Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on February 13, 2005, 06:02:02 PM
-
The following Reuters article outlines world nuclear capability. Not too difficult to guess targets for most of the nuke owners ... or is it?
France has a large nuke arsenal and long ago took itself out of NATO control for its own independent nuclear deterrent. The U.S. and Russia have been engaged in mutual nuclear weapon reduction.
So it kinda makes you wonder what French nukes target since France more than most nations seems to be trying to have its cake and eat it too.
Overall, gotta give humankind some mega credit for not blowing itself up ... at least so far.
Most governments to date have shown themselves commendably responsible for nuclear restraint. But terrorists? There is no foreseeable end to the unimaginable consequences of terrorists getting nukes.
(QUOTE)
Capabilities of the world's nuclear powers
10 Feb 2005 17:34:32 GMT
Source: Reuters
LONDON, Feb 10 (Reuters) - North Korea announced for the first time on Thursday that it has nuclear weapons and was pulling out of six-party talks on its atomic programme.
The world has five "official" nuclear powers -- the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France.
Following is a summary of the estimated capabilities of declared and undeclared nuclear powers.
DECLARED:
- UNITED STATES: The United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nuclear weapons, including approximately 10,600 intact warheads, 7,650 of which are considered active or operational. Approximately 1,600 are deployed on land-based missile systems (Minuteman and Peacekeeper ICBMs), 1,660 on bombers (B-52 and B-2), and 2,880 on submarines (Ohio-class subs). 1,120 are tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs).
The United States is the only country to station land-based nuclear weapons outside its borders.
- RUSSIA: Russia has roughly 7,000 deployed strategic nuclear warheads but the arsenal jumps to some 20,000 when stored and tactical warheads are added in.
- FRANCE: France maintains approximately 350 nuclear warheads on 60 Mirage 2000N bombers, four nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN), and on carrier-based aircraft.
- BRITAIN: The UK's current stockpile is thought to consist of approximately 200 strategic and "sub-strategic" warheads on Vanguard-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).
- CHINA: China is estimated to have about 400 strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and stocks of fissile material sufficient to produce a much larger arsenal. China acceded to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1992 as a nuclear weapon state.
- - - - - - - - - - -
- NORTH KOREA: North Korea's declaration that it possesses nuclear weapons does not necessarily mean it has a tested nuclear weapons system that can be deployed, defence analysts said.
North Korea has test fired short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, but its missile programme has been marred by accidents and the accuracy of the weapons has been questioned.
- INDIA: India has formally declared itself a nuclear weapon state. New Delhi's stock of weapons-grade plutonium is estimated to be between 240-395 kg, which depending on the sophistication of the warhead design, could be used to manufacture 40-90 simple fission weapons.
- PAKISTAN: Pakistan says its "minimum nuclear deterrent" includes ballistic missiles that can hit deep inside India. Analysts put the Pakistani arsenal at between 10 bombs at the time of its May 1998 nuclear tests and up to 48 now. Pakistan is not a signatory to NPT.
UNDECLARED:
- ISRAEL: Israel is generally regarded as having nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Analysts estimate Israel has approximately 100-200 nuclear explosive devices. Officially, Israel has declared that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. It has not signed the NPT.
- IRAN: Iran is widely suspected by military experts of pursuing a nuclear weapons programme but is not considered to have capability. Iran has denied U.S. charges it is pursuing a nuclear bomb and says its programmes are only for peaceful power generation needed to keep up with its growing population.
Sources: Reuters/www.nti.org (Nuclear Threat Initiative)
(UNQUOTE)
-
I thought this was going to give us some insight into where they were pointed. Oh well.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
I thought this was going to give us some insight into where they were pointed. Oh well.
Germany probably.
Where else? LOL
-
What struck me the most about that Reuters story was the relatively large and apparently modern nuclear arsenal that France has. And without being on the forefront of any modern confrontation.
Maybe because of diplomacy or just plain national smarts, France strikes me as part Switzerland with nukes and part colonial lingerer. Insists on its own independent deterrent and mostly does its own thing, usually with former colonies, but nothing requiring nukes.
