Who & how is taking charge.

What is the rest of the world suppose to do about the deteriorating nuclear waste piles of Russia?
I can't remember the staggering numbers to which it costs just to maintain a stockpile of nuclear weapons.
Now that there economy has gone to the way side and the politics are all screwed up, the nuclear scientist are abandoning Russia to get payed by third world countries.
Russia seems too arrogant to let the UN in and desecrate anything related to nuclear proliferation. Probably because they have so much to hide. Just like it came to light that Iraq owed them billions in oil. Gee, I wonder why they did not want a war?

The last I remember the USA had over 10,000 stockpiled. But at least we maintain them and account for heavy water and plutonium that seems to come up missing.
2002 Russia I think was under 10, 000. like in the 8000 range.

This is from memory. SO please correct any info that is inaccurate.

What other countries have nuclear powers?
Russia - USA. North Korea - China - Pakistan - Great Britain. Who else?

France.

Are you talking about weapons or power plants? I think nuclear power plants are just as damaging. There has been a lot of discussion here in sweden (mostly from the environmentalist party) to switch completely to renewable power. My father is working as a consultant with the swedish government to figure out the best way to store nuclear waste under a part of sweden--it has to be completely leak free for something like 10,000 years before it's no longer a danger. We are digging a massive radioactive grave for ourselves with everyday that we rely on something we can't possibly control yet.

Actually, the best way to distribute nuclear waste is all over the place. Spread it out evenly over the planet. It's only a problem in high concentrations.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jalexxi
Actually, the best way to distribute nuclear waste is all over the place. Spread it out evenly over the planet. It's only a problem in high concentrations.

---

I have to disagree with that one. Great Idea. :thumbdown:
There has been talk of recycling the nuclear waste, fission and turning the half life in half.

I am talking about weapons. Keeping up a stock pile.
If you go after nuclear power for energy you are obviously going to keep it up to a degree to where it works. Maybe not to the nuclear regulatory commissions standards or other watchdog groups but it would be an ongoing process as opposed to a stagnant nuclear weapons stockpile.

India...I think Iran is developing them.

Iran has nukes.

On the topic of nukes, I don't understand why america got away so easialy with bombing 2 japanese cities of a country that was going to surrender anyway. Allso a few days apart, so they knew what they were doing the second time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo
Iran has nukes.

On the topic of nukes, I don't understand why america got away so easialy with bombing 2 japanese cities of a country that was going to surrender anyway. Allso a few days apart, so they knew what they were doing the second time.

---

I guess you haven't heard...America can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

[quote]I have to disagree with that one. Great Idea. :thumbdown:
So, any reason why you disagree? I can't think of any problem it would pose, actually.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mongreloctopus



I guess you haven't heard...America can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

---

Nonsence! I am sure that, for instance, america starts a war without a real reason the United Nations or someone would stop them, right? No one would help them with their pointless war that would only fuck up the people in the country the 'libirate' more, right? :)

Yeah, it's been like this for years, and it didn't change a bit. All the freaking propaganda totally makes people think america is the 'good guy' and communists/middle-eastern-people are the 'bad guys'.

There are more sucky americans then sucky commies/middle-eastern people.

I hope there will come a cool president in america soon, that will tell every single american to stfu and act like normal people. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Neruo)</div>

Quote:

---

Iran has nukes.
On the topic of nukes, I don't understand why america got away so easialy with bombing 2 japanese cities of a country that was going to surrender anyway. Allso a few days apart, so they knew what they were doing the second time.[/b]

---

Where the hell did you ever get the idea they were going to surrender? They would never surrender. Hence you have suicide bombers. It is their culture.
We used nuclear weapons the one and only time in history that it had to be done and can never be done again.
Their culture would have killed millions of more lives. Do to the advent of the nuclear weapon and its use, they new they would have no culture if they did not surrender. For shits sake! They did not even surrender after the first bomb. And we did give them a chance to.
<!--QuoteBegin-Jalexxi
So, any reason why you disagree? I can't think of any problem it would pose, actually.

---

We are not talking about manure here. Just as any other lethal chemical like lead or mercury. Deluding them to the point where they actually would pose no threat to the ecosystem would require as much effort to just dispose of them.
And Nuclear waste from a weapon and a power plant are two different things. That of a weapon having a much longer life span I believe. In either case we are talking thousands of years.

