Nuclear Weapons

[visualAd]

Why is it some countries are allowed them and some countries are not. What is the point, when a nuclear war would almost certainly jepodise life on Earth? I would say instead of some countries having the power to blow up the world three times over and some countries not being allowed it, all countries get rid of their nuclear weapons and spend the money and helping out those countries which are poorer.

[honeybee]

Why is it some countries are allowed them and some countries are not. What is the point, when a nuclear war would almost certainly jepodise life on Earth? I would say instead of some countries having the power to blow up the world three times over and some countries not being allowed it, all countries get rid of their nuclear weapons and spend the money and helping out those countries which are poorer.

Or give nukes to everybody?

Do you seriously think the nations holding nuclear weapons are going to dispose of them? If they were to, they have had enough time to do that. It seems more a case of stopping others to gain access to the technology in order to preserve the stronghold of a few select nations onto it and therefore the power to dictate terms.

.

[yrwyddfa]

It's simply a matter of the biggest bully in the playground. We, the western world, are in a position to judge the trustworthy of such lesser nations and enforce whatever policy it is that we see fit. This is also known as the UN Security Council.

How's that for an exercise in irony?

[visualAd]

Nuclear Weapons serve no purpose whatsoever. Its like going around with a bomb strapped to your chest and saying its a deterant, but never intending to detonate it becuase you do not want to die

[mendhak]

They do serve a purpose. They were created after immense amounts of research and resources were poured into it, and the nations that create it are aware of the consequences and devastation a nuclear weapon can create, but they are willing to use it. That's implied, that they are willing to use it if necessary. And as a result, nuclear weapons also serve as a war-preventer in some cases. (You can count the cold war as an example)

The nuclear weapon also give an advantage to the owner nation (as pointed out by yrwyddfa), they get to push other nations around.

And finally, most important, the nuclear weapons will serve to destroy our civilization at a later point in the future so that the human race can start again (as it had occurred in the past as well).

[Valleysboy1978]

Think of the nuclear weapons that are hidden. If the world all got rid of their arsenal then how would each country know if the other countries kept their end of the bargain? The other countries could have "missed" a few.

They are there to effect a stalemate between the various nations and everyone knows that they would never be used due to various UN agreements. Added to which if the US dropped a nuke on a country every country would instantly turn against them, and not even the US are powerful enough to stop the world. Note that this applies to any country with a nuclear arsenal.

[visualAd]

But why have them if you never intend to use them. Its a waste of time and money, although I guess it puts food on the tables of those involved.

[Something Else]

There are nonwar applications for nuclear bombs.

For Example:

Project Orion was devised during the 1960's by General Dynamics, and is a 'nuclear pulse rocket'. Essentially, it would work by dropping a nuclear bomb out of its rear and detonating it, thus being pushed forward by the force of the explosion. 250,000 nuclear bombs would be required to propel its 400,000 metric tonnes to 1.6% the speed of light.

[visualAd]

[Jacob Roman]

Why is it some countries are allowed them and some countries are not. What is the point...

Because most countries are just dying to get their hands on them so they can bomb us here in America, and try to destroy our way of life, especially the terrist and anti-American countries. Now you know why.

[dglienna]

There are nonwar applications for nuclear bombs.

For Example:

Good if you're getting away from civilization, but I'd think there would be a fallout/radiation problem if they ever fired a nuke in the atmosphere.

[mendhak]

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind... the answer is blowin' in the wind...

[visualAd]

Because most countries are just dying to get their hands on them so they can bomb us here in America, and try to destroy our way of life, especially the terrist and anti-American countries. Now you know why.

You arn't that special

[Filik]

Originally Posted by Jacob Roman
Because most countries are just dying to get their hands on them so they can bomb us here in America, and try to destroy our way of life, especially the terrist and anti-American countries. Now you know why.

Ever wondered why they want to bomb you and destroy your way of life? Because your way of life is destroying them, and if America keeps on going like that it will soon destroy itself

[mendhak]

How is the American way of life destroying their way of life?

That's not a sarcastic question, or a rhetoric one.

[visualAd]

Our way of life, "as in the developed" countries is un-necessarily detrimental to the lives of others. So, in a way it is destroying the lives of others.

[mendhak]

How is it detrimental? Elaborate.

