SCENARIO: Modern World (In Progress! Nitpickers needed!)

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i no the USSR and USA out-built each other to demonstrate power and absolut insanity. but i can't understand why newer nuclear powers (israel, india, pakistan) do the same?

Well, sometimes the old reasons are the best. Furthermore, the USA and the USSR hated each other because they were geopolitically opposed, not so much because of the antipathy between totalitarian communism vs. capitalist democracy... but India and Pakistan have already fought 3 MAJOR WARS. They are steeped in hatred of each other.

Perhaps they feel these nuclear weapons will give them legitimacy. Maybe they hope to spur a small high-tech sector in their economy. Or maybe they're just STUPID.

[Luk]

Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakchstab, South Africa do not have nuclear weapons, and speculations about that are something like speculations about UFO

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by Luk
Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakchstab, South Africa do not have nuclear weapons, and speculations about that are something like speculations about UFO

Well, it's good to know that Kazakchstab has no nuclear weapons! Their tension with Tajikstanan and Uzbekerstan could have produced some serious problems.

[sabrewolf]

ukraina actually had nukes after the fall of the ussr, but they voluntarily destroyed them or gave them to russia. but noone can be sure there isn't that lonely little nuke somewhere in the outskirts of that small city...

i think there's a higher chance of "nucular" (quoted W) weapons than ufos...

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
ukraina actually had nukes after the fall of the ussr, but they voluntarily destroyed them or gave them to russia. but noone can be sure there isn't that lonely little nuke somewhere in the outskirts of that small city...

Well, that's what most "experts" repeatedly say... that Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazahkstan at LEAST still have some nuclear warheads floating around.

[Roman]

Byelorussia, Kazahkstan and Ukraine have all had nuclear weapons on their territory after the fall of the Soviet Union. However, they all either destroyed these weapons or sent them to Russia by 1996. All of the weapons have been accounted for and verification has been done by international inspectors.

As to the need for so many nuclear weapons it stems from the desire of the Superpowers to engage in simultaneous counter-force and counter-value targetting in many countries at the same time. For example, the USA would want to be able to destroy all the major cities in Russia and China and other countries at the same time. It is estimated that just to destroy the major cities in China about 500 nuclear warheads are needed, not to mention all the cities in other countries (which would not be as many as for China, but it would still add up). Bear in mind that you do not only want to destroy enemy cities, but also want to target their own nuclear weapons, so that they cannot strike back at you and for that you need further warheads. Moreover, you also want to have sufficient weapons, so that if you are struck with a surprise enemy nuclear strike, you can still strike back in force, despite a large proportion of your missiles being destroyed in the proccess. Consequently, the US Nuclear Posture Review estimates that to achieve the above, the USA needs to have an absolute minimum of 3,000 deliverable strategic nuclear warheads.

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Ugh... well that is just patently absurd. How the hell can man survive on Earth after 3,000 nuclear weapons are launched? It's disgusting that anyone even thought about it enough to come up with this number...

(I'm not knocking you, Roman, I'm knocking the bastards that built our nuclear arsenal into this ridiculous state)

[sabrewolf]

isn't that absolutely insane (not you, Roman, but the idea of it)? "the USA needs to have an absolute minimum of 3,000 deliverable strategic nuclear warheads." ... and before: "the USA would want to be able to destroy all the major cities in Russia and China and other countries at the same time"

i guess i'm just too young to understand this "if i die, everyone else must die"-thing. i started being interested in politics, when the us leader was more evil than the soviet leader (reagan vs. gorbatchov).

about destroying the nukes of the oponent: you can't do it with your own nukes, because a) you don't know where they are, b) you wouldn't get them in time because the automatic counterstrike mechanism would send them off before yours arrive and c) some of them are hidden under several 100m of solid rock. not even a nuke could get rid of the mountains.

