At what cost? Stoping Nukes

[Gawain of Orkeny]

You're entitled to your own opinion...

And you to yours. At least we can agree to disagree

I just wonder who choose U.S. to be the world's policeman and decide who should have nukes and who shouldn't...

Since we discovered them first it went with the territory. I notice you dont address my moral equivalency issue. I dont like the US being the worlds policeman any more than you do. Its a dirty thankless job.

By the grace of God, of course not!!! I completely understand that US are given the divine mandate to be the beacon of light, democracy and culture in this dark world. Everyone else should pray at least three times a day because we have US to watch over us...

Yes I said we are the greatest nation ever...............not

Im just pointing out there are lots worse out there. Sorry I have to deal with reality. Your just showing sensless hatred for the US. Again would you prefe the Germans or Russians had them forst. If not why not? Stop exaggerating what I say.

Why did I even start to talk about politics with a guy who is qouting Supermen in his signature..

I dont know. What has that got to do with anything? Get a grip.

[Lord Winter]

Hypocritical is when you have world's second largest nuclear arsenal and then deciding who shouldn't have nuclear weapons...

I'm all for disarment but shouldn't we try to stop the plauge from spreading before/while we try to treat ourselves?

I'm a bit curious. Is this thread more aimed at actual capabilities re: nukuler weapons, or just knowledge dissemination in general? Reason I ask is because my understanding these days is it really just boils down to the former. Documentation and knowledge on nuclear technology is very freely available on the internet and through other means, so I'd pretty much rule that out as a given at this point. Sorry if this has already been clarified.

Capabillity as the the process of one nation begaining the process of inriching unrainam for the purpose of nuclear weapons.


I think I agree with those who are emphizing diplomacy before war, we have time to try to fix this problem so lets pray we get if right now with diplomacy.

The problem I have with nuclear profelation is these are weapons that can wipe out cities in one blow. A decent size arsenal of 200-300 could make a serious dent in any population. I know that any sane nation would heasite to use it, but what about it's use against non armed nations? Or if one nation has achived first strike capibilities over another? It is only a mtter of time before some leader sees them not as a deterent of war but a hastener of conqest.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

It is only a mtter of time before some leader sees them not as a deterent of war but a hastener of conqest.

It could start just like WW2. One nut uses it and says we promise not to do it again. I mean who is going to want to star a war if say India and Pakistan start hitting each other with small nukes? . Is it worth spreading to the rest of the globe? I remember when there was the notion of a limit nuclear war. We even had and I believe still do have tactical nuclear weapons.

[Sarmatian]

And you to yours. At least we can agree to disagree

Good point

Since we discovered them first it went with the territory. I notice you dont address my moral equivalency issue. I dont like the US being the worlds policeman any more than you do. Its a dirty thankless job.

Your moral equivalency? If I am not mistaken, your opinion is that all people are entitled to a gun, and not all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons? But I don't really see how those two things can be compared...

It is really a dirty thankless job? Then you should stop doing it.

Im just pointing out there are lots worse out there. Sorry I have to deal with reality. Your just showing sensless hatred for the US. Again would you prefe the Germans or Russians had them forst. If not why not? Stop exaggerating what I say.

Senseless hatred for the US? I'm in the US right now. I just disagree with US foreign policy, even more because people defending it are claiming a higher moral ground.

I would mind if nazis got them first. But I don't mind germans having them. I would mind Al Quaida (sp?) having them but I don't mind Iran having them.

I dont know. What has that got to do with anything? Get a grip.

Stupid comment. I take it back and apologize...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

If I am not mistaken, your opinion is that all people are entitled to a gun,

You are mistaken.

and not all countries should be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Name a few that shouldnt and why Iran should over these.

But I don't really see how those two things can be compared...

Its simple . Countries are like people . Some are good and some are bad. Good ones can have guns and nukes and bad ones cant. Yes this is over simplfying things but even you admit everyone should not have nukes.

It is really a dirty thankless job? Then you should stop doing it.

I really wish we would.

I would mind if nazis got them first. But I don't mind germans having them. I would mind Al Quaida (sp?) having them but I don't mind Iran having them.

Why. What makes them worse than Iran or the US for that matter?

Stupid comment. I take it back and apologize...
Today 03:30

Accepted. It takes a big man to publicly appologise and I thank you for it.

