While good-intentioned, Mr. Cohen doesn't seem to understand how nuclear wars work. We built the majority of this stockpile during the years leading up to and in the middle of the Cold War. We had to build up enough of an arsenal to attain mutually-assured destruction. It is estimated that if Russia had launched its entire arsenal at us, roughly 95% of our nuclear attack capability would have been neutralized. The remaining 5% simply had to be enough to destroy all of Russia to keep them from launching in the first place. Now, if we had a smart foreign policy that didn't bring constant seething hatred from all parts of the globe, we wouldn't need to maintain such drastic self-defense measures, but as it stands we have a very stupid interventionist foreign policy which requires us to maintain this level of self-defense.

Nibiyabi brings up exactly the point I had (until that foreign policy bit. that's a different sift). It's also nice to have a lot so we can sign mutual disarming treaties with every country in the world and still have enough to make the whole solar system glow.

At the same time, (from what I understand) it would be difficult and expensive to disarm all those weapons. I, for one, see nuclear bombs as something of the past. Short of a global war of attrition, I can't imagine any country ever using another warhead because of the global backlash that would exist.

The Cold War was merely a political charade employed as a means of taking control of media operations, consolidating political power in the hands of the Right Wing , enriching the military-industrial complex, and basically generating a climate of fear with which to control mass behavior. From the sounds of your regurgitation, they've gotten to you too. The military spending that accounts for the thousands of nuclear weapons and make up the arsenal absorbed an enormous percentage of the nation's wealth without conferring any concomitant security -- indeed, it did just the opposite. Nibiyabi, it's time to stop drinking the Kool Aid. Russia is not and never was the threat they said it was. You've got to think for yourself, else others will do the thinking for you.

The problem with this "I dont think they are gonna ever use it" mantra is that it is short-term thinking. I cant really imagine it will be used the next five years either, perhaps not even the next hundred.. but what does that help us? We've had these weapons for a mere 62 years or so.. How long do we plan to keep humanity? will we last another 400 years with this technology? How about 4000 years? It only takes once. one nuclear war with 2 significant superpowers is enough. Considering all the events for the PAST 4000 years, who the hell knows what an even faster changing world will entail? in 400 years we might not call ourselves "Europe" or "America" or whatever, in that perspective, anything could happen. America could instead of being 50 "united states" be 20 banana republics for all we know.

But these weapons will still be in there somewhere, or maybe elsewhere? who knows. Storing these mass-murdering weapons of doom is ultimately a long term problem, no matter what.

BRM: I think you mean 62 years.

Nukes are terrible things, but they may be responsible for the fact that we never had a world war in the second half of the 20th century. If both superpowers hadn't had a nuclear deterrent, who's to say the Cold War wouldn't have turned into WW3?

It's weird not to be able to unequivocally say "I wish we could disinvent nuclear weapons"; occasionally I do say it, but then stop and wonder whether their threat of tremendous harm has persuaded humans not to engage in other great harm.

The catch 22 of the restraining effect of mutually assured destruction, is that now everybody wants in on the game, which will eventually at least lead to some accidental nuclear incident, even if everybody plays by MAD rules.

The only way out is for the folks with the missiles to realize that they are useless, and to get rid of them. The fact of the matter is that nuking us into oblivion is probably worse for anybody who does not get nuked, we get fried right off the bat, and they die slowly and painfully, nukes are their own deterrent.

I forget who said it, but it has been argued that nuclear proliferation, beyond being inevitable, is also desirable. States who develop nuclear capacity become stable rational actors, both because they can play the MAD card, and because it really does not take long for anyone to realize how absurd it would be to use them.

I say we need a 2 step process

1) Stop telling nations not to build nukes

and once everyone develops nukes

2) each state can build one big doomsday device and get rid of all their missiles, thereby reducing the number of nuclear devices that may malfunction.

This will, of course, mean any country can build its own nuclear reactors, which will seriously screw the oil economy, assuming we still have one by the time everyone gets the bomb.

Russia is not and never was the threat they said it was.

So what, the Cuban missile crisis was all a charade? Soviet and American leaders got together beforehand and were like: "Hey, let's pretend to have a little standoff - you know, kind of get the crowd going a bit." I suppose all their missiles were filled with sawdust and cow parts. World history is pretty much WWE.

