Printable View
Nothing. Still, Americans will support American interests above all other interests, and I'm sure that the Dutch will do the same with regards to the interests of their country. That's just common sense. In case of Iran the US interests happen to match the interests of most of the civilized world, which is why most of the civilized world is hostile towards the Iranian nuclear aspirations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Actually, I try to think of the interests of the world. I'm not limiting my view to my own country.
All the communists are going to invade Germany and found the nation of "Marxland" due to the historical roots, displace all your native people by bringing in all the communists in the world to live in our new homeland. If you don't like it, Peoples Republic of China will nuke you, and provide us with constant support. :book2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Then all the Capitalist nations of Europe are quite willing to drive Marxland into the sea.
Oh, alright. Well, good luck with that.
it was at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Yeah, I said that too. I noted in my previous post that it used to be under the danger of massed Arab-orchestrated offensives, but no longer. In any case, I thought the Israelis were smarter than to lust after fission. Once you get them, you start an arms race, which will inevitably lead to he enemy obtaining them. What is better - two nations with atomics or two nations without?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
And you are awfully calm in this thread, despite my posts which surely would have baited any pro-Israeli individuals... Either you have matured or realised the futility of debating or simply became apathetic, if only for a certain period of time...
well im very tired right now and the high holidays are over, and im really depressed because of that. not in the mood to debate, only want to play guitar.
on topic: now that israel is no longer under mass attack, why should they put themselves in a position that they used to be in by removing the nukes?
How about attempting to discard strongman tactics of intimidation and such with a more reliable tactic of friendship? It worked with Egypt :wink:. [sarcasm]Except that Israel was not the one to initiate it of course - the uncivilised, barbarian, militant Arabs did it, eh? [/sarcasm]Quote:
Originally Posted by Hooahguy
To be fair, though, the Egyptian semi-authoritarian rule has always been hostile to radical Islamism and religion in general, no matter how much they try to court favour of the masses by appearing to be religious.
Our nukes mostly. I'm prefectly aware I'm being hypocrictical. I'm also perfectly aware and Iran sans nukes will save allot of lives somewhere down the road.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hax
Of course not. Russia has not only more atomics, in quantity, but also more in the yield. Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…
What would be called a “strategic” fission device in US is “tactical” in USSR/Russia. The largest operational atomic in US is the Titan II at ~2 megatons, which has been recently decommissioned, leaving US with only tactical-grade fusion devices.
But all this is crap, because it does not matter how much of them you have or how high-quality they are. All you need is a sufficient amount to make the enemy think before attacking . That is all. Russia is no more powerful than Israel, UK, or France in terms of its nuclear capabilities. Nor is US.
What really matters, what made US great, is of course the economy. That is all that matters really. With an economy the size of US, you can go from the 1939 100,000 man militia with severely insufficient rifles and no weapons of higher grade than small arms – US did not even possess machineguns, artillery, or tanks in the beginning of WWII. But all it took was some factories to elevate US war machine roughly on par with that of the Greater German Reich or USSR.
War can only be continued with money, and in modern world, the “money” is replaced with the more general word, the “economy”, as money can be inflated or deflated with little obstructions, unlike in the past, where the decreasing of bullion content in coins was a serious offence indicating severe weakness.
However, knowing you, SFTS, you are probably trolling as usual… Although it seems you were serious this time :dizzy2:
Amelius, I can't quote your post because of the font tags that show up in it, so it's easier to respond this way.
Israel acts overwhelmingly in a defensive manner, and at the time it acquired nuclear bombs it was in real danger of being totally destroyed. Now, this doesn't mean that acquiring the nuclear weaponry was a good thing, but from the Israeli point of view it was necessary. I don't disagree with you that further nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. In fact, this is exactly why I don't want Iran to acquire them. Israel has had them for decades, Iran is acquiring them now. We don't want more potential nuclear powers, but Israel already is one. It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.
For most of Israel's history it has been the underdog. It could easily take out every Arab state by itself one by one, but if they are allied together the situation becomes much more desperate, as shown at least twice since the end of the Second World War. While you are correct in saying that this is probably not realistic today, in the fifties and sixties it was a very probable possibility. It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.
Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Only if your equation is wrong to start with.Quote:
If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...
Iran is not under any threat from Israel whatsoever, and is under relatively little threat from America.Quote:
My point is more along the lines of...
If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)
The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...
Hehe, well, I am not advocating that either. The last thing I care about in politics is fairness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
What I am merely pointing out is that the West has no one to blame for Iran's atomics other than themselves. You are inevitably putting yourselves in the position of blatant hypocrisy. Just how much you care about that is your choice...
Which is why Israel should not have waited by now. Iranian patience is not limitless. Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics. Now they pay the price. Seriously, were the Jews honestly so foolish as to not realise that a powerful, militant, and uranium rich nation such as Iran would not attempt to catch up by producing its own fission armaments by the 1990s? I doubt it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
They knew it was coming, just not when. They could have extended the olive branch, but they did not. Of course, that is always hard to do. But even harder to now face nuclear Iran, which will stay nuclear even if it agrees to surrender its WMDs. After all, they have the technology, just like Ukraine, which produced atomics under the Soviet supervision and gave up its arsenal to Russia (and US I believe as well). If things heat up there, who knows...
The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
This.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
And Iran has a way out of the treaty, a 3 month advance notice of withdrawal. Until then, research and development of nuclear weaponry is forbidden.
ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.
Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.
So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".
How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.
Please, cut the jokes...
Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Trident actually breaks the Nuclear Disarmament treaty. Also, the Kyoto Protocol is a contending too. (Those just from the top of my head and big ones too)
Bah, you can do the research if you are so interested - I have a a class in thirty minutes, but to be on equal ground, Iran may have broken one treaty. And US, without a doubt, also broke one treaty. Iran is most likely going to aim for the nuclear bomb. That broke the non-proliferation treaty. US abused prisoners of war, and tortured them, so there goes the Geneva Treaty. There goes a definite violation (since Iran does not yet posses the bomb, nor is clearly attempting to produce it - for all we know it is merely developing nuclear power).Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Oh, and just because I feel so amicable today, I will throw in another treaty US broke - the ones dealing with chemical weapons, which it stockpiled (as did everyone else, but still, a rule broken is a rule broken). Not to mention, do you believe US is complying or is going to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention it signed? Not a chance.
It was that Israel didn't sign, and Iran did. This is why there wasn't nearly as much fuss when it became obvious that Israel had the bomb. They weren't bound by the treaty. Neither were India and Pakistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
All Iran has to do is put in it's 90-day notice, and then it can give El Baradei the finger when it comes to inspections.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
I see a lot of claims regarding Uncle Sam's frivolities with international treaties, but no sources to back up those claims.
Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.
Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...
Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....
Only if your equation is wrong to start with.
So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!
RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...
Indeed. I haven't heard of any actual laws being broken there. U.S. or International.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Guantanamera, guajira guantanamera....
Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.
Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.
Iran being picked on? :laugh4: No, Iran is the six year old who keeps making fun of the other six year old, because he knows that the twelve year old brother won't do anything about it. If Iran wasn't posturing like this and actively trying to work against us, we wouldn't even care it existed.Quote:
Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....
Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them. In HOI2 speak, it adds significantly to their belligerence level.Quote:
So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!
Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?Quote:
ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!
Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.
Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.
So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".
How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.
Please, cut the jokes...
Well they did not, if you are being sarcastic. UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?Quote:
Originally Posted by Azathoth
The bottom line is that if not for US, Hussein could have gotten away with all his chemical mischief against Iran as well as the Kurds and much, much more. But Bush already selected him as a target, fabricated a plethora of outright lies in addition to the true allegation that Iraq had chemical weapons and invaded the country.
Just take one of them - that Iran supposedly obtained 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Five hundred? Was he serious? With the sorry state of roads and transportation in Niger that would have taken weeks to transport that from the mines to the coast, utilizing a great deal of trucks, and human resources. And there are no railroads there, as far as I read. This could not have been kept secret from even the common people, let alone the ever-prying eyes of CIA. Or the other watchdog organisations. Now, this data actually came from the British intelligence report, but it never said that it actually happened - it merely speculated, devoting literally one sentence to this alleged incident.