Japan apparantly has them in secret...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SolSkye
Japan apparantly has them in secret...

---

Not a very good secret then..

LOL yeah, well not everyone knows. :wink:

[quote]

We are not talking about manure here. Just as any other lethal chemical like lead or mercury. Deluding them to the point where they actually would pose no threat to the ecosystem would require as much effort to just dispose of them.
And Nuclear waste from a weapon and a power plant are two different things. That of a weapon having a much longer life span I believe. In either case we are talking thousands of years.

Still nuking people is rather gay. I mean america killed most people ever with weapons of mass destruction and now they are bitching about they should be the only country allowed to have them.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
India...I think Iran is developing them.

---

And Pakistan. But I dont believe it completely.

India is a nuclear power country. The first test fission explosion by India on May 18, 1974 is termed as "Smiling Budha". "Budha Smiles" was the headline on US newspapers and they were surprised.

After about a quarter century, on "Budhha Jayanti"(Birthday of Budha), 11 May 1998, the Shakti(second series of tests) has been demonstrated at Pokhran. Shakti is a Sanskrit word which literally means strength, and Shakti is also the name of the Hindu Goddess of strength. Shakti was the codename for Pokharan-II. I remember celebrating Shakti. It was first teermed as "Budha Smiles Again".

India and weapons of mass destruction

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neruo


Still nuking people is rather gay. I mean america killed most people ever with weapons of mass destruction and now they are bitching about they should be the only country allowed to have them.

---

Gay? It is a happy thing?
Where did you get the idea that we the USA thinks that we should only have them.
We do have them, yes. But we created a non nuclear proliferation treaty to try & keep things in order.
It would be unwise for any superpower to now get rid of their Nuclear capabilities. But again it will lead me to the topic subject of what to do with a superpower that can't handle what they have.

[quote]

Gay? It is a happy thing?
Where did you get the idea that we the USA thinks that we should only have them.
We do have them, yes. But we created a non nuclear proliferation treaty to try & keep things in order.
It would be unwise for any superpower to now get rid of their Nuclear capabilities. But again it will lead me to the topic subject of what to do with a superpower that can't handle what they have.

I used 'gay' the politically-incorrect way, as an other word for 'bad' / 'sucky'. No offence to gays btw.

And america can't handle their power. They are power-crazy, believing their own propaganda of 'bringing freedom' by bombing countries.

Bull shit. That's aimed at a lot of you, not anybody in particular, though a few certainly seem to have their heads on straight.

1: Japan wasn't going to surrender immediately. Eventually, they would have had to, facing the superior numbers of forces in a tactically disadvantageous situation. But they wouldn't surrender immediately, and they'd attempt to negotiate too many terms for surrender. Since the allies had determined that they'd only accept unconditional surrender, and they wanted to end the war soon and with as little allied casualties as possible, nukes seemed a valid option.

2: Iran doesn't have nukes. They sure as hell would like them, and they're most definitely attempting to get them, but they don't have them YET. On Feb. 10 they removed UN seals on their centrifuges at Katanz to resume enrichment of Uranium. They also removed UN cameras and refused to allow any more inspections by UN security teams OR the International Atomic Energy Association. Also, several years ago we found traces of HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) in the very same centrifuges in Katanz. Iran tried to stonewall, successfully predicting that the UN would do very little about it. The stonewalling still continues. Iran claims that they're developing medical technology, almost certainly false, seeing as how they could purchase the technology and materials, or technological assistance to start producing the materials themselves, without need for expensive experimentation. Also, 'Medical Research' doesn't explain the HEU. Also, an innocent nation who was flustered at the UN might indeed remove seals placed upon their centrifuges against UN wishes, but they most certainly would have no reason to remove the cameras and ban inspections if it was TRULY medical research. Iran is backing on the idea that the UN will be crippled once again by it's indecisiveness and lack of commitment, and beligerantly refusing to comply with the NPT. They've already moved to paralyze two of the five permanent UN votes by making a multi-billion dollar deal with Russia for a new reactor, and another multi-billion dollar oil deal with China. Both deals would be impaired by any UN sanctions, so Russia and China would be reluctant if asked to push decisive action against Iran. War probably isn't the answer, or tactical strikes, since both would involve high civilian casualties and low popularity, and both would be likely to fail. The facilities are 65+ feet underground, so tactical warheads wouldn't damage them, and in the event of a war, the materials could easily be hid before any troops found them.