I'm curious, when did this start? Was it right after WWII that they had the meeting and worked out the script? Or was WWII part of it too? If so, I have to say that was a good move. Nobody wants to question the made-up history if half the people they know inexplicably died.

a means of taking control of media operations

This is such an insult to the billions of people in countries where the government actually does control media operations. Media here is controlled by money, and money is controlled by attention. This produces certain kinds of flaws in media coverage (like a tendency to support wars that involve hometown boys dying), but it doesn't make the media a government puppet.

Talking to people with views like yours, I quite often get told that I just can't handle the truth or something. I'd say it's just the opposite. To me, the real, scary, hard-to-accept truth is that there isn't a deeper level of reality or motivation to world events.

Despite how scary it seems, the world is shaped by people like Bush - people who got where they are by accidents of fate, and people who are not particularly more qualified than the average restaurant manager. These people don't plan to have a fake rivalry with Russia to subjugate the populace, they think "Oh yeah Russia, you can't mess with us - we'll build twice as many bombs".

They're motivated by fear and doubt and ego - just like the rest of us. Ascribing to them completely different, secret motives (as well as near absolute, behind-the-curtains power) means you'll never understand world history, and that you sacrifice what little influence you could have on your nation's future.

I've mentioned this before, but it seems like in the States now a lot of young people with good ideals are opting out of the political process entirely - because they kind of disbelieve in the whole system. As a consequence, you continue to get the same kind of leaders.

Come back to reality. You're needed!

Ummmm, I was waiting for an image to appear in the BB's.

Does that comment not cut the mustard?

Any guesses as to how this was shot? Was he bent way over a plate glass basin of some sort?

I wish I had that many nukes...

Hippie.

ReverendTed, yes I think that is how it's shot.

@ the first comments, you're saying we needed 7,500 nuclear weapons to blow up all of Russia? (150,000 x 0.05)

As a note of comparison, the US Department of Education has a budget of $67.2 billion per year to help approximately 66 million students.

$17.6 billion is a shit-ton of money is all I'm saying. Its about $60 per every man woman and child in this country. Investing to break down at least the majority of this historic money-pit seems like common sense to me.

If you look at all the incidents in the cold war that almost lead to a nuclear war, you will notice how hard both sides suddenly tried to come to an agreement and even showed their weaknesses here and there (of course most of the time being held secret from the public, for example the nukes in Turkey that were pulled out after the cuba crisis).

These facts alone give me confidence that the USA and Russia will never use those nukes, unless something really bad happens like a revolution followed by dictatorship or religious fanatism. Of course those nukes can be sold to other countries, and thats the only thing that worries me right now.

Some people condemn the USA for using nukes in WWII, but they fail to see the big picture. Those bombs showed humanity what will happen if those bombs are used. I am pretty sure if nuclear weapons werent used in a war before, they would have been used by now, with much worse outcome.

"much worse outcome" is like saying "sure that was bad, BUT!"... japan wanted to surrender when they dropped the bombs, (it's in the history books, at least in the Non-American printed ones) but Someone decided to go ahead anyways.

American trained Cuban Exiles was another aggressive act towards Cuba, making the Cubans feel even more threatened that The States were going to invade and they asked the USSR for help in defending against the threat. and it was the americans that Blockaded cuba... i mean sorry "quarantined" them. (for those that don't look into this stuff, a blockade is an act of war). It's hard to be peaceful in a time where you guys keep making the 1st moves. for once, stay in your own country, fix it, then worry bout the world.

but then again, i don't live there so i may just be reading into things too much.

Nukes are why this video was in English, not German, Japanese, Russian or Chinese. Thank you, nukes!

150,000 nukes is an insightful example as to why our government is bankrupt.

>> ^bamdrew:
@ the first comments, you're saying we needed 7,500 nuclear weapons to blow up all of Russia? (150,000 x 0.05)


The "total distruction" radius of the Hiroshima bomb was only 1km. Most people 2km to 3km away from ground zero survived. The USSR had a land area of 22 million km^2. Obviously 7,500 would be enough to blow up the centers of the 7,500 biggest cities in Russia, but for example a hiroshima bomb in Manhattan would spare 90% of Long Island.