We all know Bush did not invade Iraq because of chemical weapons. He certainly had other reasons. Can we at least agree to that?
The simple fact is this, if you give the UN that power, all the nationalists will baww like babies.Quote:
UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?
Also, it gives UN a godly amount of power in the world, and if that something we actually want? An elected world government/organisation with the power to exert its authority over others?Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.
Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.
If building powerful destructive weapons is threatening then I do not even need to tell you why Israel and America are more threatening than Iran... it should be fairly obvious...
Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them.
So we (israel + US) need defensive nukes more because we will strike Iran if they try to get nukes.... ?!
So a country should not be allowed nuclear weapons if a bigger able power could attack them over it ?
That sounds like your basing your equasion on the wrong factors, what I asked was who needs defensive nukes more the fact another country may or may not strike them over them trying to get these nukes is not really a factor (or it would indicate if anything that the country that may get attacked needs them more if anything)
:inquisitive: Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)
50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.
100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).
Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨
The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.
Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.
Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.
Like I said, please elaborate your post...
Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
[QUOTE=Ironside;2354108]Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨
Of course, I know that. An air burst utilises the ordnance’s blast most efficiently, but that is not always the goal. The 50 megaton did equal 7.1 Richter. I am citing the official reports, not my own reckoning. A 100 megaton bomb would have created a catastrophic earthquake, although due to the logarithmic scale of Richter I am cannot say what would be the power of a 100-megaton bomb – I have no desire to perform calculations now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Neutron radiation reduces with a 1000 every 2,5 hours (half-life of about 15 min), so basically any dangerous radiation that spreads (the neutrons are very dangerous in close proximity though, the principle used in neutron bombs) is from the blasting cap, that's a fission nuke for fusion bombs. So the radiation has more to do with the method of blowing the bomb than with the size of the bomb. Should that be 25% of the total radiation, then the 100 megoton nuke would be very dirty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
A 100megaton bomb is about 7.3 richter. Basically it's either hitting a critical point on the crust that have a meassurable treshold, is complete bull or the earth crust have been completly raptured, possibly with the whole planet cracking open by every larger meteor strike during earths history. A 400 megaton nuke would wipe out humanity with a vide margin (triggering a earthquake with about 16 on the richter scale).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.
The Americans never seemed to contradict anything said by the Soviets, the data is still widely cited in treatises on this subject. Actually, the Americans claimed the Russians understated the strength of the reaction, which the Americans measured at 57 megatons. Quite the opposite of dismissing the incident as padded and glorified/overstated with propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ironside
Building the weapons in itself isn't threatening. Being threatening with them and threatening with the potential of making them is what Iran is trying to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
You seem to have a knack for missing the point of my posts on purpose.Quote:
So we (israel + US) need defensive nukes more because we will strike Iran if they try to get nukes.... ?!
So a country should not be allowed nuclear weapons if a bigger able power could attack them over it ?
That sounds like your basing your equasion on the wrong factors, what I asked was who needs defensive nukes more the fact another country may or may not strike them over them trying to get these nukes is not really a factor (or it would indicate if anything that the country that may get attacked needs them more if anything)
Being threatening with them and threatening with the potential of making them is what Iran is trying to do.
I haven't noticed Iran threatening Israel with Nuclear weapons they are going to acquire in the future...
And what do you mean threatening with the potential making of them... If iran is making nukes they are trying to cover it up... that doesn't seem like threatening with them to me....
You seem to have a knack for missing the point of my posts on purpose.
Its non sensical, our threatening or actually carrying out an attack is a reason we need nukes more than the country were threatening or attacking ?!
You're treading the very thin line between reasonable assumption of innocence and naïveté.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
Which is not at all what I said.Quote:
Its non sensical, our threatening or actually carrying out an attack is a reason we need nukes more than the country were threatening or attacking ?!
You're treading the very thin line between reasonable assumption of innocence and naïveté.
They are not threatening with nukes they don't have...
The threat is from your assumption of them wanting to get nukes (which isn't too much of an assumption) and your assumption they will use them (which is a HUGE leap) they are not suicidal nutters (despite what the propaganda might say) they would not be willing to use thier nukes and promptly be destoryed...
