N. Korea Agrees to Allow Inspectors
http://armscontrolnow.org/2012/02/29/signs-of-progress-on-north-korean-nuclear-problem/
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/u-announces-diplomatic-breakthrough-north-korea-152331635.html
Possibly encouraging news that the UN will now be able to send nuclear inspectors to North Korea and has apparently agreed to reduce or end their nuclear program.
Re: N. Korea Agrees to Allow Inspectors
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://armscontrolnow.org/2012/02/29/signs-of-progress-on-north-korean-nuclear-problem/http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/u-announces-diplomatic-breakthrough-north-korea-152331635.html
Possibly encouraging news that the UN will now be able to send nuclear inspectors to North Korea and has apparently agreed to reduce or end their nuclear program.
That sounds great, but they have done that (or close too that) in the past. To be honest, they can't be trusted. I will put the shampain and streamers in the closet for the time being.
I dont mean to sound rude or anything because I live in america but if you were to tell me I couldnt play with my toy train and yet you have a toy train too, isn't that hypocritical?? I'm sure if you tell them check here they wont hide them there. We have to be real about this, everyone has toys just in case shit happens.
Originally posted by rudester
I dont mean to sound rude or anything because I live in america but if you were to tell me I couldnt play with my toy train and yet you have a toy train too, isn't that hypocritical?? I'm sure if you tell them check here they wont hide them there. We have to be real about this, everyone has toys just in case shit happens.
A nuke is not a toy.
So, do you believe that a nuke is a deterrent?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A nuke is not a toy.So, do you believe that a nuke is a deterrent?
His point stands though. The US nor the UN shouldn't go around telling certain countries they can't have nukes while blatantly ignoring that some UN counties and the US has nukes.
UN countries (eg France, England, India etc) and the US should disarm first, then go about telling others they should too. Lead by ****ing example.
Originally posted by Robtard
His point stands though. The US nor the UN shouldn't go around telling certain countries they can't have nukes while blatantly ignoring that some UN counties and the US has nukes.UN countries (eg France, England, India etc) and the US should disarm first, then go about telling others they should too. Lead by ****ing example.
Why?
Do you buy into the idea that a nuke is a deterrent?
Originally posted by Robtard
His point stands though. The US nor the UN shouldn't go around telling certain countries they can't have nukes while blatantly ignoring that some UN counties and the US has nukes.UN countries (eg France, England, India etc) and the US should disarm first, then go about telling others they should too. Lead by ****ing example.
Best post ever. Truest, too.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why?Do you buy into the idea that a nuke is a deterrent?
Considering countries like the US could level nations without dropping nukes, I'm not so sure what kind of a deterrent nuclear weapons really are.
Regardless, what gives one country the right to have a nuclear "deterrent" and another not?
While I support disarmament for all nations, there are some nations that are in more urgent need of disarmament than others.
I'd start with India and Pakistan then work my way to North Korea or Israel then China and France and the UK and then when that's taken care of get Russia and America to agree to get rid of all theirs at the same time in full view of one another.
Of course there's no way this would ever happen.
Edit: There were some very interesting Wikileaks diplomatic cables from China that called North Korea a "spoiled child" and suggested that increasingly large and powerful segments of the Chinese government are for a unified Korea under South Korean rule.
Originally posted by Robtard
Considering countries like the US could level nations without dropping nukes, I'm not so sure what kind of a deterrent nuclear weapons really are.Regardless, what gives one country the right to have a nuclear "deterrent" and another not?
What gives a country the right? The answer is might. Now, I don't agree with this, but it is a reality. The world nations have been in a kinda fight club for thousands of years, and putting down your weapons in a fight club is not wise.
We can dream all day, but if the US destroyed all their nukes, we would be attacked. 🙁
I don't have an answer...
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What gives a country the right? The answer is might. Now, I don't agree with this, but it is a reality. The world nations have been in a kinda fight club for thousands of years, and putting down your weapons in a fight club is not wise.We can dream all day, but if the US destroyed all their nukes, we would be attacked. 🙁
I don't have an answer...
Who would attack the US if the US's 5k+ plus nukes say vanished into thin air?
If every country in the Security Council gave up their nukes at once...that would be great.
Edit: MAD only applies to the Russia-USA situation, I've seen reports to the effect that it has next to no weight in a hypothetical India-Pakistan confrontation or a future confrontation between a nuclear armed Iran and Israel/Saudi Arabia.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
Edit: MAD only applies to the Russia-USA situation, most experts agree it has next to no weight in a hypothetical India-Pakistan confrontation or a future confrontation between a nuclear armed Iran and Israel/Saudi Arabia.
and it applies ever decreasingly to that situation anyways, as second strike capacity and missile defense matures
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Everyone. This is a viscous fight club.
Come on, dude. Not only is America still a military power-house without nukes that any single or multiple countries would have a tooth and nail fight, destroying America would throw the world into an economic shit-ward spin; people in power like their money.