Successful deterrence -- the main purpose of nukes -- requires that potential foes believe the nukes would be used against them if certain threshholds were crossed, with enough surviving any conceivable surprise attack (either by launch on warning -- scary -- or sufficient hardening) that unacceptable damage would be inflicted on the attacker.
Otherwise nukes for deterrence would be a total failure.
So far the genie has been kept in the bottle after WWII and nukes have not been used even as small tactical battlefield supplements. Again, commendable restraint by the nuclear powers.
Thus with the world in general apparently wanting as few nukes as possible (e.g., the nuclear proliferation treaty), France -- with perhaps the vaguest nuke target list -- ironically might serve as an example to North Korea and Iran if it got into the nuclear arms reduction campaign in a big way.
Then again, that could be regarded as caving in to intimidation. Or that dreaded word, appeasement.
Whatever, that Reuters list of nuclear powers provides a fairly predictable list for guessing whose nukes are aimed at who else -- except for France.
Since France traditionally has been an international influence and remains among the most unpredictable international influences today, and its relatively large nuclear deterrent remains a major expense with an increasingly puzzling payback, it's logical to wonder if sometime France might offer some kind of nuclear deterrent initiative that the other more directly confrontational nuclear powers might not have thought of.
And if that boils down to somehow better coexistence with differing philosophies, the world is waiting.
-
France killed everyone in Springfield with a Neutron Bomb. I saw it on the Simpons.... Bastards......
-
Hey heres a radical idea lets get rid of em!!! They are totaly bloody useless anyway. Conventional weapons have advanced to the stage where they are redundant.
Get rid of them and we have a better case to put when asking other nations to do so.
More a case of follow our example than do as we say not as we do which I always thought was bloody hypocrytical.
-
heres an even better idea. you get rid of yours first, then the french, then the chinese, then russians, then india and pakistan.....then north korea and iran....then isreal (who am I forgetting?).
We will hold on to our last just to make sure you get rid of yours first. sound pretty good?
Oh ...and maybe we will keep a few dozen and not tell anyone just as added insurance against aggression....
-
Originally posted by GScholz
During the cold war I think it is safe to say the France's nukes were pointed eastwards. Now I think they're kind of in the hip holster not pointing in any particular direction ... or in all directions if you will. Same with the UK and for that matter ... the USA.
BS...
Everyone knows the French nukes were always pointed at England...
:lol
-
As long as the nukes are reduced to reasonable levels I have no problem with them. They create a certain amount of stability.
-
Those dam french ... always pissing off decent people.
-
Originally posted by SFRT - Frenchy
Those dam french ... always pissing off decent people.
I thought you were living in LA?
-
There :D
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Hey heres a radical idea lets get rid of em!!! They are totaly bloody useless anyway. Conventional weapons have advanced to the stage where they are redundant.
Get rid of them and we have a better case to put when asking other nations to do so.
More a case of follow our example than do as we say not as we do which I always thought was bloody hypocrytical.
zulu, the USA and russia are getting rid of their nuks, what is your country doing to get rid of your nuks?
-
Originally posted by john9001
zulu, the USA and russia are getting rid of their nuks, what is your country doing to get rid of your nuks?
No they aren't.
-
sorry mora, but the usa and russia have a treaty to destroy nukes with mutual inspections, it just takes time because of the numbers involved.
-
From what I understand, the French have eliminated most or all of their land based nukes. They now have mostly subs and they are not targted at anyone.
The French feel more threat in a "rogue" state than anything else.
They also have a strike-first if needed nuclear doctrine. The French have plans to "give ample evidence" when their national security or interests are threated to an extreme degree. That means they may launch a small nuclear pre-emptive strike as an example of how serious the threat is to them. If that doesn't end the threat, they will whipe out the whole countries military and economic centers.
Part of French Doctorine is meant to deal with dictators who don't care about their populations....only power. Therefore, the French would seek to hit targets which allow the dictator to have power.......military might and economic security/wealth.
This is based on memory, but if you look up "French nuclear doctrine, you will probably find it.
-
Originally posted by john9001
zulu, the USA and russia are getting rid of their nuks, what is your country doing to get rid of your nuks?
As it already says.. only nukes british have are in their subs, RAF is a non nuclear force now.