[sabrewolf]

btw: the most human way to use a nuke is like in the film goldeneye: a NEMP (Nuclear ElectroMagnetic Pulse). detonate the bomb above the athmosphere over a city. the direct radiation isn't big enough for serious injuries, the famous fire "mushroom" won't be, because there's no air to ignite.

all that happens: every single electronic circuit in a range of several km will be toast (except the ones protected by close meshed faraday cages). this would ruin the economy and life of a whole city without killing many people.

but still: ban the nukes

[Roman]

Oh, I agree that the whole situation is depressing, but I was merely explaining the 'rationale' that the Superpowers used to build so many weapons. You can feel some comfort at the fact that Russia and the USA have already agreed to reduce their nuclear arsenals to between 2,000 and 2,500 deliverable warheads each by 2010 (I think that was the date) with the possibility of further reductions (to the 1,000-1,500 range) later (apparently, they are ignoring the conclusions of the Review I mentioned above). Currently the fastest growing nuclear arsenal is that of China - it is expected that China may well produce in excess of 1,000 new nuclear weapons by 2010.

[sabrewolf]

ok, sorry - threadjacking

JW: what's the state of the mods (standard size, large, PTW)?

[Jaguar]

I have one more exam. Then I have a four day weekend, followed by a week of non-academic school activities, and then I start school again monday/tuesday-ish. This means good news for the mod. A 100x100 version will be completed for ptw and regular in three weeks. (I hope.)

[Roman]

Some extra information on the armed forces of various countries. Please note that I always try to use as recent a source as possible for each, but sometimes recent sources are not available.


Size of the Armed Forces (millions of men):-
1. China: 4.0 + extra 0.8 People's Armed Police paramilitaries (Being downsized to 2.8, but in addition to these figures, the Chinese have various Militias/Reserves, numbering, 7 million, 12 million and 25 million.)
2. India: 2.2 (Includes paramilitaries)
3. USA: 1.4 (Being downsized to 1.2)
4. North Korea: 1.2 (North Korea also keeps additional 4.7-7.0 million reserve troops)
5. Russia: 1.2 (This is the official number. The real strength is somewhere between 800,000 and 900,000 troops and is being downsized further. In the long term it is expected to stabilize around 800,000, but some have suggested 700,000 or even 500,000. In 1990 USSR had 2 million to 3 million troops.)
6. Pakistan: 0.85
7. Turkey: 0.6-0.7
8. Brazil: 0.6
9. Vietnam: 0.5 (In addition, there are 4.5 million paramilitaries, so Vietnam could be considered to have the largest army at 5.0 million men in total.)
10. Iran: 0.5


Military Expenditure (Millions of US dollars [valued at year 2000 level]):
1. USA: cca. 300,000 (This has increased dramatically during the Bush administration and is expected to exceed 400 Billion USD in 2003.)
2. China: 65,000 (The real figure may well be substantially higher, especially considering the fact that the PLA owns a whole industrial empire of its own. Some estimates put the real Chinese spending at between 110 Billion USD and 150 Billion USD. Whatever the real level of spending is, one thing is certain - it is growing very fast [at least 20% every year.])
3. Russia: 64,000 (This figure is for 1996, as I could not find a later one. It is absolutely certain that military spending has declined enormously since then. In 1990, the military spending amounted to 350 Billion USD, which would be in excess of 400 Billion USD in year 2000 dollars.)
4. France: 46,500
5. Japan: 41,000
7. Germany: 38,500
8. UK: 31,700
9. Italy: 20,200
10. Saudi Arabia: 18,300
11. South Korea: 12,800
12. India: 12,100

[Yahweh Sabaoth]

Hey, that's some good information to know! Do you have more detailed breakdowns? (no. of ships, no. of planes, no. of wheeled units , etc.?)

[Roman]

Originally posted by Yahweh Sabaoth
Hey, that's some good information to know! Do you have more detailed breakdowns? (no. of ships, no. of planes, no. of wheeled units , etc.?)

Yes, I do, but none of my material is arranged from greatest to lowest, so I have to search carefully, so that I choose the highest numbers and that takes time... Nonetheless, I will find it and post it here eventually.