What is is that makes you think Iran would use thier nukes (presumably the reason you don't want Iran to have them)
Iran itself wouldn't use the bomb, they'd pass it or the technology to someone who could. Also, another nuclear power in the region would be a major destabilizer, especially in the hands of a country which has not only used such aggressive rhetoric but is actively working against Western interests in the region.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
I don't see why anyone in a NATO member country bothers to defend them. They are already helping cause the deaths of our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies in regional wars.
Iran itself wouldn't use the bomb, they'd pass it or the technology to someone who could. Also, another nuclear power in the region would be a major destabilizer, especially in the hands of a country which has not only used such aggressive rhetoric but is actively working against Western interests in the region.
I don't see Iran passing on a nuke too terrorists... no way they would get away with it.... I don't see terrorists being able to make one even if given the technology... so that leaves countrys they could pass it on to...
I can't really think of anyone that couldn't just get the technology off North Korea or somebody else... to the best of my knowledge Iran aren't the most popular country even with our enemies... Syria maybe ?
Western interests is not a fair way for the world to work so that argument is null to me...
I don't see why anyone in a NATO member country bothers to defend them. They are already helping cause the deaths of our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies in regional wars.
So I must support my country against the enemy because we are at war (at least by proxy) no matter what I think of the situation ?
That would be a dangerous attitude to have...
Who cares? The world isn't fair. If you want to live, you have to be ready to get ahead and stay ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
No, I simply find it absurd that your immediate reaction is to defend the enemy when your own soldiers are dying because of their actions.Quote:
So I must support my country against the enemy because we are at war (at least by proxy) no matter what I think of the situation ?
The basic point it comes down to isn't fairness. It is if you personally would feel less secure if Iran had the bomb. If you would feel less secure, you should oppose it. If you would feel more secure, you probably should be locked up for question of your sanity. And that's phrasing it as nicely as I can.
Who cares? The world isn't fair. If you want to live, you have to be ready to get ahead and stay ahead.
The world isn't fair but I would say would say with the advent of things like international law and such... I believe this is progress and a fairer world is what I strive for. That means western interests is meaningless to me (unless they are coinciding with other interests which are for the common good)
No, I simply find it absurd that your immediate reaction is to defend the enemy when your own soldiers are dying because of their actions.
Im not defending the enemy because our soldiers are dieing, that would only be out of some kind of hate, which I don't have for the military. I am defending (in your words) them because I believe it is right...
I suppose if it came down to some life or death choice either my country is destroyed or someone else's (with similar population) I would probably opt to save mine out for selfish reasons but I would like to think if it was Britian or somewhere like India or China I would opt for Britian's destruction for purely numerical reasons....
The basic point it comes down to isn't fairness. It is if you personally would feel less secure if Iran had the bomb. If you would feel less secure, you should oppose it. If you would feel more secure, you probably should be locked up for question of your sanity. And that's phrasing it as nicely as I can.
I wouldn't be worried either way... but then im really not the worrying type. I really don't see Iran using or supplying the nukes to someone else who would use them or using them themselves, so I don't really see any problems with it, if anything it may help thier domestic politics somewhat. If they feel more secure after they get the bomb then maybe the politicians won't be able to scare the population with outside threats as much and more concentration can be put on reform....
Don't get me wrong if anything I would rather Iran didn't have the bomb... I would rather nobody had the bomb but thats too idealistic...
Edit: Give it a few hundred years and we'll be back to sticks and stones ~;)
Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. You're hoping for the best and preparing for the best. The second we try to do that in our international politics, we lose.
EMFM won't be happy unless everyone but him has weaspons so he can appoint himself as Lord Kaiser of Terran.
Yes, because my definition of national interest has my nation disarmed and defenceless with Iran having nuclear weapons. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Yeah just like Costa Rica, considering all the wars it befell when it abolished it's millitary in 1948.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Oh wait, it appears I was wrong. It was every other Spanish speaking country in Central America which suffered invasions or foreign interference since 1948. Silly me.
There are a few reasons that Costa Rica hasn't been invaded since then which anti-military advocates conveniently ignore, but for most nations, disbanding the army won't work. The fact that you are here today, with free speech, is because of the militaries of democratic Western nations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Such as? I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm genuinely curious.