-
Originally posted by john9001
sorry mora, but the usa and russia have a treaty to destroy nukes with mutual inspections, it just takes time because of the numbers involved.
I see nothing about getting rid of all nukes here:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/index.html
This is what you have agreed on:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/start3/index.html
"As of early 2000, Russia remained committed to the goal of reducing the number of strategic nuclear warheads held by each side to 1,500, while the American position remains that 2,000 to 2,500 warheads are needed for effective nuclear deterrence."
-
Thanks, Nuke (great handle for this thread). The following from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists sheds more light (it's too long for this board; couldn't find way to link it, so here's how it begins ... it's worth a Google to finish it):
(QUOTE)
Nuclear policy: France stands alone
Leaner and meaner? France is trying to do more with less--and that includes its smaller, but more flexible, nuclear arsenal.
By Bruno Tertrais
July/August 2004 pp. 48-55 (vol. 60, no. 04) © 2004 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
In the fall of 2003, the French media reported that a major shift in the country's nuclear policy was under way. On October 27, the headline of the daily Libération screamed, "Chirac's Small Bombshell: France Will Soon Revise its Deterrence Strategy in Order to Be Able to Strike 'Rogue States,' Even Preventively." The newspaper reported that France would announce a new nuclear doctrine that would take into account "rogue states" with weapons of mass destruction, and that new weapons were being considered to deal with such threats. A few days later, Jean Guisnel suggested in the weekly Le Point that several major adjustments to the doctrine had been secretly decided in 2001 (October 31, 2003). But President Jacques Chirac and his government denied that there had been any change in French nuclear doctrine and maintained that no change was forthcoming. [1]
The confusion was understandable. Nuclear policy in France is shrouded in secrecy--even more so than in other Western nuclear weapon states--and transparency has long been anathema in Paris. Few public pronouncements or official documents are available for analysts and media to comment on, so journalists are frequently tempted to exaggerate the importance of tidbits of information and may easily misinterpret senior officials' off-the-record comments.
The episode revealed a tension in French nuclear policy that has existed since the end of the Cold War. On one hand, France still clings to the concepts of nuclear sufficiency and deterrence--deterring major powers is still the first mission of French nuclear forces. On the other hand, since Chirac's election in 1995, French authorities have insisted on the diversity of conceivable deterrence scenarios and on the need for greater nuclear "flexibility"--including options to reduce collateral damage.
(LONG MIDDLE PART DELETED HERE)
French leaders have suggested that the country's nuclear deterrent already plays an implicit role in the protection of Europe. In 1995, Paris and London declared that they "could not imagine a situation in which the vital interests of either of our two nations, France and the United Kingdom, could be threatened without the vital interests of the other also being threatened," and decided to increase nuclear cooperation between the two countries. [15] In his June 8, 2001 speech, Chirac stated that any decision by France to use nuclear weapons "would naturally take into account the growing solidarity of European Union countries." But despite some occasional hints, France has fallen short of declaring that its nuclear deterrent explicitly covers its EU partners. [16] The way France interprets the mutual security guarantee that member states have agreed to include in the EU Constitution will be an interesting test of French nuclear policy.
(16 FOOTNOTES)
Bruno Tertrais is a senior research fellow at the Fondation pour la Recherche Stratégique in Paris, France.
(UNQUOTE)
-
Aren't most if not of France's nuclear weapons tactical instead of strategic? If they're tactical they wouldn't be pointed at any one specific target like the strategic nukes are.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
Aren't most if not of France's nuclear weapons tactical instead of strategic? If they're tactical they wouldn't be pointed at any one specific target like the strategic nukes are.
ack-ack
The change in Frances nuclear doctrine now defines all nukes to be strategic in nature, due to the thinking that a nuke, if used in any way, would effect the conflic in a very large way, not just tactically.
The way they see it, any use of nukes is going to have such a large impact on the conflict that it could only considered a strategic weapon.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The change in Frances nuclear doctrine now defines all nukes to be strategic in nature, due to the thinking that a nuke, if used in any way, would effect the conflic in a very large way, not just tactically.