[dark_shadow]

its not nessarily the "american" way that's destroying everything its the nature of humanity humans are greedy and want to be the biggest and strongest ... i personally dont beleive the war in iraq and afganastan was bc of the "threat" of terrorism i beleive it was for america to show its military strenght. bush wanted to go in and finish what his daddy started. if saddam wanted to bomb the states he would of have done it already.It doesnt nessarily mean the americans are destroying the way of life its not the people's decisions to send the troops over there its the presidents choice so they are only being destoryed by there leader not

[szlamany]

its not nessarily the "american" way that's destroying everything its the nature of humanity humans are greedy and want to be the biggest and strongest ... i personally dont beleive the war in iraq and afganastan was bc of the "threat" of terrorism i beleive it was for america to show its military strenght. bush wanted to go in and finish what his daddy started. if saddam wanted to bomb the states he would of have done it already.It doesnt nessarily mean the americans are destroying the way of life its not the people's decisions to send the troops over there its the presidents choice so they are only being destoryed by there leader not

Stay out of this thread - stay out of this thread...

oops

Bush certainly didn't want to finish his daddy's business - that's taking world politics down to a personal level and that's just silly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Iraq and Afghanistan are areas that need to be taken for military reasons. Make it simple - think of the game of Risk.

You've got India and Pakistan (hugely explosive), the former Soviet Union and China (and other smaller idiot nations going toward the east from there). Iraq and Afghanistan were required to setup our (the west's) position for the next decade - where fighting might be between nations of the mid/far east and our position will be even more important.

Bush/Blair both believe that democracy in the hands of all nations is the only future that guarantees peace. Maybe that's too "Star Trek" - but do you have a better idea?

[dark_shadow]

Stay out of this thread - stay out of this thread...

oops

Bush certainly didn't want to finish his daddy's business - that's taking world politics down to a personal level and that's just silly.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Iraq and Afghanistan are areas that need to be taken for military reasons. Make it simple - think of the game of Risk.

You've got India and Pakistan (hugely explosive), the former Soviet Union and China (and other smaller idiot nations going toward the east from there). Iraq and Afghanistan were required to setup our (the west's) position for the next decade - where fighting might be between nations of the mid/far east and our position will be even more important.

Bush/Blair both believe that democracy in the hands of all nations is the only future that guarantees peace. Maybe that's too "Star Trek" - but do you have a better idea?

my point proven its all to expand and show off there miliatary superority and yes i have a better idea stay out of there country. bush is sticking his nose in places were it doeesnt belong. They beleived the 9/11 attacks were done by Osama bin laden which was in Afagnastan not Iraq.There was no point of invading iraq except for bush to finish up his daddy's work. "Iraq and Afghanistan were required to setup our (the west's) position for the next decade" Since when does america have a say on what happens in there country in the next decade? once again america trying to conquor another country using and showing off there military superority

[dglienna]

The attack was planned before 9/11 happened.

[szlamany]

"Iraq and Afghanistan were required to setup our (the west's) position for the next decade" Since when does america have a say on what happens in there country in the next decade? once again america trying to conquor another country using and showing off there military superority

What do you think about Pakistan and India? What do you think could happen between these two countries?

If you had the might of the biggest superpower and several other allies behind you would you get involved?

[visualAd]

The attack was planned before 9/11 happened.

Well, it would have been of great scientific interest if it were planner after

[dglienna]

I meant our attack was in the works before the terrorists acted on 9/11. I've seen people that stated that the war was going to happen, and was being planned before Bush took office.

[honeybee]

Nuclear Weapons serve no purpose whatsoever. Its like going around with a bomb strapped to your chest and saying its a deterant, but never intending to detonate it becuase you do not want to die

Hint: America has never fought a war on its own land, and will try to avoid it as much as it can

.

[honeybee]

Because most countries are just dying to get their hands on them so they can bomb us here in America, and try to destroy our way of life, especially the terrist and anti-American countries. Now you know why.

Hear, hear. How old are you, btw? You are more pathetic than some of the worst Bush-huggers I have seen around.


Guess what, the US was the first to make and use the first atomic weapon, not just once, but twice. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

.

[honeybee]

Bush certainly didn't want to finish his daddy's business - that's taking world politics down to a personal level and that's just silly.

And if he could do both, establish the military might of the US over the world and have his father's unfinished business sorted out, that was the best of both worlds, right? I could somehow make a connection between bombing half the Afghanistan off after an Al Qaeda attack on the US, I have never understood the logic behind invading Iraq. Not to forget it was the US government which fostered both Taleban and Saddam.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - Iraq and Afghanistan are areas that need to be taken for military reasons. Make it simple - think of the game of Risk.

