wait banning nukes will mean that the US will have to do it too. and you very well know that they aint giving up their nukes. The UN could declare the dismantling of all nuclear weapon sites and whatever, but since when does the US listen to the UN?
Its impossible to ban nukes.
__________________
Thank you god for the blessing me with Chanel.
She is back with you now, so take care of her
Are you kidding? It's hypcritical for the U.S. to want to retain it's nukes while trying to prevent Iran and N. Korea from amassing their own? Wow. Glad you're not running the state department.
You do realize that these two countries are rogue states run by homocidal maniacs? They should never be allowed to see even a gram of plutonium until they become Western-style democracies. Pure and simple.
__________________ And the good Saint Francis that said Little Sister Death, that never had a sister.
I think that the US arsenal of Nukes is pretty useless in the current style of warfare. I mean think about it - If Al Qaeda or some other terror group managed to nuke an american city, where exactly would we send our nuke in retaliation? The MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine basically says, "you nuke us, we nuke you". But who could we actually hold responsible for a terror attack?
Actually I would say it is hypocritical to be against nukes in the hands of others while one works on maintaining and occasionally expanding their own arsenal (as with the failed proposal to develop nukes that could be used in conventional fields of battle.) Concepts of MAD, nuclear deterrent etc. could potentially be put to rest with far more ease if all nations involved were more committed to it, and following the treaties etc. aimed at reducing nuclear arsenals and preventing proliferation.
And it need not be seed one of the least tractable and compliant nations with such an ideal has been the US, just like they were less then dedicated to the war courts (what, put a *US* citizen on trial for war crimes? Get out of town.)
Reducing or removing nuclear arsenals are good in an economic sense. One of the contributing factors in the death of the USSR was trying to maintain its arsenal, a massively expensive job with little in terms of economic returns. Somehow people seem to think the US is immune to this effect, but the debt of the nation has some at points tangible links to aspects of the US military.
Oooo yes. Of course. Naturally western style democracies are incapable of committing atrocities in war or using nuclear weaponry. What a delightfully idealistic view. It is relevant though, that only one nation has used weapons of a nuclear/atomic nature in actual war. And if I am not mistaken that nation would classify as one of the most western democratic of the all.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
1st being that Hiroshima was an event that none of us are capable of judging fairly. We weren't alive then, and even the people who were alive, and living in the US or Japan, weren't given the whole truth from either government. Maybe it did bring an end to a conflict that would have gone on and on...or maybe it was a cheap shot that should never have been used since a nation like Japan could have sustained their fight for only a short while longer.
2nd. As has been said by several authors and journalists, it's come time for the people of these over looked and under considered nations to be able to step up to the table with an equal playing hand in teh game of global politics. And the conservatives want to say that these people are fundamentalist wackos who want the bomb only to use it. Neither are the case. They do want the bomb so they can be taken seriously...but they also know that a few Nukes aren't going to be any match for the US (and allies) arsenal. If a terrorist state managed to deliver one or two nukes to US soil, that country would no longer exist. Period. The US would retaliate just as they did at teh end of WW2. But, to limit it to that is also irresponsible, because we are dealing with people who feel that, in the case of Iran, the deaths of thousands of fellow Muslims are a small price to pay.
No, the bottom line is Israel. If Iran were to develop the bomb, Israel is screwed. Which is why we gave them the bomb in the first place. Make no mistake, it will be Israel that strikes first.
As for N. Korea, they want to be respected as a world power...they rattle their sabres and the US government and media treat it like the eve of armageddon.
__________________ "If I were you"
"If you were me, you'd know the safest place to hide...is in sanity!
I mostly agree with the other things you said, and this here, recent events make me feel this is likely to be far more likely how it will occur if/when it does.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
WE'RE the ones that need to give up our Nukes? What about China and Russia? China is itching to use their Nukes, but they're not stupid enough to strike first, if they come close to being defeated in a war, possibly the next World War, since they're a Communist Government and have nothing to lose, they would use them, we wouldn't. Russia's economy is in the crapper, they might end up doing a few Under-Handed deals, and the security for the silos is horrible too, people could steal them
The US and UK are the only countries that are capable of keeping a Nuclear Arsenal, and not using them unless neccesary, as well as keeping them safe
China is communist in little more then name, and somehow I don't think in terms of real politic and so on that the argument "but their communist and when they loose the next war they'll probably use them" carries a lot of mileage. Fact is two nations with nuclear arsenals are just as unlikely to disarm or such as if there are fifty with them. It is the nature weaved into them. Deterrence and such. While the US has nukes no other nation is going to feel safe enough to pull the plug on their own programs. And as long as China and so on have nukes the US and west aren't going to feel safe enough to pull the plug either. Its a nasty stalemate that wont be broken without far more commitment from all concerned. From all nuclear powers.
Why? Who died and made them guardians of the nuclear doom? That kind of attitude is why other nations don't want to give up their bombs.
__________________
From even the greatest of horrors irony is seldom absent.
Honestly the only people I am worried about having Nukes are the states that have extremist connections, not just extremist islam, but any extremists. Oh, and countries that don't have a stable govt. I wouldn't have a problem if Japan had nukes now. I wouldn't have a problem if South Africa had them. Heck, who cares if Fiji has them. No stable govt would initiate a nuclear war. The only ones who would do such a thing are those that are controlled, or might fall to, extremist elements.
yes, because the difference between homocidal maniacs and a virtuous nation is whether or not they would actually USE it...............oh wait a minute......
KMC Community Forums
Aug 6th, 2006 06:18 PM