The way they see it, any use of nukes is going to have such a large impact on the conflict that it could only considered a strategic weapon.
Well I'll be...I finally agree on something with the french.:lol
-
So why not just get rid of them? Then we have a leg to stand on when suggesting other nations get rid of theirs.
Back before WW2 the Battleship was king. Airpower kind of made them redundant so we got rid of them. Why can't nations apply the same principal to nukes. Now that accuracy and hitting power of conventional systems have improved so much. There is little strategic sense in poisoning a huge area with nukes.
Atomkraft Nein Danke as they say in Germany.
(http://www.bilderbook.de/atomkraft_nein_danke.gif)
Ok I know it means Nuclear power but thats a bit daft too.;)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/59/Peace-symbol.png)
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
So why not just get rid of them? Then we have a leg to stand on when suggesting other nations get rid of theirs.
Back before WW2 the Battleship was king. Airpower kind of made them redundant so we got rid of them. Why can't nations apply the same principal to nukes. Now that accuracy and hitting power of conventional systems have improved so much. There is little strategic sense in poisoning a huge area with nukes.
Atomkraft Nein Danke as they say in Germany.
Zulu7, you are not talking about anything comparable in history when you are dealing with nuclear ICBM's.
Battleships? Come on.
Nuclear warheads mounted on ICBMs, subs, aircraft and artillary have power which has no comparison in history.
-
I'm talking about how redundant weapon systems get broken up. We don't need Battleships anymore. We have better tools for the job. ergo we don't need nukes anymore we have better tools for the job.
Jetzt Alles klaar jah? ( hows my German? Probably stinks :lol )
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
I'm talking about how redundant weapon systems get broken up. We don't need Battleships anymore. We have better tools for the job. ergo we don't need nukes anymore we have better tools for the job.
how old are you?
-
38 ok?
don't throw that oh we are all so much older and wiser stuff .
-
well, Im 40.
You probably do not comprehend the power of a nuclear deterant.
-
Jees I grew up in East Anglia. we had Lakenheath, Bentwaters, Mildenhall, Woodbridge, Wattisham all a stonesthrow from my house. Oh and we had Cruise milles with nukes on em at Greenham common and Molesworth. and then to cap it all The idiot govt built a PWR like the one at Three mile Island! Just up the coast from us.( Probably why I'm interested in planes.That and the fact I was son of a father who worked at RAE Farnborough and spent my first six years living virtualy at the end of the runway there )
So maybe thats why I'm anti Nukes. Think we were quite possibly in the middle of a major target area. So I spent my entire teenage years under the Warsaw pact threat. Hell we even had leaflets pushed through our door telling us how to survive a nuclear attack by building a shelter out of old doors!!! :rolleyes: :lol
(http://ukcoldwar.simplenet.com/images/nuclear/protect_cover.jpg)
It looked like this.
-
lol, I have been in a major ( way higher priority than you) target area for my entire life, and I recognise that our nuclear deterance has protected me for my entire life.
-
Gentlemen...calm down...have some dip.
I taught a class on Nuclear Weapons, War and Arms Control during college so lets clarify a few things.
1. There is very little distinction between TACTICAL and STRATEGIC weapons except when examining the ranges of the launch platform. For example...
* A B-61 thermonuclear freefall bomb that can be mated to any nato aircraft with a 2,000 lug is a tactical weapon by defination of its range. It makes no mention of the yield which can be anywhere from 0.1 KT to 600 KT.
*The Trident D5 currently on Ohio SLBM's and British Vanguard submarines (Though the Vanguard might have the earlier Trident varient) carry the W-88 physics package (the actual fissile material), and each warhead having an approximate yield between 90 and 300KT each.
* If you remember, the SALT treaty's which limited the types of weapons systems and launch platforms that could be deployed on either side of the fence. Which in essence eliminated the GLCM (Ground based Tomohawk missile), Pershing & Honest John IRBMs that were based in Europe during the Cold War.