[JR-]

Every case is special and should be treated differently.

Sometimes there are variables that lend countries to take a more bellicose stance than in other instances. Race, religion, ethnicity, economic system. They all affect the way we look at nuclear handling.

agreed.

[Sarmatian]

Its simple . Countries are like people . Some are good and some are bad. Good ones can have guns and nukes and bad ones cant. Yes this is over simplfying things but even you admit everyone should not have nukes.

Who has the moral authority to decide who is good and who is bad?

Why. What makes them worse than Iran or the US for that matter?

There is a significant difference between regimes/organizations who already commited genocides, terrorist attacks, crimes against humanity and those who might do that in the future...

But let me ask you,do you have a list of countries that should have nuclear weapons in your opinon?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Who has the moral authority to decide who is good and who is bad?

Now that indeed does seem to be the problem does it not? So then all wars are wrong.

There is a significant difference between regimes/organizations who already commited genocides, terrorist attacks, crimes against humanity and those who might do that in the future...

And again I ask you who has not done these things? Iran?

But let me ask you,do you have a list of countries that should have nuclear weapons in your opinon?

Better than that Ill give you a list of nations that should have weapons.

There I hope you enjoyed it

Unfortunately we live in the real world. The less nations with Nukes the better IMO. I wish we could get rid of them.

[Odin]

There is a significant difference between regimes/organizations who already commited genocides, terrorist attacks, crimes against humanity and those who might do that in the future...

Yes one of those differences is that because the later hasnt committed crimes yet, you can ensure they dont have the ability to in the future.

Of course that assumes thier intent, but given the example (nazi's, al queda) we blew it in those cases didnt we?

[Sarmatian]

Now that indeed does seem to be the problem does it not? So then all wars are wrong.

Exactly... In war there are no good guys and bad guys (with a couple of notable expections that confirms the rule). There are two sides...

And again I ask you who has not done these things? Iran?

Yes they have... But US have done them also... Who supported Baas (sp?)party at first?

Better than that Ill give you a list of nations that should have weapons.

There I hope you enjoyed it

Unfortunately we live in the real world. The less nations with Nukes the better IMO. I wish we could get rid of them.

That's the second thing we agree on. Hurrah!

But as you've said, we live in a real world. I don't think that US have more rights to nuclear weapons than Iran.

US obviously aren't going to dismantle them, so Iran has little choice...

[Sarmatian]

Yes one of those differences is that because the later hasnt committed crimes yet, you can ensure they dont have the ability to in the future.

Of course that assumes thier intent, but given the example (nazi's, al queda) we blew it in those cases didnt we?

This sounds to much to me like principle: "Man is guilty until proven innocent". I thought that in 21st century we know better...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But as you've said, we live in a real world. I don't think that US have more rights to nuclear weapons than Iran.

So your telling me the idea of Iran having nukes worries you not thee least. Their no more a threat, probably even less of a threat to world peace than the US is. Is that correct? We have just as bad a record of civil rights violations against our own people right? We threaten to blow other nations off the face of the earth. Shall I go on?

Exactly... In war there are no good guys and bad guys (with a couple of notable expections that confirms the rule). There are two sides...

Im afraid there are and thats where we part.

Just for you

We Just Disagree

This should be the back rooms theme :)

[Odin]

This sounds to much to me like principle: "Man is guilty until proven innocent". I thought that in 21st century we know better...

Or

"those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" In the 21st century we do no better.

You and I are discussing it, thats the key to it. Although we may have disagreements we can chat online or what have you about the valuation of historical pretext, current conditions, and resulting intent.

Im all for innocent until proven guilty, but this we arent talking about shop lifting here, these are high ideals indeed, if your correct. If your not the price is very high, and thus a new principle is born....

[Sarmatian]

Im all for innocent until proven guilty, but this we arent talking about shop lifting here, these are high ideals indeed, if your correct. If your not the price is very high, and thus a new principle is born....

Is the price lower if you are wrong? Is one american or european life more important than iranian?

[Sarmatian]

So your telling me the idea of Iran having nukes worries you not thee least. Their no more a threat, probably even less of a threat to world peace than the US is. Is that correct? We have just as bad a record of civil rights violations against our own people right? We threaten to blow other nations off the face of the earth. Shall I go on?