3: Russia admitted to more than 500 KNOWN incidents of Plutonium, HEU and other nuclear materials being smuggled across the border just last year. What's to say that a nuke couldn't be smuggled across soon, as well?

4: Russia also has amazing numbers of nuclear subs, ARMED, that they don't have the money to deactivate. Those nuclear subs carry HEU, a vital bomb ingredient, and have little or no emplaced security measures. To sneak in and steal some would be amazingly easy.

5: India, Pakistan, South Africa, China, France, USA, Russia, Israel, the UK, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine and North Korea all have nuclear weapons, or have declared that they have nuclear weapons. No nuclear tests have been staged in North Korea, so it's doubtful that they actually possess any, and South Africa, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus have now surrendered their arsenal of nuclear weapons and accepted compliance with the NPT.

6: Nuclear war isn't likely to start with the United States. As much as some people would testify otherwise, we remain a democratic society, at least at some level. If the President okayed a nuclear strike, the vast majority of the US would riot in the streets in protest. The riots wouldn't be contained to just the citizens, either. A large portion of the armed forces would rebel as well, along with most of the police forces. The riots would be uncontainable, and the government would very rapidly have to comply with the wishes of the people, or be reduced to a government without a nation. Russia MIGHT be the starting point of a nuclear war, but only because of the relative amount of disorder and chaos in their country at the moment, providing opportunity for non-sanctioned groups or extremists to gain control of their warheads. China could possibly start such a war, since they have much less democracy than the US or Russia, and have far fewer social and political obligations to consider. Even then, they aren't likely to start such a war, either, since they rely heavily on foreign trade. India likely wouldn't be the first to fire, since they have much less political resolve and far too much reliance on foreign nations. Pakistan, under the new Hamas party, is a far more likely suspect. The people of the country most certainly want the destruction of Israel, and the government, now ruled for the most part by a political group recognized by the US, Israel and the European Union as a terrorist organization and not a political party, might be volatile enough to pull the trigger. Even then, they'd most certainly think twice faced with almost certain nuclear retaliation from Israel, who has consistently refused to sign the NPT and has long been suspected of owning nukes, as well as retaliation, though probably not nuclear retaliation, from the US as well, who has vowed to support Israel.
The most likely starting point, though, would be rogue terrorist organizations. Since they have no social obligations, and very straight-forward and single-minded political objectives, they'd almost certainly deploy any nuclear weapons they had the luck to come upon. Their only limiting factor is technical ability and the difficulty of acquisition of the materials. Few organized nations want the blame placed upon them for a nuclear strike.

7: Japan isn't trying, nor is it in the possession of, nuclear weapons. Japan is, in fact, one of the LEAST likely suspects for such a thing. The social pressure, both in and outside of their government, is overwhelmingly opposed to nuclear weapons of ANY kind. Quite understandable, seeing their history with such weapons. For a good "what-if" scenario on the subject, read "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy.

8. The US won't give up nuclear weapons. Nor will Russia, the UK, France, or China. If any of them do, it would likely be France or the UK first. But the USA will most definitely keep them. In fact, it'd be a poor decision to give up such weapons, and that's coming from a pacifist. The world's in a sort of standoff right now. China, the US, and Russia all have guns pointed at eachother's heads, but nobody wants to pull the trigger first. That isn't to say that they don't want to pull the trigger eventually, however. Russia is becoming less of a player in the standoff as their government faces reform and reorganization challenges, and as they begin to make peaceful negotiations and alliances with the US and European nations. Abruptly dropping nuclear weapons from the US or China's arsenal would be dangerous for both sides politically. If the US dropped nuclear weapons, China would see it as a venerability. They MIGHT strike, but likely would hold back because of economic dependency on outside sources. The temptation would still be great, though, and provided they could obtain independence of foreign trade, they might take the opportunity to eliminate US military threats. If China dropped their nuclear program, they'd lose a significant bartering chip in world politics. Other than nukes, China's army is mostly built on numbers, not technological advancement. The US army would stand a decent chance against them if nuclear weapons were removed from the picture, and if the US had the help of European nations, Canada and Australia, they could easily overwhelm China. So long as China has nuclear weapons, they're guarunteed a certain level of immunity to war. So long as the US has nuclear weapons, opposing world forces are less likely to attempt a direct strike against us. Still, the primary goal of all governments should be the gradual elimination of nuclear weapons. No sane and established government has any desire to use them, and they're inhuman and cruel weapons to think about. In addition, they have little use in the modern war, in which the opponents are few and far between, using guerilla tactics. Modern war should focus on surgical strikes to compensate, not on nearly useless nukes.