- Keep in mind the dark joke running around during the Cold War - Europe would be the battlefield - make no mistake. But the problem is, the towns are only a few kilotons apart (speaking to the fact that tactical weapons would cause more trouble then they are worth, leading to the demise of IRBM's pointing at the Soviet Union)
Now - some of you guys mentioned START I, II, and III treaties. START I is in effect, START II was ratified a few years ago and START III - hasn't seen the light of day yet. The Russians want to go below the proposed START II and III weapons limits simply because they cannot afford the $$ and upkeep of the weapons.
While the # of 20,000 of active weapons might seem staggering for a few - keep in mind, there were 2 or 3 times that amount of inactive weapons (and their fissile material - specifically PU-238 pits for the fission triggers) held in RESERVE should they be needed.
So, the problem with disarmament is 1 of $$, and time. IT takes a lot of money, and hellova lot of time to disassemble 50 years worth of nuclear weapons and their associated infrastructure.
As far as France is concerned, sure they have 200 weapons - same as the UK - but no set doctrine on how they employ them. The SIOP pretty much got thrown out the window after the USSR collapse and they have been trying to figure it out ever since.
Best,
Wolf
-
The world was not about to get blown up during the Cold war. It was never close to getting blown up. EVER.
All these countries that have them have something to lose from Mutually assured destruction. So there is no reason to initiate a launching.
Now, we consider North Korea and Iran. A bunch of fanatics. They really don't have anything to lose. They can initiate the launching. And that's why we need two large parking lots.
Now.
-
What was the BBC sitcom, "Yes Minister"?
"Sir, we don't have nuclear weapons because the Soviets do. We have them because the French do."
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Ok I know it means Nuclear power but thats a bit daft too.;)
What exactly is the problem with nuclear power? Shouldn't we be reducing CO2 emissions?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Now, we consider North Korea and Iran. A bunch of fanatics. They really don't have anything to lose. They can initiate the launching. And that's why we need two large parking lots.
I think it's a bit silly to compare Iran to NK.
-
Yep I'm all for reducing Co2 emmisions. But half of Europes bloody radiactive waste comes here to Sellafield re processing plant. I don't want Britain to become a dumping ground. Nuclear waste is a real problem and no one has realy come up with a foolproof solution to it.
Oh and theres the small issue of accidents. If a Chernobyl happened to one of our Nuclear power plants we've had it as a nation!:eek:
Nuke the deterance factor was a sham. There were more than one occasion where we went to the brink. At least one incuident during the eighties that I heard about nearly resulted in a launch by the soviets due to technical failures.
I think its pure luck we are still here at all. So lets get rid of the bloody things full stop. ASAP
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
So lets get rid of the bloody things full stop. ASAP
That is possibly the most stupid thing that we could do. We need nukes as a deterrent. If all nukes were destroyed, what would stop a rogue nation developing it and using it without any possibility of retribution?
I think you need to put a little more thought into your argument before calling to get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, a small, well kept deterrent such as the Royal Navy's is all that is needed. Reduction of nuclear capability is fine, getting rid of it full stop is just plain idiotic.
How many large scale war's between major nations have we seen since the introduction of the nuke?
-
Originally posted by Furball
As it already says.. only nukes british have are in their subs, RAF is a non nuclear force now.
The Royal Navy are the only service able to actually launch a nuke but the RAF hold/can hold nukes and deploy them for the Royal Navy. The ASU used to be at RAF Wittering but I think it moved to RAF Marham.
-
Originally posted by Halo
The United States is the only country to station land-based nuclear weapons outside its borders.
(UNQUOTE)
Where do the US hold nukes outside their borders?
-
Originally posted by Dune
What was the BBC sitcom, "Yes Minister"?
"Sir, we don't have nuclear weapons because the Soviets do. We have them because the French do."
Between WW1 and WW2 the majority of RAF bases were built in the south of England because the only recognised threat was France. It wasn't until the mid-30s that the RAF started to have bases built in the east side of the country.
:)
-
Originally posted by Replicant
Where do the US hold nukes outside their borders?
As of January 2003, there are 800 operational B61 non-strategic nuclear bombs, earmarked for delivery by various US and NATO aircraft. Another 500 are in reserve. About 150 of the B61 bombs are deployed at nine airbases in six European NATO member states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK), the only US nuclear weapons that are still forward-deployed (other than submarine launched).