Need to be taken? Are you even aware you are talking about two soverign nations? Well, I guess you couldn't argue against Al Qaeda thinking the same about America: America and Americans must be taken, they are a threat to us!. You therefore cannot say it's the world against the terror. It's simply the US against its enemies.

You've got India and Pakistan (hugely explosive), the former Soviet Union and China (and other smaller idiot nations going toward the east from there). Iraq and Afghanistan were required to setup our (the west's) position for the next decade - where fighting might be between nations of the mid/far east and our position will be even more important.

Guess what, in the recent past, only the US seems to have been fighting big wars with big weapons. The most violent nation at present is the US of A. And who told you to poke your nose into the Middle East or the Far East? Certainly not your humanitarian minds, because I have yet to see the US forces doing a peacekeeping job or maintaining law and order in the African nations such as Rwanda or DR Congo where genocide has killed millions of people. I don't see the US giving equal importance to these real humanitarian issues. It is simply busy making footholds into areas from where it can make money. The game you talked about is of making money, controlling all the resources and thereby establishing command over the whole world.

Bush/Blair both believe that democracy in the hands of all nations is the only future that guarantees peace. Maybe that's too "Star Trek" - but do you have a better idea?

Well, China has taken away most of your manufacturing jobs, it's taking rapid strides in almost all the fields and it's not a democracy. The call for democracy by Bush is simply to unsettle the progressing nations. There is no justification to the argument when the US itself has supported and is supporting monarchies and dictatorships all over the world when suited to their selfish interests. The talk of democracy is guided by malice, and not a genuine desire for the people of China or any other countries.

As long as the US harbours these intentions, there will never be peace. Which is a direct result of the foreign policies adopted and followed by the US in the past years. It has always been guided by greed and not humanity. And that's the reason why you will find almost every non-US member is against the Bush government. Whatever till now was in the form of economic sanctions and treaties and such has now converted into a direct military threat. I am sure the US will not have the last laugh in this.

.

[Valleysboy1978]

Nuclear Weapons serve no purpose whatsoever. Its like going around with a bomb strapped to your chest and saying its a deterant, but never intending to detonate it becuase you do not want to die

Of course they serve a purpose! It's the threat of nuclear retaliation that often stops a war before it starts. Look at the Cold war for a good example. The US, UK or Russia could not nuke any of the others for fear of retaliation from the other two. The same is in effect now.

Nuclear weapons will never be used by any of the UN member countries because the UN itself would come down on them like a tonne of bricks

[szlamany]

Need to be taken? Are you even aware you are talking about two soverign nations?

Afghanistan has been a power-pawn non-soveriegnty since the 80's - Russia had it - it bounced all over.

Well, China has taken away most of your manufacturing jobs, it's taking rapid strides in almost all the fields and it's not a democracy

I don't feel our manufacturing jobs are gone at all - China can take it's fair share of global-productivity and not hurt us one bit. Fair is hard for some of these far-east countries - they would rather steal patent concepts and develop products illegally.

But this isn't an economics thread - it's about global security and how nuclear weapons play into that.

What happens when one of the Korea's puts up 3 silo's aimed at China and maybe India or Japan? Does that increase or decrease the feeling of security that the "whole world" feels? If it decreases the security then it's a requirement for the countries that have the most power to insure that it does not happen.

If you feel it increases security for that to happen then please explain how you might arrive at that feeling.

[space_monkey]

Hint: America has never fought a war on its own land, and will try to avoid it as much as it can

.

ummm i can think of a couple wars that have been fought here. Two with the british (Rev, 1812), one amongst ourselves (Civil), and one with mexico. That's just what i can think of off the top of my head. Now it's true that we haven't fought a modern war here, but that's not our fault.

[yrwyddfa]

ummm i can think of a couple wars that have been fought here. Two with the british (Rev, 1812), one amongst ourselves (Civil), and one with mexico. That's just what i can think of off the top of my head. Now it's true that we haven't fought a modern war here, but that's not our fault.

I think the point being made here is modern history not history some 200 years ago . . .

[Filik]

How is the American way of life destroying their way of life?

That's not a sarcastic question, or a rhetoric one.

