The Iranian-Syrian Allience.

I don't think it's anything big like they're putting it out to be.

I missed the part where America actually ever used a nuke in the name of freedom.

America is capable of doing sufficient damage to just about any country in the world without ever having to resort to nuclear warfare. Iran, North Korea, or Syria for that matter would have to resort ot nuke warefare in order to do sufficient damage to the United States.

well those countries just want to have a fair chance against america, since the US isn't to predictable in there choice of enemy. I think germany should get some nukes just in case the US decides we are the next target.

Originally posted by Linkalicious
I missed the part where America actually ever used a nuke in the name of freedom.

America is capable of doing sufficient damage to just about any country in the world without ever having to resort to nuclear warfare. Iran, North Korea, or Syria for that matter would have to resort ot nuke warefare in order to do sufficient damage to the United States.

never a nuke in name of freedom, though bombs in name of freedom..though it might've actually helped, the bombs in name of freedom... ah well... everyone here r like politicians 😖

NO!!! We are better ✅ 😛

So let me follow your logic here.

The US claims to be attacking these countries because they are developing nuclear weapons. America says they are willing to handle things diplomatically as long as these countries give up their weapons programs.

So these countries go ahead and secretly work on a nuclear weapons program in order to "stand a fair chance" against the United States...which will ultimately result in an armed conflict because not only are they continuing to make weapons against the US's wishes....but they are making them for the purpose of defending themselves against the US.

How about they stop making them all together like the US wishes? Ideally wouldn't that prevent the armed conflict that you needed the nukes for in the first place.

North Korea would be the best example. The US said no weapons or there will be sanctions. The Koreans wanted the sanctions lifted, and American economic help. Korea continued to make nukes and now that they have them...they want to be right where they were before they had the nukes.

Were they hoping they could intimidate the US into giving aid?

Kinda like telling a kid to calm down or he goes to bed without dinner....then the kid doesn't calm down....but he still gets dinner.

Or maybe they should just hand there government over to the US that would be the best Öyes: Well sorry the US has no right to tewll any other country what to do.

QAnd the US is not the Parent it is just like a kid in school (a buklly that thinks playing police would be fun)

You know ´Germany doesn't have nukes, I sutre hope you do, if not I hope your leaders do or we will be ****ed.

So america is ok with nukes unless they're not islamics?
what if Peru, Chile or Argentina acquire nukes?

You're right. The US has no right to tell another country what to do....Unless it becomes a matter of the safety of it's own people. Then it will do whatever it deems necessary in order to preserve the peace within the nation.

Korea coming out and declaring they have nuclear weapons IS a threat to the United States. North Korea said they were restoring the nuclear facility in order to provide power for it's people....which it desparately needs.

Instead they are making weapons of mass destruction and putting the power to use them in the hands of a dictator who doesn't like the United States. (particularly their foreign policy)

Originally posted by A4E
So america is ok with nukes unless they're not islamics?
what if Peru, Chile or Argentina acquire nukes?

It was a general observation regarding the countries the United States chooses to target.

I have no clue what happens if Chile, Peru, or Argentina acquires nukes. I'm pretty sure the type of government those three countries has would be important as well as the relationship the United States has with those countries.

If Korea found America's nukes a threat and asked them to disarm, would America?

First of all, I am not sure if any other country really likes the US foreign policy but anyway.

Yes thats exactly what we are saying, but Iraq was no thread to the US, ever.

But aboot North Corea, you really think that a preemptive (?) strike is justified or reasonable?

Originally posted by Linkalicious
It was a general observation regarding the countries the United States chooses to target.

I have no clue what happens if Chile, Peru, or Argentina acquires nukes. I'm pretty sure the type of government those three countries has would be important as well as the relationship the United States has with those countries.

yeah.. plus i highly doubt any of those countries r gettin any nukes soon... and I doubt it inkeeper

Originally posted by A4E
what if Peru, Chile or Argentina acquire nukes?

Then they need to sign a no nukes treaty at the UN.

no nukes treaty, what does that mean?? like they have to deactivate their weapons or sign a statement wehre they say they wont attack any country thass part of the U.N?

Well I not sure if it is call "no nukes" but they do have to a duty to report it to the UN.

and if they don't?? they get kicked out of the UN?

Either that or they get sanctions.

Originally posted by The Inkeeper
If Korea found America's nukes a threat and asked them to disarm, would America?

No.

Korea is not in a position of power. America provides Korea with food and power...not the other way around.

If America had their 10,000 nukes, no food or power, and was reliant on North Korea for adequate sources of food and power...then Yes, i would like to think America would disarm or begin dismantling their nukes.

But that's not the case...is it?

well look at US Debts, and then tell me the US lives on its own.