9: The war in Iraq wasn't started with no reason and against UN wishes. The UN passed a long series of resolutions asking Iraq to surrender their chemical, biological and nuclear weapon stockpiles and research material. Iraq refused, but the UN was hesitant to act. Eventually, after a long political debate, Iraq actually surrendered a small number of chemical weapons to the UN, but clearly withheld some. The UN, prodded forward by Bush and the United States, kept asking. Iraq used the meantime to hide or dispose of, their chemical weapons. The UN finally admitted that it was time to back talk with action, and allowed war to be declared against Iraq. Obviously, no weapons were found, seeing as how Iraq had plenty of time to rid itself of them. Bungling by the administration in charge of the military also added to the failure. Sending troops marching down the street is no way to deal with an opposing guerilla force. But that's what we did--and we continue to pay the price for it. Still, the fact remains that the UN WAS on our side when this whole thing started. Don't pretend that they were the good guys--hell, the UN is one of the greatest laughables of this age.
For one, the UN lacks the resolve to take any action against nations that violate international law. There are several nations who've refused to sign the NPT, including Iran, but they failed to act against every one of them. Several of the nations that the UN KNEW were developing nukes succeeded in doing so, but the UN still refused to take action. Second, the voting system is pathetic. Five permanent votes, all easily swayed by a few greenbacks. Such was showed by Iran, when they made those deals with Russia and China. Third, they accept member nations who are known to be oppressive to their inhabitants. Fourth, their actions are so uncoordinated and lacking in organization and tact that when they actually DO get around to doing something, it never winds up actually DOING anything.

That's more or less it. Sorry for the long post.

EDIT: Forgot to add.

10: Nuclear power is a very pretty-looking alternative. I live in Utah, where we're faced with storing the vast majority of the US's nuclear waste soon. I still advocate nuclear power whole-heartedly.
Coal power isn't safe, or clean, or renewable. There's little reason to keep it around. Even if there was a massive leak in radioactive waste, the death and injuries incurred would be insignificant compared to the massive numbers per year of coal related deaths and injuries. Look at all the recent mining disasters, all of which have happened in COAL mines. Comparitively, nuclear power has had under 100 casualties, all of which were at one site at one point in time. Chernobyl. And that was a reactor that didn't meet saftey regulations and was poorly managed. Three-Mile Island didn't actually kill anybody, though it made a few fire-fighters who didn't follow regulations sick. In fact, the reactor there gave off less radiation than the granite and soil in people's homes. You could go up and lick the reactor, even live duct-tape to the wall for a few months, or sleep inside of it for the next year, and get less radation than you'd get by waking into the average subway station in New York.
Wind power is insufficient to meet the needs of a growing society. The amount of space used up by such generators is massive, and the power generated from that area is miniscule compared to the demand it aims to fill. With a rapidly expanding society, growing by a billion people a year or more, we don't have the space to use for them. Besides, their usefulness is heavily relient on desirable weather.
Water power is amazingly useful, completely clean and very productive for the space it uses. But it's limited to areas with a river to dam, and not everywhere has one.
Solar power is just as bad as wind power: Amazingly space-wasteful and hardly productive OR efficient. If you want to put a solar panel on your roof, go ahead. Kudos, even. But to power the whole world, it's not going to work, for the same reasons stated for wind power.

There. NOW I'm done. :mrgreen:

Wow...People in this forum sure know exactly what's going on--no need for opinions, I guess.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tsen+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tsen)</div>

Quote:

---

That's more or less it. Sorry for the long post.[/b]

---

Why apologize! that was some great information. I have been waiting for a response that has some substance.

<!--QuoteBegin-mongreloctopus
Wow...People in this forum sure know exactly what's going on--no need for opinions, I guess.