America is used to having everything like oil, but when it starts to run low, for pathetic reasons America starts a war against a country (in this case its Iraq) and takes over its resources. The point is, if Americans needed oil and they'd had to choose between attacking a country and taking over its oil or finding a democratic way out of the situation, each and every one would aprove of the attack, because no one would care about the people who live in that country, they would only care about keeping the way of life that they have

[space_monkey]

I realize that, but that's not what he said.

[Valleysboy1978]

Perhaps it is a case of WHERE said nuclear weapons are. If they are in a stable government with little chance of them being used (US, EU etc) then they are only used as a deterrent to war.

If however those nuclear weapons are in an unstable country with enemies known to be nearby (Iraq/Iran, N/S. Korea etc.) then it can get a little tense and may be used without prior thought or reason

[yrwyddfa]

Perhaps it is a case of WHERE said nuclear weapons are. If they are in a stable government with little chance of them being used (US, EU etc) then they are only used as a deterrent to war.

If however those nuclear weapons are in an unstable country with enemies known to be nearby (Iraq/Iran, N/S. Korea etc.) then it can get a little tense and may be used without prior thought or reason

Who determines stable governments?

[szlamany]

Who determines stable governments?

Bush/Blair - would you have it any other way?

[visualAd]

I wouldn't class Bush or Blair as stable governments. Maybe "stable chaos" would be more appropriate

[honeybee]

Afghanistan has been a power-pawn non-soveriegnty since the 80's - Russia had it - it bounced all over.

As far as the US is concerned, Afghanistan was still a soverign nation. I don't see how the US gets the right to invade Afghanistan just because Russians occupied it earlier?

I don't feel our manufacturing jobs are gone at all - China can take it's fair share of global-productivity and not hurt us one bit. Fair is hard for some of these far-east countries - they would rather steal patent concepts and develop products illegally.

Do you understand patent laws outside the US? If not, I suggest you read them first, before talking about "stealing". And just like the US is not bound by any protocols when it comes to emission control or use of white phosphorous, the Chinese can argue that they are not bound by the US patent laws. Perfectly valid argument!

What happens when one of the Korea's puts up 3 silo's aimed at China and maybe India or Japan? Does that increase or decrease the feeling of security that the "whole world" feels? If it decreases the security then it's a requirement for the countries that have the most power to insure that it does not happen.

Well I would say the most powerful country would first have to show by example that it does not wish to possess nuclear weapons just to bully others into not getting them. The US leads by example. It acquired nuclear weapons through German scientists, the others are acquiring them using Pakistani scientists. And if the US is so concerned about the spread of nuclear weapons, I would like to know from you what it has done against the Pakistan government and its top nuclear scientist A Q Khan who sold the nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea? Please answer this question because that is the root of the problem, and somehow the US isn't too keen to strike the root of this problem. Which means there are other motives than humanity and world safety at play here. Why else was A Q Khan not captured and tried before an international court?

If you feel it increases security for that to happen then please explain how you might arrive at that feeling.

Please explain first how removing Saddam has made the world, or forget about the world, even Iraq safer for the common Iraqis. And before you come to the nuclear arsenal allegedly being developed by North Korea and the so called axis of evil, please explain how the world is safer with the very people and the country engaged in the nuclear proliferation have escaped without as much as a rebuke from the US. Isn't the US shielding Pakistan and its nuclear scientists from any punishments? And why?

.

[honeybee]

... Now it's true that we haven't fought a modern war here, but that's not our fault.

Apart from the fact that your civil wars are out of context here, have you ever wondered about whose fault it was in Vietnam, in Afghanistan or in Iraq?

It's not your fault that you haven't fought a modern war on your own land, it's your deliberate attempt.

.

[space_monkey]

Apart from the fact that your civil wars are out of context here, have you ever wondered about whose fault it was in Vietnam, in Afghanistan or in Iraq?

It's not your fault that you haven't fought a modern war on your own land, it's your deliberate attempt.

.

It not being our fault was stated more as joke than anything else. One reason that no modern war has been fought on US soil is mostly because of geography. The logistics of invading (and holding) the continental US would be quite difficult to overcome unless you had a country like Mexico, Canada, or Cuba on your side (not saying that they would help, just saying that's the only way i can think of making it a little easier). That would be an interesting study, that i'm sure the pentagon has already done.

I'll agree that the reasons for going to war during the soviet era was to avoid a larger nuclear conflict, but i doubt there would have been any US or Russian soil left to fight on if things had really gone down hill. So in a way i agree with you but i don't think that it can be as generalized as you put it.