No more than america, russia, france, china, india, pakistan, israel... having them, no...

How far back should I check american civil rights record? Were black people totaly equal with white in 1945, when US made the bomb?

Although I don't see what civil rights have to do with nuclear weapons...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

How far back should I check american civil rights record? Were black people totaly equal with white in 1945, when US made the bomb?

Your comparing that to Iran?

Although I don't see what civil rights have to do with nuclear weapons...

Then you need to put on your thinking cap. Its pretty obvious. When was the last time the US said it wanted any nation blown off the face of the earth? We never even said that about the Russians.

[Sarmatian]

Your comparing that to Iran?

Shouldn't I?

Then you need to put on your thinking cap. Its pretty obvious. When was the last time the US said it wanted any nation blown off the face of the earth? We never even said that about the Russians.

Civil rights in USSR were really bad. And yet, it was the US who dropped the bomb. Not one, but two...

[Ironside]

Or

"those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it" In the 21st century we do no better.

You and I are discussing it, thats the key to it. Although we may have disagreements we can chat online or what have you about the valuation of historical pretext, current conditions, and resulting intent.

Im all for innocent until proven guilty, but this we arent talking about shop lifting here, these are high ideals indeed, if your correct. If your not the price is very high, and thus a new principle is born....

And that principle is born by second guessing the intent of another, without the data needed to be certain for a correct assessment.
This method, are prone to fail or even become a self-fulfilling prophesy in some cases.

So who's ignoring the history? The ones that don't see the threat, or the ones that see a threat were there isn't one and act upon it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Shouldn't I?

So you think we treated blacks the way Iran treats it citizens? And today?

Civil rights in USSR were really bad. And yet, it was the US who dropped the bomb. Not one, but two...

Do you have a point here? Do you think the USSR is better. Do you think the US is worse then the USSR or equal?

[Odin]

And that principle is born by second guessing the intent of another, without the data needed to be certain for a correct assessment.
This method, are prone to fail or even become a self-fulfilling prophesy in some cases.

Agreed, with the cavaet you pointed out "in some cases".

So who's ignoring the history? The ones that don't see the threat, or the ones that see a threat were there isn't one and act upon it?

Both are, but in the case of Iran there is evidence, they are building a nuclear capability. I dont believe its purpose is for peaceful purposes only, history suggests to me (and the valid arguments here) that they want a bomb for security and for its offensive capability.

there enemies have them, (Israel, the great satan...) so why wouldnt they?

Of course one could argue that the Iranians are telling the truth and that the offensive nature of thier behavior is rhetoric, but in that vein one must be aware that the ramifications of being wrong could be dyer.

Thus intent is the whole crux of the argument in the case of Iran, thats a gray area at best but this isnt an area I want to gamble with.

[Ironside]

Both are, but in the case of Iran there is evidence, they are building a nuclear capability. I dont believe its purpose is for peaceful purposes only, history suggests to me (and the valid arguments here) that they want a bomb for security and for its offensive capability.

there enemies have them, (Israel, the great satan...) so why wouldnt they?

Of course one could argue that the Iranians are telling the truth and that the offensive nature of thier behavior is rhetoric, but in that vein one must be aware that the ramifications of being wrong could be dyer.

Thus intent is the whole crux of the argument in the case of Iran, thats a gray area at best but this isnt an area I want to gamble with.

I'll use Gawain's guns to make an example. A person getting a gun is generally a bad thing, but is it worth stabbing him because he's foulmouthed and verbally threatening?

Unless you have something concrete that indicates offensive use of nukes, it's not worth it. Because a strike is a gamble.

[Odin]

A person getting a gun is generally a bad thing, but is it worth stabbing him because he's foulmouthed and verbally threatening?

Does the threat include killing me? If the answer is yes, then you bet your (bleep).

Unless you have something concrete that indicates offensive use of nukes, it's not worth it. Because a strike is a gamble.

A developing nuclear program, a history of arming terrorists that kill americans, a defacto proxy war (which we are mostly to blame, none the less), a desire to destroy our enemies.

So lets wait for them to gain the capability to do more? Or to keep with the gambling anaolgy, wait until they draw an ace and have the capability?

no thanks.

[Ironside]

Does the threat include killing me? If the answer is yes, then you bet your (bleep).