---

mongreloctopus. If I came across as not wanting you or anyone else's opinions I apologize. That is exactly what I want.
Opinions are what create great topic discussion. The details can be worked out later.
I believe that many people are too caught up in the precise details. But I would much rather read your opinion than a copy and paste from a Google search! ;)

However all I wanted was an opinion how we are going to address Russia's nuclear issues. I don't believe I have yet to get one.
That is frustrating. People must be commenting just on the principle of nuclear weapon try and skipped over the issue that I would like opinions. Instead it gets side tracked and you end up talking about, what else. The USA.

As we can see the topic of nuclear anything is quite broad. Interesting but large.
So to remain on tract what would you propose on Tsen's topics 3 & 4?

Quote:

---

3: Russia admitted to more than 500 KNOWN incidents of Plutonium, HEU and other nuclear materials being smuggled across the border just last year. What's to say that a nuke couldn't be smuggled across soon, as well?

4: Russia also has amazing numbers of nuclear subs, ARMED, that they don't have the money to deactivate. Those nuclear subs carry HEU, a vital bomb ingredient, and have little or no emplaced security measures. To sneak in and steal some would be amazingly easy. [/b]

---

It is rather difficult to deal with another power country this equipped and with big egos.
The only way I can see that anything can get done is a United nations that is United. But they never are. In return shit gets done.
It seems also that Putin has been subtly taking them back in the direction of communism.

[quote]

mongreloctopus. If I came across as not wanting you or anyone else's opinions I apologize.


Nah, I didn't mean you...But certain people here are convinced they have the truth and all of the facts. Or maybe I am just accustomed to a different style of discussion.

Yeah I guess a nuke terrorist attack on a major american city is inevitable. Bummer.

as long as its not salt lake city, utah lol who would kill all the innocent mormons!?!?!?

FluBB

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer
It seems also that Putin has been subtly taking them back in the direction of communism.

---

Its anything but subtle. I think its clear to everyone what he is trying to do.

Nuclear power is good, the problem is all the waste that is left over. If we didn't get stuck with all the waste, everyone would use it. Even making it less radioactive doesn't help. We are talking about stuff that is harm for over 10,000 years. If you could cut that down in half your still stuck with it for 5,000 years.

I have to disagree with you on the solar power tsen. If you covered the roof of every single building on the planet with solar panels besides it looking ugly(which it would) it would give you a ton of power. I don't know if it would be enough but it would make a huge impact on our energy.

As for nuclear bombs, I think the US is the least likely to ever use one. Infact I think we are one of the only counties that could take a hit by a bomb and still wouldn't fire one back. I don't think anyone wants to shoot one though. Since WW2, people know what they can do, and people don't like it. Back then the US got away with it because they didn't really know the damage it would do. Yea they knew it was a big bomb but they weren't sure what it could really do.

Anyone who shoots one off now however is going to have everyone on them. A bomb is really a desperation move now, because the second it goes off half the world will be after you. It really is just a bluff now

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
As for nuclear bombs, I think the US is the least likely to ever use one. Infact I think we are one of the only counties that could take a hit by a bomb and still wouldn't fire one back. I don't think anyone wants to shoot one though. Since WW2, people know what they can do, and people don't like it. Back then the US got away with it because they didn't really know the damage it would do. Yea they knew it was a big bomb but they weren't sure what it could really do.

---

The effects of nuclear weapons is not the only thing WW2 taught us. It also clearly demonstrated the disastrous effects, on invaded and invaders, of millitary invasion and occupation.

Terrorists suicide bomb a building in the heart of new york city. America responds by invading and occupying a small third-world nation with little or no connection to the attacks.

Unlike most of the rest of the civilised world, then, America seems to have learned little from WW2. I have no trouble whatsoever in believing that, if nuked, America under its current leadership would have no problem unleashing its nuclear arsenal in response.

