded Poland you think he wouldve really done it?
Bringing nukes to zero is trying to bring guns to zero but the fact is the world is more peaceful when more of these two are around.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.