That's why there's something called law. You know, that thing that developed out or the revenge system.

A developing nuclear program, a history of arming terrorists that kill americans, a defacto proxy war (which we are mostly to blame, none the less), a desire to destroy our enemies.

So lets wait for them to gain the capability to do more? Or to keep with the gambling anaolgy, wait until they draw an ace and have the capability?

no thanks.

I seem to recall some group that fullfilled all your requirements and was slightly more threatening than the Iranians. Although have you taken after Bush in that last sentence or?
Yet, I didn't see a swamp cloud outside my window one day (that said, it was close more than once though).

As long as you got a stronger hand and you and they know it, the question is: Are they sane or insane/suecidal?

[Odin]

That's why there's something called law. You know, that thing that developed out or the revenge system.

Yes, half of it, the other half developed out of reaction to non action. Pick a shooting (how about the kid in Virginia) law didnt stop him did it? So I should hope for the best?

Back to Iran, international law hasnt stopped them, which they violated. Law is a wonderful concept when everyone abides by it.

I seem to recall some group that fullfilled all your requirements and was slightly more threatening than the Iranians.
Yet, I didn't see a swamp cloud outside my window one day (that said, it was close more than once though).

Not following you on this one mate, help please.

As long as you got a stronger hand and you and they know it, the question is: Are they sane or insane/suecidal?

I dont know about the majority, but the religous zealots that are in command of the apparatus? I think thier religion affords them a lot of lattitude in the suicidal arena.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Back to Iran, international law hasnt stopped them, which they violated. Law is a wonderful concept when everyone abides by it.

As Ive said in numerous posts International law is a joke and law in name only.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

So I should hope for the best?

Odin:

Many people out there view the only legitimate use of force to be direct retaliation. So, unless and until Iranian nuclear material is used to attack you, they will view any attack against the Iranian nuclear program as wrong.

It's all very simple. You're free to shoot back after the first shot comes your way.

Of course, most folks with this take on things also argue that ballistic missile defense systems are provocations to violence.....

[Ironside]

Yes, half of it, the other half developed out of reaction to non action. Pick a shooting (how about the kid in Virginia) law didnt stop him did it? So I should hope for the best?

Back to Iran, international law hasnt stopped them, which they violated. Law is a wonderful concept when everyone abides by it.

I was actually hinting more on the basic principle, revenge...
So we're basically at the sanity insanity issue.

Not following you on this one mate, help please.

Does the Cold War ring a bell?

I dont know about the majority, but the religous zealots that are in command of the apparatus? I think thier religion affords them a lot of lattitude in the suicidal arena.

Ah, but the command has the clear weakness of being in command. Leaders are considering themself (and are considered) way to important to be spent on suecide missions. You can corner them enough to make them do it, but that's far from common.

[Sarmatian]

So you think we treated blacks the way Iran treats it citizens? And today?

Not everywhere, but in some areas blacks were treated really bad. Usually with silent consent of local authority. Today has nothing to do with it, we were talking about the time when America built the bomb...

Do you have a point here? Do you think the USSR is better. Do you think the US is worse then the USSR or equal?

I thought the point was self evident. I asked what civil rights has to do with nukes. You keep saying that civil rights have something to do with it. If that is the rule than USSR should have dropped thousands of them by now...

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Not everywhere, but in some areas blacks were treated really bad. Usually with silent consent of local authority. Today has nothing to do with it, we were talking about the time when America built the bomb...

And so were Chinese and Irish and Catholics. It was a different time.

I asked what civil rights has to do with nukes. You keep saying that civil rights have something to do with it. If that is the rule than USSR should have dropped thousands of them by now...

I see ive lost you. If you cant treat your own people with decency I dont trust you with an atom bomb. It shows a certain lack of humanity. The USSR was an evil empire. If it thought it could have won by dropping nukes it would have. If we had not invaded Normandy they would have gotten all of Europe. Those over there never seem to realise we didnt help save them only from the Germans but from the Soviets as well. Without us they could never have invaded Normandy.

[Husar]

Well, but you also paid for the russian military machine, so without you they could have happily lived in greater Germany And Russia would have never gotten any nukes because Russia would not be.You sould have given no aid to Russia and after it's defeat, you should have invaded in Russia as well.