This only makes my skin crawl. The most dangerous are people who have inferiority complex and feeling shame from their roots. The greatest prosecutors of the Jews were of Jewish origins. People like Tomas de Torquemada, probably Hitler, some other Nazis; in a different aspect (not to the Jews but to the Christianity), this was valid the Janissaries (devshirme recruits) in the Ottoman Empire, the Ghulams in the Arabian countries: these all were people who were transferred to another religion/ideology and they became its strictest, even fanatical followers, far stricter than those, whose families have been devoted to it for centuries.Quote:
Originally Posted by rvg
Costa Rica has a heavily armed police force that could provide a fair amount of resistance. It isn't surrounded by enemies that it can't take on using this force. Any enemies from abroad with the strength to attack it will be met by a very angry America. Internal political factors reduce the chance of rebellion, as well as this wonderful quasi-army they have. They are a country with no ability to project power beyond their region, so a larger army isn't necessary to carry out international duties.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
In short, they haven't been invaded because it would be a fundamentally stupid decision by the invader, and they haven't suffered civil war because of various internal factors (though I wouldn't claim that an army prevents civil war). For us, in powerful Western countries much different from Costa Rica, a military is necessary.
has been proved false, at least according to Professor D. Lipstadt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Asen
(since her and my father are close friends, we have her over for lunch every now and then, a real treat)
Because it's costa rica.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
If you can't understand why it can abolish its military than you should just leave the backroom.
I mean really? Is this what it has come to?
Well, what about the other Central American countries? All of the other Spanish speaking ones have experienced conflict at some point since Costa-Rica's millitary was abolished, usually because Uncle Sam pokes his long, pointy nose into places where it is not wanted (United Fruit Company anyone?). What is so special about Costa Rica which meant that, apart from not having a millitary, it was spared from the horrors the rest of Central America went through in the late 20th Century?Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I wonder if the Iranians like the taste of their own medicine? Suck on this and swallow it, you scum.
Indeed. Especially those scumbag Baluch bystanders. They'll be rotting in their scumbag graves, serves them right for being at the wrong place, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Anyway, it is easy to suspect a conspiracy in an area crawling with SEVAK and Pakistani ISI agents. I wonder who in the Revolutionary Guard the general fell out with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dâriûsh
Since when are we not allowed to be happy when Iranian religious militants get blown up by suicide bombers? I can litterally hear kazoos and pin the tail on the donkey being played at the Pentagon.
:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Yes, I expect they will be dancing in the street and praising their God. They cannot be innocent, who consort/talk/walk near with the enemy.
My former pastor (since transferred to another parish) warned all of our congregation (quite a lot of military being present) that REJOICING at the harm done to others is itself an evil. We should perhaps be quietly thankful that a threat has been removed, but to be joyful therein is a sickening of one's own soul. You shoot the rabid dog that threatens your toddler, you don't do the "happy dance" because you yourself got to kill.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
You should be happy I did not view this thread first. Banquo responded, I would have issued points for your "scum" post and probably a warning to Dariush for feeding the troll. Blanket attacks are not acceptable.
Wow, and just when I thought the Backroom mods were unfairly slanted towards US... Now I can see how wrong I was. To defend Iran, to give an infraction out for such a seemingly negligible offence that bothers no-one here, despite being the nationalities SM and BG are (American and Irish, right?), is a sign of immense neutrality and moderator merit. I am both proud and humbled to be a part of such community :bow::cry:
The mods aren't slanted towards the US, they just have to put up with us as we are the loudest, fattest members. :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Well, I had a few experiences that suggested that... When I generalise about US, I get an infraction. When someone else does the same to Russia, they do not. How do I know those individuals did not get an infraction? My posts were deleted/edited. Those other posts were not.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
For example, one time I posted matter-of-factly that US and Israel were two of the most hated nations in the world. Probably true, especially the first one. Yet I got an infraction... And the post was indeed deleted.
