Comments on: Paul Richards argues nuclear weapons can be controlled

By: Nicolle Bamberg

Nicolle Bamberg — Sun, 20 May 2012 21:00:48 +0000

Great information :)

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 15:59:48 +0000

Mr Salazar

What did you mean by climate population ?

By: Jorge Salazar

Jorge Salazar — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:45:00 +0000

Dear Tim,

There are hopeful signs for supporters of nuclear disarmament in that the total stockpile of nukes, active and inactive, has been cut in half from a high of over 40,000 in the 1990s to about 20,000 today. I’m with you that ‘pandora’s box’ can be used to describe some of other challenges unique to the 20th century such as climate population. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:53:01 +0000

it matters not what we think for this is for all intents and purposes the pandoras box problem. they knew it as soon as they tested the first bomb, yet they where all deluted enough to go ahead and make more. now i have to agree with both gentlemen befor me. there is no controling it at this stage in the game the knolage is out there for all to see and use. the only way to control it is total removal of knolage and matireals. neither of wich will ever happen. so in short the only thing we can do is try to stop unstable people from having the power. and as a world community we have failed misserably at every turn.

By: Jorge Salazar

Jorge Salazar — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:30:05 +0000

Right, what Paul Richards of Columbia said to EarthSky was that there’s proliferation in numbers and in weapon quality, and the latter is most improved through testing a nuclear bomb by exploding it.

If scientists can tell for sure that a nuclear bomb is tested, they can look deeper into the data and track the location and other clues that can be used to hold people accountable.

Claims of a nuclear test can also be verified. For instance, monitors were able to confirm North Korea’s nuclear bomb test in 1996, and as reported today in the Washington Post, North Korea might be testing a small nuclear weapon in space this April .

The Washington Post also reported yesterday that President Obama will meet with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev next week to possibly lower the two country’s nuclear arsenal through renewal of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty .

By: Larry Sessions

Larry Sessions — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:40:39 +0000

The question isn’t “should they” but rather “can they” be controlled?” International cooperation, laws and monitoring are good, but none of that – in themselves – would ever prevent a rogue nation or even well-funded group from making an atomic device. Nuclear devices are a bit harder, but there’s no guarantee there, either. Sure, we can monitor, so the question boils down to what we can do about it. If you are dealing with an irrational megalomaniac, we may not be able to stop development of advanced weapons, be they conventional, atomic or nuclear. We need to monitor, but full “control” may simply not be possible.

By: Benjamin Napier

Benjamin Napier — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 07:23:44 +0000

Nuclear weapons are inanimate. Our problem is, as always, people. Nuclear weapons have been used twice. Will they be used again? If some politician is fearful of using power and thinks the nuke will be less damaging to him (or her) than the coming activity, he will use it. In othert words, politicians will start a war in a minute rather than lose power.

Keep in mind, we managed to kill over 600,000 folk in the war between the states using archaic black powder weapons. And all over money.

Politicians with power will use it. Be it nuclear, blackpowder or sticks and rocks.

Finding our that a nuke has been detonated is after the fact, not preventative.