Could humans ever live harmoniously

stewski said:
Why do you continually use words I did not say, to attack a position I have not made.

Now you post a quote of an expert opinion (obviously not a teacher wtf do they know) that doesn't really look to be supported on the wikipedia article about the topic.

If you have a position of faith (and that's exactly what it appears to be at this point) that proliferating the technology for civil nuclear energy production is not a serious consideration in the concerns of nuclear weapons proliferation. I can and will argue that of the 9 states holding nuclear weapons 2 of the most recent (known) entrants were clearly affected by nuclear energy technology proliferation.

Any 26+ this or not a trend that seem ridiculous hand waving for a topic discussing the risk of increasing the chance of mutually assured destruction.
Click to expand...

Your own wording attempted to draw a link between the two.

You missed the lead on the wiki I think in reference to "Pakistan employed an extensive clandestine network in order to obtain the necessary materials and technology for its developing uranium enrichment capabilities." which further studies on those "clandestine" operations pointed to what I posted about in regard to China.

At the end of the day a civil nuclear energy program is neither the most direct route or a pre-requisite for developing a military nuclear capability and neither is it a significant factor in proliferation to date that isn't ignoring the risks that is addressing the current observable proliferation any other proliferation is entirely theoretical even if likely.

In a consideration of the implications of civil nuclear programs in subsequent military proliferation you can't really ignore the figures and circumstances of those that do have a civil nuclear program anything else would be lacking objectivity.
 
Last edited:
Orionaut said:
No, not really.

I am more suggesting that The two branches of technology are linked in much the same way as Steel production can be used to make both Motor Cars and Battleships.

Obviously they are linked technologies based on similar knowledge.

However, for a NPT signee to attempt a clandestine weapons program using typical civil nuclear tech to manufacture weapons grade Plutonium is tricky. (And that is before we go into the issue of actually turning that Plutonium into a reliable and practical device without anybody noticing)
Click to expand...

Quick question which should avoid any need to take issue with an unbelievable grossly wrong analogy between steel and products of war/peace:

Were/are the only 2 (modern times) new entrants to the 9 strong nuclear weapons club either signee's of the NPT, particularly clandestine in the approach (as you have outlined), unable to utilise the civil programs they started far earlier when developing weapons, or in any meaningful way prevented from becoming nuclear weapons capable states due to any of the above?

if not I'm not sure what other input is needed on this?
 
At the end of the day most people can see the need to regulate the proliferation of civil nuclear programs and the dangers if regulation breaks down especially due to political/social instability, etc. - you don't need to build a case using rhetoric a flawed premise and statistically insignificant sample sizes to demonstrate that.
 
Rroff said:
At the end of the day most people can see the need to regulate the proliferation of civil nuclear programs and the dangers if regulation breaks down especially due to political/social instability, etc. - you don't need to build a case using rhetoric a flawed premise and statistically insignificant sample sizes to demonstrate that.
Click to expand...

Sample size?

There are 9 known states with nuclear arms, the only 2 recent entrants to this category have very likely benefited directly from civilian nuclear energy programs, what sample did you want when considering nations with the capability to kill everyone?

Yes everyone agrees nuclear energy should be heavily regulated and with good cause, some of the cause of that should be fully understood (by even the most "faithful" nuclear energy advocate) as related to continuing/quickening the proliferation of nuclear arms. The mental gymnastics used to attempt to discredit that position on this thread have been astonishing.
 
stewski said:
Were/are the only 2 (modern times) new entrants to the 9 strong nuclear weapons club either signee's of the NPT, particularly clandestine in the approach (as you have outlined), unable to utilise the civil programs they started far earlier when developing weapons, or in any meaningful way prevented from becoming nuclear weapons capable states due to any of the above?
Click to expand...


ive read this sentence a dozen times i still have no idea what its saying
 
Tefal said:
ive read this sentence a dozen times i still have no idea what its saying
Click to expand...
1) It's a question.
2) Unlike your statement it has some attempt at grammatical structure.
3) It was in the context of a discussion and directed to a specific individual in that discussion.

If you are genuinely interested in that point in the discussion feel free to ask questions / explain what parts of the questions below you don't understand:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

Are/Were the 2 modern entrants (India and Pakistan) to the club of 9 countries with nuclear weapons capability signed up to the NPT?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Were India or Pakistan "Clandestine" in their approach to producing their nuclear weapons in terms of following any of the suggested routes outlined in the post I responded to?

Did the NPT and/or supposed requirements for clandestine technological development or sanctions/actions from the rest of the world meaningfully prevent or slow down the effect of civil nuclear energy technology in aiding the proliferation of nuclear weapons technology, to the only 2 genuinely new modern nuclear states?

Much as I've outlined the questions separately, to help you overcome your comprehension failure, I suspect reading questions you don't like the implications of the answers to, is much harder than reading something that confirms your own biases.
 
Rroff said:
Those conflict graphs are interesting - lining up the progress of globalisation, progress of technology and development of weapons of mass destruction seem to all have implications.
Click to expand...

indeed, it seems hiram maxim was right about a weapon so horrible it would end war, it's just he was wrong that the machine gun wasn't it
 
adolf hamster said:
indeed, it seems hiram maxim was right about a weapon so horrible it would end war, it's just he was wrong that the machine gun wasn't it
Click to expand...

Sadly we will probably work out one day how to side step the implications of current MAD doctrine until the next super weapon comes along - also sadly I can't see enough of a shift in global consciousness to do away with the need of the stick to keep things in some kind of order.
 
Rroff said:
Sadly we will probably work out one day how to side step the implications of current MAD doctrine until the next super weapon comes along - also sadly I can't see enough of a shift in global consciousness to do away with the need of the stick to keep things in some kind of order.
Click to expand...

I have a bit more hope than that- the big powers are too grown up now imo to go doing that sort of thing, and with the internet and a more mobile culture i think we'll see the will of the people holding against the power of government.

the propaganda that allowed the past major conflicts to occurr isn't going to fly in developed nations any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom