Didn't you see Indipendance Day? Nukes did nothing, man. If aliens attack us, we're all screwed until some drunk idiot drives his plane into the ship.Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Didn't you see Indipendance Day? Nukes did nothing, man. If aliens attack us, we're all screwed until some drunk idiot drives his plane into the ship.
SEXY McAWESOME TO YOU, MISTER
As much as i agree i still think i want every weapon at my disposable to keep the human race from being wiped out by aliens. Or if nessecary destroy the planet so atleast they wouldnt have anything to gain. j/k about t3h last part.
This has gone completely and utterly off-topic. First, you have dumped away the main topic: Iran, US and the nukes. Second, you have started to make serious theories about the absolutely distant possibility of an extraterrestrial contact, and third, you think that this contact would be agressive and would eventually lead to a war.
Man!
You are Laguna! Although you're way too shy with the
opposite sex, you've got a heart of pure gold. You're a good
leader and well liked by those who know you. Most of your
friends look to your good sense when they need advice.
Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!
You're right. Aliens are something to worry about if and when they come, and then only if they have hostile intentions. The real issues we're facing today are quite a lot more pressing.
I'm pretty sure that Iran is not going to start a nuclear war with anyone, any more than the US would. It's simply not a sensible decision for a government that likes having a population to govern. Iran's a more liberal Islamic government than the extremists who get the media attention; they're fairly strict, but not dangerously fundamentalist, so they'll not willingly throw away their own lives and those of their people.
However, like the US, they'll be prepared to use force in self-defence. Other world powers are always saying, "we want you to obey our demands and let our inspectors tour your country, to see if you're developing weapons like ours, which we think you're not allowed to have because we don't like you. We're prepared to bomb your country if you don't obey our demands, because it's our job to set the rules about what you're not allowed to do, even if we don't follow those rules ourselves."
Failure to heed these words makes one a "rogue state", apparently. I shudder at the thought of how Great Britain, for instance, would react if (for example) the Russian government "demanded" that they open their nuclear power plants and weapons silos for inspection.
A fear of being treated like a subservient, second-class country could drive a lot of states to war. Threats of intervention from the west were part of the reason for North Korea's increased arms production.
Certain countries have a history of violence. Iran and North Korea are two such nations. It's not about good guys or bad guys... simply that the USA is the strongest nation in the world, and it and its allies want to keep their enemies and potential enemies in check. It's not about double stanards, since this is not a moral issue we're dealing with here. If you're okay with a country like North Korea having nukes (which it does, shiver at the thought..), then you're the fool on the hill, living in a world of rainbows and lollipops. It's just not right, and may endanger you, people you care about, or just about any other aspect of life.A fear of being treated like a subservient, second-class country could drive a lot of states to war. Threats of intervention from the west were part of the reason for North Korea's increased arms production.
Letting our enemies have too much power in their hands is risky. Any oppurtunity to disarm them should be attempted. If Iran develops nukes , eventually, you can be quite sure they won't be holding them for long.
When fighting monsters, be wary not to become one yourself... when gazing into the abyss, bear in mind that the abyss also gazes into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
The rightful owner of this Ciddie can kiss my arse! :P
I'd be more worried about who we put in Congress than who we put in the Oval Office. Bush had the ability to do everything he's done because the House and Senate didn't do anything to stop him. We never declared war on anyone, as that's something only the Senate can do.
We're not going to lose our rights. Bush doesn't have that kind of power, nor would he dare even attempt something like that. Bush is weak. He sticks to his path and pushes on ignoring everything else around him. He's not the kind of man that should be in power, for sure, but his powers are limited, Congress just isn't expressing these limitations.
Sure, I'm upset that Bush was put back in power, but it's not like if Kerry won the election everything would go away. We're in too deep now, and we can't just pull out and leave everything alone.
I think the US should slowly fall back into an isolationist society. For the most part, I don't think one country should have any right to boss another country around unless they pose an imediate threat, and even then, that's what the UN is for.
For those who argue that the UN never works, that's because the United States never gives them a chance to work. When the UN inspectors found no "Weapons of Mass Destruction", the US jumped in. We didn't find anything etiher. Wow, the UN was right! >_>
EDIT: I found this appropriate for the conversation.
The world today seems absolutely crackers,
Where nuclear bombs could blow us all sky high,
There's fools and idiots sitting on the trigger,
It's depressing and it's senseless and that's why...
I like chinese... etc.
Last edited by Ouch!; 11-05-2004 at 11:29 PM.
[q=War Angel]Certain countries have a history of violence. Iran and North Korea are two such nations.[/q]Same goes for for the UK and USA. 19th century British colonial imperialism is the only reason I am living in the country I'm in; there'd be no-one of English descent here otherwise. Violence is a sad fact of human history, and no-one is exempt.Only if they're given a reason to use them. Any country that starts a nuclear war is bringing about its own destruction, so it'd take something extreme to trigger it.It's just not right, and may endanger you, people you care about, or just about any other aspect of life.
I feel compelled to mention that the only country EVER to use nuclear weapons in war is the USA, when it destroyed civilian population centres in Japan to end the second world war.
If only one country, or one select group of countries has nuclear weapons, then they're free to use them against whoever they please, since no reprisal will be possible. Also, if smaller 'rogue nations' are going to be forcefully disarmed one by one, where does it stop? The USA and the Russian Federation aren't always the best of friends. What happens when Asia and the Middle East are disarmed, and the US decides that Russia's not friendly enough to be permitted a nuclear arsenal? How about France, India, or the UK? The next British PM mightn't be as keen as Blair to work with the US. Could this fact, alone, provide the US with reasons to demand its disarmament? You can see where I'm going with this - eventually, you have true 'imperialism' by one nation using its overwhelming power to demand that smaller, weaker countries follow its orders, if not its examples.In theory, I'm supposed to ban you from this forum for two weeks for saying that.If you're okay with a country like North Korea having nukes (which it does, shiver at the thought..), then you're the fool on the hill, living in a world of rainbows and lollipops.It's the new policy. But anyway, I'm not "okay" with the thought of North Korea having atomic weapons. It's a worrying thought, but ONLY because of the probability that the US's response would provoke them into using those weapons. Simply having nuclear arms is not an inherently harmful state of affairs; but when circumstances create the possibility of those weapons being used, I do grow fearful. Take India and Pakistan. Both have nuclear weapons, and they've been in a long-running conflict over Kashmir. If that conflict escalates, it could trigger a full-scale war, possibly a nuclear one. But as it stands, things are not bad enough for that to happen. The nuclear deterrent should stay the hands of both governments. Same goes for the Middle East. Israel's formidable nuclear arsenal will prevent it from being the victim of another mass invasion; but the lack of any counterbalance - i.e; any other nuclear-capable neighbouring state - contributes to the climate of fear and suspicion, especially when the outside world continues to badger other nations about the evils of owning illegal weapons of mass destruction.
Nuclear arms are, in a way, the ultimate threat. They have the greatest potential to cause destruction; the only defence is the counter-threat of a nuclear strike. Give one state this overwhelming power, and you basically give it the means to coerce and dominate any other nation it chooses. Fear, and sheer survival instinct will compel compliance from the underdog state, whose people will lose any real sense of freedom and independence.
That is why nuclear weapons should not be confined to one select "team". There needs to be some sort of balance, for all our sakes.
Of course, we'd all be better off without the damn things, but that's just not a realistic possibility. No-one's going to be the first to fully disarm, not when so many other nuclear-capable powers could take advantage of their act and ignore any promises they might have made to follow suit.
Every nation should have a nuclear arsenal. That way, every nation in the world is militarily on an equal playing field. The good thing about nuclear weapons in comparison to standard weapons, is that quantity isn't so important. A small nation can be on equal might to a large one. The US for example, has enough nukes to destroy the entire world, several times over. More simply becomes overkill. If everyone had a nuclear arsenal, there would be no military superpower anymore, because once *everyone* in the world can destroy the entire world with a few dozen or so nuclear weapons, what nation really has the upper hand? If everyone had sufficient nuclear weapons, it would then be as if noone at all had nuclear weapons. Isn't that the goal?
Knock yourselves down.
Ever read that short story about the man who gave the retarted boy a loaded gun?
[q=Garland]Every nation should have a nuclear arsenal. That way, every nation in the world is militarily on an equal playing field. The good thing about nuclear weapons in comparison to standard weapons, is that quantity isn't so important. A small nation can be on equal might to a large one. The US for example, has enough nukes to destroy the entire world, several times over. More simply becomes overkill. If everyone had a nuclear arsenal, there would be no military superpower anymore, because once *everyone* in the world can destroy the entire world with a few dozen or so nuclear weapons, what nation really has the upper hand? If everyone had sufficient nuclear weapons, it would then be as if noone at all had nuclear weapons. Isn't that the goal?[/q]Good in theory. However, an over-abundance of nuclear weapons would substantially increase the chances of terrorists or rogue individuals getting their hands on the weapons. When it's a state that's holding the button, no-one's going to risk starting a nuclear conflict. But an international group with no "homeland" has nothing to lose by using WMDs to strike at its enemies. A nuclear retaliation isn't possible against such an attack, so they'd be likely to "get away with it", more or less.
Even now, there are plenty of nuclear arms that simply aren't accounted for. In the years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they lost about a hundred "suitcase bombs" - portable nuclear bombs the size of a large suitcase. Relatively low yield compared to the kind used in cruise missiles, and pretty insignificant compared to thermonuclear weapons, but still enough to devastate a city. And a hundred of them simply went missing. Imagine how bad it could be if every nation had its own supply of such weapons...
It's in human nature to kill each other. A mistake in evolution, maybe. Soon(well) we may evolve into a superior species who do not fight, or destroy the world.
Terrorists, they are ready to launch a nuclear warhead anytime, without thinking of the consequences. What human being would possibly want to callously murder millions of innocent men, women, and children just because they 'hate x country' or want to 'send a message'. The only message the civilised world gets from that is that these people are a bunch of headcases. If it's a fight for freedom you want, leave us out of it.
Then you get to the governments. Many governments are probably corrupted with power and money, and the terrorist network may be so deep, the people in power are under the control of terrorism, or are ones themselves.
Countries are always spying on each other, trying to have better weapons and armies than the other, which makes said country keep researching into new, more powerful weapons to defend themselves, which means there will be more and more weapons for the wrong people to get their hands on. Nuclear weapons will never disappear, because the people like the sense of security they get from knowing that noone dare attack them, because we have nuclear weapons to defend ourselves. Which brings the point that nukes are used for defence, not attack.
Once a fully blown nuclear war breaks out, we may finally understand that killing each other is bad, and peace is the way forward. But it may be too late.
They would then shake hands and play Final Fantasy.
there was a picture here
Nukes are OK.
As long as you're not Muslim
What is that supposed to mean?Nukes are OK.
As long as you're not MuslimI'm a descendant of muslims and feel directly involved.
You are Laguna! Although you're way too shy with the
opposite sex, you've got a heart of pure gold. You're a good
leader and well liked by those who know you. Most of your
friends look to your good sense when they need advice.
Take the Final Fantasy 8 Test here!
I think he was making a sarcastic comment about America. Of course we all agree that noone should have nukes but seeing as how that will never happen the subject of who gets them should be based on intent. If you plan on using them to start hostile conflicts you definately shouldn't have them. If you keep them as a defence system it's not really good but it seems to be the way the world works. However, if the country changes its nuclear policy and starts becoming aggressive with them then their nuclear arsenal should be taken away.
...
No, it would mean that we can all blow each other up equally.
It's times like these when I when I want to become a bloody Antarctican hermit. Is there a way to move Canada farther from the US?
Posting Permissions
