Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We had it first. Why did we allow anyone else to have it? When we knew the the USSR was testing one, couldn't we have said, "Stop it, or you are going to get one on your head". Couldn't we have stopped it all? But, more specifically. Why in the world did we ever stand by and allow Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, and India for that matter. Wasn't there a debate here? There had to be. It's all about not ever letting Iraq or Iran have them, but doesn't that scare the hell out of you that Pakistan has the suckers. Why in the hell did we allow that country develop those weapons?
Although you're right about the level of responsibility shown by some of these other countries, I think we have a problem here in the United States. We tend not to show a lot of respect for other nations' sovereignty. We can't just go traipsing around the world, telling other independent countries, "You can do this," or, "You can't do that." We may not like what we see around the globe, but after all, we have to share it with a few billion other people.
I understand. But, we're talking nuclear weapons here. The Cold War, former Soviet rebublics with them, Russia, China, Pakistan, North Korea. This could have been stopped. National sovereignty, fine. Ability to destroy the world, no. We should have never allowed this. The Arms Race didn't have to happen, it could have been stopped before it begun. I don't see that as being tyranical, but rather responsible.
Well, why should we be the only country with weapons that can destroy the world?
In my opinion the minute nuclear weapons were created it opened up a can of worms, they should have never been made. That's just my opinion of course, but I feel strongly about it.
We had it first. Why did we allow anyone else to have it? When we knew the the USSR was testing one, couldn't we have said, "Stop it, or you are going to get one on your head". Couldn't we have stopped it all? But, more specifically. Why in the world did we ever stand by and allow Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, and India for that matter. Wasn't there a debate here? There had to be. It's all about not ever letting Iraq or Iran have them, but doesn't that scare the hell out of you that Pakistan has the suckers. Why in the hell did we allow that country develop those weapons?
The U.S. didn't "have it" first. Germany had the scientists and knowhow, which was the reason for Einstein's letter to Roosevelt. There were attempts to keep key aspects secret, but those failed and the Soviets had a parallel program of development. Further, the basic science isn't particularly out of reach.
India and Pakistan are cases where the balance of power is enhanced by the nukes. The likely scenario is, if one of them didn't have nukes, it would be toast. I won't even go into the hubris of not "allowing" sovereign nations to develop or buy defenses, especially since the U.S. is one of the biggest dealers of arms.
We had it first. Why did we allow anyone else to have it? When we knew the the USSR was testing one, couldn't we have said, "Stop it, or you are going to get one on your head". Couldn't we have stopped it all? But, more specifically. Why in the world did we ever stand by and allow Pakistan to have nuclear weapons, and India for that matter. Wasn't there a debate here? There had to be. It's all about not ever letting Iraq or Iran have them, but doesn't that scare the hell out of you that Pakistan has the suckers. Why in the hell did we allow that country develop those weapons?
Their has always been attempts at control of nuclear technology and materials, all the way back to WW2. Thank the Rosenburg's (Julies and Ethel) for leaking much of the technology to the russians.
Non-prolification of nuclear weapons was a UN mandate since the mid-50's. Various treaties were put in place, control of fissionable material. You can see how good the UN did. Still is a UN, not a US, mandate. You can see what kind of mess it results in (Iraq) when the US tries to enforce those mandates on its own, and unfortunetly the UN is a useless paper tiger.
Wait a minute here. The German scientists were ahead of the game, but who delevoped the first functional bomb? Germany? They would have used it. I'm not quite sure if I understand you. Are you saying we didn't have the first bomb. The Soviets had a functional bomb and a delivery system during Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is that what you are saying? And also, I can't believe that anyone thinks "why should we be the only county with nukes", "we have no right tell an another country what to do". I can't believe that rationale, I'm sorry, but that's insane. Pakistan and India, balance of power? they should not have ever been allowed to posses these weapons.
I think Germany was well along in the development process, but there were some events that stymied the process. Due to the Holocaust, many of their best scientists (Einstein) fled or were killed. I have read that we bombed some key facilities which set them back. Also, and this might not be relevant, but Hitler's attention span with regards to wonder weapons (Jets, Missles, A-Bombs) was prone to drifting.
As for other non-proliferation issues, what can we do? I hate for Iran to have the Bomb, but nobody thinks it important enough to do anything serious.
Wait a minute here. The German scientists were ahead of the game, but who delevoped the first functional bomb? Germany? They would have used it. I'm not quite sure if I understand you. Are you saying we didn't have the first bomb. The Soviets had a functional bomb and a delivery system during Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Is that what you are saying? And also, I can't believe that anyone thinks "why should we be the only county with nukes", "we have no right tell an another country what to do". I can't believe that rationale, I'm sorry, but that's insane. Pakistan and India, balance of power? they should not have ever been allowed to posses these weapons.
No arguments to your comments, just additional info - Russian's penetrated the Manhattan Project to a certain degree from day one in spite all efforts to keep our nuclear secrets to ourselves. The Rosenburg's (and other traitors) were leaking info to the Russian's as early as 1944. Russia was considered our ally at that time of course. Russians developed nukes much earlier than we in the US anticipated, years before we expected. Otherwise maybe we could have done something.
Again - thank the Rosenburgs.
As for the german nuclear program, it is rumored that Heisenberg dragged his feet on the project. But really, they did not have the resources to build a bomb. Even if they had all the scientists that fled in exile, including Einstein.
As for the Russians, it was harder to keep an eye on them in the late 40s. There was no U2 program back then, and jet aircraft were still experimental. Russia being such a vast country, made it hard to see everything they were doing. The US had not perfected rockets to be able to deliver a large payload nuke deep inside Russia in the late 40s. We did not have the spy network in Russia that we should of, to tip us off as to what they were doing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