Quote:

---

Nuclear war isn't likely to start with the United States. As much as some people would testify otherwise, we remain a democratic society, at least at some level. If the President okayed a nuclear strike, the vast majority of the US would riot in the streets in protest. The riots wouldn't be contained to just the citizens, either. A large portion of the armed forces would rebel as well, along with most of the police forces. The riots would be uncontainable, and the government would very rapidly have to comply with the wishes of the people, or be reduced to a government without a nation. [/b]

---

Though I disagree with you in respect to America being a democracy, I agree with you about America not starting a nuclear war. It wouldn't happen. HOWEVER, if nuked first, I believe the American people, just after 911, would be shocked and outraged. And just as with 911, which created a general feeling of outrage and demand for vengeance, I believe that it would result in a demand for a response whch, under normal conditions, they would hesitate to support.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie

Though I disagree with you in respect to America being a democracy, I agree with you about America not starting a nuclear war. *It wouldn't happen. *HOWEVER, if nuked first, I believe the American people, just after 911, would be shocked and outraged. *And just as with 911, which created a general feeling of outrage and demand for vengeance, I believe that it would result in a demand for a response whch, under normal conditions, they would hesitate to support.

---

you make the mistake of assuming it's the american people that hold the reins. the american people would support whatever they were told to support...although i guess it's always possible nuking back would be profitable to the 15 people in charge.

The US is big enough where it doesn't have to send a nuke back though. I am not saying we wouldn't but its less likely. Theres really two reasons I think that. One being US is large in land mass, and unlike say russia the population is spread over the entire country. And two, we have enough military we could do as much damage as a nuke without having to use a nuke.

Quote:

---

you make the mistake of assuming it's the american people that hold the reins. the american people would support whatever they were told to support...although i guess it's always possible nuking back would be profitable to the 15 people in charge.

---

Oops. I feel I may have been misunderstood. To clarify:

Quote:

---

Nuclear war isn't likely to start with the United States. As much as some people would testify otherwise, we remain a democratic society, at least at some level.

---

I disagreed with THIS statement. I do not believe America to be a democracy. I concur with you, mongreloctopus, that the will of the American public is largely controlled by those in power.

Sorry if I've been misunderstood...[/quote]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Howetzer
We do have them, yes. But we created a non nuclear proliferation treaty to try & keep things in order.

---

Yeah right. The recent Bush nuclear deal with India directly violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, although it seems like this treaty only applies to countries that America doesn't like. Article 1 of the NPT forbids any signatory country from assisting another country in developing a nuclear bomb in any way, including supplying them with uranium in any way at all. The problem here is not just what India may or may not do with the uranium, but the fact that it encourages other countries such as Iran to push the envelope - if America can pick and choose what laws and treaties they adhere to, why can't others?

The real nuclear threat these days is not Russia's huge nuclear stockpile, but America actively allowing select countries to develop and maintain nuclear weapons, therefore encouraging other surrounding and less trustworthy countries to do the same. This is the whole reason the non-proliferation treaty was established - to stop any other countries from building a nuclear arsenal, because the only real defence against a nuclear stockpile is to build one yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Roller


Yeah right. The recent Bush nuclear deal with India directly violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, although it seems like this treaty only applies to countries that America doesn't like. Article 1 of the NPT forbids any signatory country from assisting another country in developing a nuclear bomb in any way, including supplying them with uranium in any way at all. The problem here is not just what India may or may not do with the uranium, but the fact that it encourages other countries such as Iran to push the envelope - if America can pick and choose what laws and treaties they adhere to, why can't others?

The real nuclear threat these days is not Russia's huge nuclear stockpile, but America actively allowing select countries to develop and maintain nuclear weapons, therefore encouraging other surrounding and less trustworthy countries to do the same. This is the whole reason the non-proliferation treaty was established - to stop any other countries from building a nuclear arsenal, because the only real defence against a nuclear stockpile is to build one yourself.

---

The nations you speak of use that as a facade. They want nuclear capacity for power, and not electric either.
And it is the dissolving stockpile of Russia that most of these nations are getting their scientist and supplies. So you in essence say it yourself. You just say it is our responsibility to Not let the other nations to not get them. Heaven forbid we would do such a thing. Us tyrants, bullies, suppressors.
It is difficult to take a unilateral approach with no backing.
So if & when the surrounding countries of India have or obtain nuclear capabilities which could threaten that country we do um mm what?
We can't restrict rogue nations from getting them without getting everyone in an an uproar.
Nobody has the fortitude to stick together / (UN) - So we go it alone and we are bullies.
We let India get invaded and we are thoughtless and looked down upon for not taking any action.
What do you propose we do?