Would RP accelerate the disarmament of our nukes?

[Starks]

Just wondering.

[MozoVote]

Maybe. Ron Paul has said that nuclear war is madness. He is not against bilateral treaties. Just no world government or UN pressure.

[Starks]

Maybe. Ron Paul has said that nuclear war is madness. He is not against bilateral treaties. Just no world government or UN pressure.

So, our involvement in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty isn't going anywhere right?

[Kuldebar]

I doubt he'd choose to focus or even advocate such a thing.

Mainly because the nukes are the global equivalent of the second amendment for our nation. He definitely wouldn't be waving them around threatening other nations.

Just as a responsible gun owner doesn't point his gun or take it out during argument so to would Ron Paul handle our Nuke arsenal.

But, there are economical reasons to reduce the stockpile.

Having spent many years working in the Defense industry I can tell you we have more than enough nukes to ensure our security and could easily reduce them in number.

Seven years ago, I took a tour at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to see the programs set in place for upkeep of the stockpile, it's very overwhelming seeing the time, money and effort involved keeping the stock "fresh".

[david.griffus]

No one should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons. They are inherently designed to kill innocent civilians. I would guess that Ron Paul agrees with this and would move to unilaterally disarm.

[MozoVote]

With so many domestic battles to contend with against a Democrat congress, I doubt Paul would propose any new initiatives.

But hey, it could be a good YouTube question in September to ask him about his opinions on nuclear proliferation, and whether countries can work together to stop it like we did with Polio, or Chemical weapons.

[Noodles]

Unilateral disarmament is only a viable option for those with a death wish.

[Kuldebar]

No one should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons. They are inherently designed to kill innocent civilians. I would guess that Ron Paul agrees with this and would move to unilaterally disarm.

I agree with the sentiment, but feel it doesn't, won't and can't reflect the reality.

The atomic cloud is out of the shiny casing, yes Pandora's Box has been opened, you can't undo that in any real way and make yourself safe.

Added:

But, this is why peace matters even more.

[Noodles]

Bilateral disarmament = wonderful.
Unilateral disarmament = suicide.

[Kuldebar]

Bilateral disarmament = wonderful.
Unilateral disarmament = suicide.

Of course, now we must talk of multilateral disarmament.

[smtwngrl]

No one should be allowed to posses nuclear weapons. They are inherently designed to kill innocent civilians. I would guess that Ron Paul agrees with this and would move to unilaterally disarm.

A similar (if not exactly the same) statement could be made to support gun control. That's why, I think, it wasn't too hard to get support for banning assault weapons. But if those in charge have powerful weapons, and the people have 22's, it wouldn't be much of a defense against tyranny.

That's why I tend to think like Kuldebar does on this, that "nukes are the global equivalent of the second amendment for our nation." And since Ron Paul advocates a strong defense, I don't see him wanting to get rid of them.

[JasonM]

At least reduce the number to less than one tenth of what we have now, and limit it to mostly nuclear subs here and there. We spend almost 20 billion a year on nukes. I think we can reduce that to 3 or 4 billion at most. ;)

Honestly, 100 megatons of nukes detonated anywhere on the planet will ensure a global nuclear winter and end most life on the planet. Even a "minor" nuclear exchange would not be in the interests of a nuclear power EVEN IF THERE WAS NO NUCLEAR RETALIATION. Currently the US has over 1,800 megatons worth of nukes. I think being able to destroy the planet 18 times over is just a *little bit* overkill. Don't you think? How could it possibly be in the interests of the US to do this?

Our country shouldn't have more than 100 megatons worth of nukes MAX spread out in nuclear subs and silos around the country and a few places on the globe! It ain't gonna deter Russia any less to have 100 megatons as it will having 1,800. And once the Russians see us reduce our own stockpiles, there would be no reason for them not to do the same since the upkeep costs are killing them just as much as it is us (actually more so).

[Kuldebar]

@JasonM

I agree, having the capability to destroy the world "18 times" over is somewhat overkill, so reduction isn't an unreasonable stance.

But, it goes (as all things do, even human life) to economics.

There is a psychological layer to all this...and a little bit of a phallic symbolism in regards to destructive power.

[smtwngrl]

I doubt there are many who would disagree with that.

[Silverback]

Well, as someone who studied the issue I would say the "nuclear winter" hypothesis is flawed, as is much of what is common knowledge about the effects of nuclear weapons. The rational world did everything possible to make the very idea of using a weapon as unappealing as possible for obvious reasons. But otherwise I tend to agree with the sentiment.

Thing is we really only need our most advanced weapons, the rest of it can be decommissioned without any impact to our security.

It would be foolish to reduce our ability to the point where there could be any doubt in our ability to annihilate any aggressor, it would be nice if we didn't live in a world full of humans with weapons but we have to deal with what is not what we wish were.

The bigger issue in my opinion is putting the power to wage offensive war beyond the reach of any individual or small group of people.

That's where the danger lies and that's where Paul is far superior to other candidates from either party.