-
I dont know whats happened over the past 20 yrs or less. Growing up I was proud to know that France and her tri-color was there beside us, and other countires allied to us. Its just sad that there is so much negative crap going on.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
As of January 2003, there are 800 operational B61 non-strategic nuclear bombs, earmarked for delivery by various US and NATO aircraft. Another 500 are in reserve. About 150 of the B61 bombs are deployed at nine airbases in six European NATO member states (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey and the UK), the only US nuclear weapons that are still forward-deployed (other than submarine launched).
B61 for use by B52, B1, B2?
-
Non-strategic... I assume they could be delivered by F-111s, F-15s and like aircraft as well.
-
Nukes ? the whole strategy is MAD;)
We don't need em. Its no deterance anymore. These other countries you talk about furball, couldn't give a hoot anyhow, whether we have em or not. They know that we are never going to realy use them.
We have precision weapons and vastly superior conventional capability. There are other solutions.
To me this is like listening to WW1 general;s rattling on about how we must have cavalry, when what we realy need are more machine guns.
Nukes are a redundant concept. A very blunt weapon. Move on mr stategist please and we can all feel a bit safer and be less likely oto develop some hideous radiation related disease.
-
This fool talks as if he thinks people will forget how to make nuclear weapons just because the cold war is over..
Nuclear power was an inveitable discovery for us when we set upon the technology path, it is never going away, ever. Nuclear weapons will be here, either in reality or as a clear technical possibility forever asa long as human civilization goes on.
-
We still know how to ride horses too, and make armour and fight with swords. We don't use them though because we now have stuff that is more effective.
Who is the fool? The one who is stuck in the past wedded to old outdated doctrine? or the one who moves with the technology and the time.
?huh?
-
I thought you might resort to such a ridiculous analogy, it deserves no particular response beyond asking you consider the difference between weapons able to wipe out whole cities and kill millions in seconds and something like horse mounted infantry.
Or tell me, exactly what use are your superior smart conventinal bombs of a non-nuclear armed state after your nuclear armed enemy has wiped out all your cities, factories, farms etc with a massive nuclear attack during a real all out war on the scale of ww2...
Hmmm...
-
If hes going to do that you are dead anyway. First strike and its all over whether you have nukes or not.
So why worry?
take out his nukes with precision weapons. attack his electronic communications. etc etc before hand. Nukes are usualy a last resort weapon. Take out such things before you get there!
I dunno I ust think they are old redundant and what the hell use is a weapon that makes the bit of the planet they hit uninhabitable for years. Total madness.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
If hes going to do that you are dead anyway. First strike and its all over whether you have nukes or not.
So why worry?
take out his nukes with precision weapons. attack his electronic communications. etc etc before hand. Nukes are usualy a last resort weapon. Take out such things before you get there!
I dunno I ust think they are old redundant and what the hell use is a weapon that makes the bit of the planet they hit uninhabitable for years. Total madness.
Take a look at your first strike scenario.
Missles can be detected and confirmed before they impact and a nuclear response can be sent before launch sites are destroyed. This makes the idea of a first strike quite unlikely since the response is nearly guarnteed.
Now if your enemy has no nukes and only smart bombs, well then, you get the point.
Nclear weapons are dispersed, it woult take very long time to knock out all launch sites with smart bombs. Durinmg that time there are plenty of opportnities to launch the weapons.
The weapons are not outdated and they are not redundant.
Look, all this goes back to my basic point.
NUCLEAR WEAPONS WILL EXIST FROM TRINITY TO ETERNITY.
Just because the cold war standoff is over doers not mean perople will forget how to make nukes, it will be with us for all human civilization. We cant just imagine them not existing any more and we cant just forget them. If your potential enemy has the capability and knowlege to maske weapons whicgh wipe your cities and kill millions of citizens, yiou will damn well want that too as a counterbalance. And renember, this knowlege will never go away, it will be here for eternity. Think of it this way - we have just gotten through the first 60 years of this knowlege - and there is still centuries and centuries and centuries of time. Nukes are still very young and they and the knowlege and physics to make them are not going away, ever...
-
Sadly true maybe. But that doesn't later the fact that we should try to get rid of em!