Then I had the time when I said that Americans in general recklessly spend money. How is that not true?? Infraction I got, nonetheless. But when Russia is called a nation of drunks and idiots that is a different matter obviously... Not that I dislike those comments about Russia - no, I think we should all be allowed to say such things. Or if not, then at least both cases should be punished..
I didn't realize that we were siting in a kumbaya circle. Revolutionary guards are enemy. Scum was probably unnecessary, but who here doesn't feel bubbling chuckles when terrorists are blown up by other terrorists? TotalWar.org is consistently TotalNancy.org. Everybody dies, some more ironically than others.
Thanks for not giving me a point for using the word scum.
The point being made to you was that like most terrorist attacks, a lot of innocent people died as well as the "target".Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Terrorism is wrong regardless of who it is targetting. Once you argue that it is right when applied to your enemies, you are little different to those people dancing in the street when they hear of atrocities against their enemies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I think terrorism is stupid and dangerous in most circumstances, not wrong. Civilian life loss sucks, but the act of terrorism is out of desperation and an inability to resist or assault with conventional warfare. I wish it didn't exist most of the time, but I understand it.
Few people are innocent. We all support militaries, who without our financial and moral aid would be weaker. Civilian population is the backbone of the State. Next time you re fighting a bear, avoid hurting anything other than the claws and teeth. We used to fire-bomb cities with no notice while everyone was sleeping. Was it right then and wrong now?
Protect your own and destroy all enemies. When we are no longer enemies and become one people, then we can talk about the ills of terrorism.
In that case Tuff, we differ so much, a dialogue would be pointless.
:bow:
Oh stop being so dramatic :beam: . I'm just arguing with you for arguements sake.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
I like you. Don't leave...ever. :stare:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
The Backroom is a hive of wretched scum and villainy.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I know. But having lost someone to terrorism, it's not a subject I can easily treat with levity. Sorry. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
TSM:
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict =
legitimate act of war.
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but despite using all reasonable precautions to avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
legitimate act of war with a regrettable loss of innocent life.
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, but failing to take reasonable precautions to minimize or avoid harm to bystanders and civilians =
wrongful action. Should be punishable/viewed as criminal to the extent that the perpetrators are culpable through their negligence.
Targeting the uniformed military personnel of the political actor with whom you are in conflict, knowing that their will be significant civilian/bystander casualties and making no effort to minimize or prevent such casualties =
Wrongful act. Only possible justification for such action is as a quid-pro-quo for previous action of like kind by opponent and even then ONLY when the quid-pro-quo is done as a means of curtailing like actions in future. NOTE: many, perphaps most, people around the world would actually view actions of this kind as having no difference from the category below.
Targeting civilians or bystanders in order to create the greatest possible harm on the softest target (terrorism) =
Criminal Act
There is a HUGE moral difference between guerilla war and terrorism. If you conflate the two completely, you are starting down a path towards what I would define as evil.
:no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
I understand the moral arguement and agree, but who cares about all of that in war. People die and you kill them - so what?
I understand why someone wouldn't want their loved ones to be killed because it would hurt them and disrupt their lives - but you have to see the practical sense in destroying the economic and social stability of your enemy. As awful as civilian loss during a conflict is, we all die - some will die more slowly and painfully without being nailed by a ricochet/hit with an IED. Who knows who will die in war before they lose a child in peace or come down with a painful or debilitating ailment.
The blanket of morality and ethics are great and I use them and get why the US military uses them, but for arguements sake lets discuss why, practically we shouldn't kill civilians for its own sake.
I get the moral arguement, but that is a philosophical arguement, not a military one. Whether you send people to heaven/hell or nothingness i'm not sure it matters to them after the fact. Step outside of yourself and your fears.
I'm just making arguement- stop being so sensitive. I lose people, but that's part of life. I guess I have never lost someone important enough to me - mother/father/wife/children. I don't really see why it matters whether a loved one is killed by disease, wild animals or another human. The death is the same and the life was the same.
I have completely hijacked this thread. I digress. Why would you two mods let me do that! :no:
Your argument would make sense if a nation was engaged in a hypothetical total war against a terrorist organisation, in which all resources are deployed to destroying this particular group, including labour. But of course, that would never happen, so your argument sounds incredibly cold blooded.