[david.griffus]

The sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to kill civilians. Period. No one should have them. UNILATERAL disarmament, I believe, is the moral choice. I wish everyone would. Even if another country were to attack our civilians with a nuclear weapon, would we me morally justified in killings potentially millions of their civilians with our own nuclear weapons? I think not. It is immoral to carry out war against civilians. Only military targets can be justly eliminated. Never lose sight of this.

[LibertyEagle]

I view us having nuclear weapons as a deterrent to another nation using theirs against us. They are unlikely to use them, if they perceive that we will use ours against them in retaliation.

[Kuldebar]

The sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to kill civilians. Period. No one should have them. UNILATERAL disarmament, I believe, is the moral choice. I wish everyone would. Even if another country were to attack our civilians with a nuclear weapon, would we me morally justified in killings potentially millions of their civilians with our own nuclear weapons? I think not. It is immoral to carry out war against civilians. Only military targets can be justly eliminated. Never lose sight of this.

If it were me and you in a room by ourselves in the universe. And, I had nukes and you had nukes, I would hope rationality could prevail.

But, we are not alone and we live in a world where the human life is cheap and killing is cost effective.

We can't truly change the world, but we can endure it and through our endurance some change will come.

[Captain Shays]

I hope to God that Ron Paul doesn't want to disarm our nuke capability. In fact, I hope he expands it and installs a anti missile defense system and an axtensive cival defense system like the Swiss have. We don't know who will develope nuke capability in the future or what alliances will form. What if China and India form an alliance some day? What if China, India, Pakistan, Russia and North Korea form an alliance some day?

I have no doubt in my mind that with a very small standing army to none at all, with anti missile defense systems in place,a full nuclear capability, cival defense systems in place, and every citizen armed to the teeth with training in a militia style defense posture, all the countries on the planet combined couldn't destroy us or invade us successfully.
Our founding fathers designed our defense after the Swiss as a model.

"The Spirit of this Country is Totally Adverse to a Large Military Force." - Thomas Jefferson

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.

Hitler at the height of the Third Reicht had around 3 million soldiers in his army. That wouldn't even have been enough for him to successfully invade California with all the guns we had during WWII in the hands of private citizens.

China would have to mount an invasion force equal to the 300,000,000 guns we now have in private hands, get past our navy, our missile defense shield, our cival defense shield, our artilary, tanks and amry, airforce and marines.

No one can mess with us if we listen to the founding fathers. And if we start to like Ron Paul wants us to, they wouldn't want to. Not just because we'll destroy them, but because we'll most likely be their friends.

But why do you think the Swiss survived WWI, WWI and 50 years of a cold war in the Soviet Union's back yard without EVER being invaded? Its not luck I can tell you that. It just would have cost the invaders too much in the way of casualities, logistices and other losses to even try. And try they did, three times during WWII. Hitler met with Mousilini three times to draw up invasion plans into Switzerland and all three times came up with the same answer. It would cost too much so they shelved their plans. How hard would it be for an invasion force to get across two of the largest oceans on the planet to face 300,000 armed, trained patriots fighting for their families, friends, and their country? Live free or die remember?
And when they get home from their attempt they will find their country destroyed by our nukes.
Ron Paul is our George Washington.

[Kuldebar]

Unfortunately , SDIO -> BMDO ->MDA has yielded very little substance after all the money spent thus far.

I worked on Kwajalein Atoll (USAKA) now referred to as the Reagan Test Site from 1992 until 2003, I was involved on the down range side of mission support for all the major tests during this period.

The unfortunate truth is that there is really no such thing as a global based missile defense other than the standard anti-missile defense technology and Patriot Systems.

We can sometimes shoot down "Scuds" and hit bullets with bullets under very controlled circumstances, but there is a huge amount of political hot air inflating the whole missile defense concept and research field.

One more government program.

[Scribbler de Stebbing]

. . . nukes detonated anywhere on the planet will ensure a global nuclear winter . . .

Now THERE's a solution to "global warming." And when we get tired of the global winter, we simply start using more hairspray. :cool:

[Kuldebar]

Now THERE's a solution to "global warming." And when we get tired of the global winter, we simply start using more hairspray. :cool:

I always knew the government could control the weather! :D

[Gee]

The sole purpose of nuclear weapons is to kill civilians. Period. No one should have them. UNILATERAL disarmament, I believe, is the moral choice. I wish everyone would. Even if another country were to attack our civilians with a nuclear weapon, would we me morally justified in killings potentially millions of their civilians with our own nuclear weapons? I think not. It is immoral to carry out war against civilians. Only military targets can be justly eliminated. Never lose sight of this.
A nuclear weapon could easily take out an armada of ships or an army. Yes, its likely there would be civilian casualties, but nuclear weapons could stop a conventional invasion quite easily.

Everyone should possess whatever means are necissary to defend him or her self. Nuclear retaliation aimed at civilians is immoral, but it is also unnecessary. The purpose of possessing nuclear weapons is not to use them, its as a deterrent against attacks. If you've been attacked by nuclear weapons, that deterrent has already failed.

[axiomata]

Now THERE's a solution to "global warming." And when we get tired of the global winter, we simply start using more hairspray. :cool:
But we'll all be bald by then from the radiation! ;)