Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Nuclear Weapons: A Right Of Every Country  
User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1627 times:

You heard me right.

If Russia and the United States have now stated they will continue their development of nuclear weaponry, how the he!! can they demand Iran or North Korea not to do the same? The sheer hypocracy of that (and hypocracy is my #1 pet peeve), almost makes me want those countries to become nuclear out of defiance.

Any other country on Earth that wants to develop anything nuclear now will have absolutely no quarrels. Or are idiotic countries like Iran supposed to not develop nukes, so that they can be invaded far more readily and without any major repercusions to the invader, as their thinking goes? I think that is exactly why Iran is rushing their nuclear program. They know that the sooner they have functional bombs, the much more perilous would an invasion be.

As I'm a fair person, if one country can build nukes, then all should be able to build nukes. Off course I'm not for that, but it's the way I think.




My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

Why on earth do you need to develop nuclear weapons when the Pakistanis well sell you their stolen technology on demand?

User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
Reply 2, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Of you could get the Paki technology on the cheap off the mad Korean!

User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1609 times:

Well, it depends because some countries want to develop nukes with their own technology. One-man dictatorships may be more likely to just buy the technology since their overriding concern is power-lust.

The point of my thread is that you cannot have a nuclear-freeze when the major countries do not respect it. I would like a total freeze on nuclear weapons. But that is not going to happen now.



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 20
Reply 4, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1608 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In an ideal world there would be no need for such a destructive weapon, we are supposed to be a peaceful species right? Ofcourse with mankinds thirst for war and violence, we have them. And you're right, any country country has the right to develop nukes (or nuclear energy) for their purpose, be it as a deterant or anything else. There is no one in this world who can dictate which countries have nukes, unfortunately, in the hypocritical western world, Iran is not allowed to have nukes but Israel is.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1596 times:

you cannot have a nuclear-freeze when the major countries do not respect it. I would like a total freeze on nuclear weapons. But that is not going to happen now.

Then how would you keep other countries from using nuclear weapons, if you yourself did not have them? There's a big difference between the US having them, and N Korea having them. At least here you KNOW that we will be responsable with them...N Korea on the other hand, a big more irrational.

Ever hear the term strategic deturance? Very important, and if you look at the Cold War, it was the reason why neither country ever fired a nuclear shot in anger at each other.

I believe we should deal with North Korea with how we dealt with the Soviets..but modify it a little bit...Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, where if your country launches nukes, you're guaranteed of being destroyed yourself. Modify it a little bit so that, as soon as they develop/possess them...they are assured of destruction Big grin

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineCommander_Rabb From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 771 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Let them have the right to build it. And let us have the right to destroy them.

All is fair!


User currently offlineJasepl From India, joined Jul 2004, 3582 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1588 times:

At least here you KNOW that we will be responsable with them...N Korea on the other hand, a big more irrational.

Well, how do you know that? And why must anyone deal with Korea, unless we've been threatened by them?


User currently offlineDerico From Argentina, joined Dec 1999, 4307 posts, RR: 11
Reply 8, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1584 times:

Delta Guy,

You make a valid point, but you are not going to deter these other countries if you yourself keep refining your weapons. Why do Russia or the US need to keep on their research if the weapons they have now are more than enough to deal with any emerging nuclear-hungry country??



My internet was not shut down, the internet has shut me down
User currently offlineB747-437B From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1581 times:

At least here you KNOW that we will be responsable with them...

How on earth do we KNOW that?

History has shown us that the US is not always responsable (sic) about using military force, so pardon my skepticism.


User currently offlineSolarix From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1559 times:

Countries like North Korea and Iran openly call for the destruction of America and Israel. Our country does not start its day shouting the phrase "Death to Iran! Death to Iran !! God is great!!".

Iran claims they are going to use nuclear technology for peaceful reasons. But explain to me why have printed the phrase "We will crush America and wipe Israel from the map" all over the place?

North Korea has just plain admitted they want to send a nuclear bomb our way. That country is run by a nutjob.

But in the end I do agree with your point. We should not be worried about an asteroid or global warming because they will not be what causes our final destruction. I think nuclear weapons should be abandoned by everyone before it gets out of control.


User currently offlineL.1011 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 2209 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1548 times:

The hold Cold War nuclear arms race was kind of silly, because once you get over a few thousand nukes, it's just a matter of turning the other guy into a slighty more radioactive crater, not further assuring total destruction. 10,000 nukes between NATO and the Warsaw Pact does that, but we had 80-100,000 nukes between us, because you always had to keep up with the other guy, even if we would have been just as cautious with one another with 10,000 nukes. All that 100,000 nukes does is make sure the rest of the planet is going down with you. Don't take me as anti-nuke, I'm far from it and the arms race probably saved millions of lives, because it wouldn't surprise me if we would have eventually gone to war, without the prospect of nuclear winter. Europe would have been destroyed, and who knows how many proxy wars would have been fought in the Third World. But on to the current issue. As DeltaGuy said, we are trusted with nukes because we have a track record of acting responsibly. And the Japan bombings saved the millions of lives that would have been lost in a conventional invasion, on both sides. In addition, if anybody trigger happy gets into power, all of the currently nuclear countries have the facilities to boot them out. I feel safe with George W. Bush, Vladamir Putin, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac (shudder), etc having nukes. But Kim Jong Il, the Ayatollahs, or even Qadafi having nukes scares the crap out of me.

User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8124 posts, RR: 54
Reply 12, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1549 times:

DeltaGuy: "Ever hear the term strategic deturance? Very important, and if you look at the Cold War, it was the reason why neither country ever fired a nuclear shot in anger at each other."

OK, first of all, ever hear of correct spelling? It's deterrence.

"I believe we should deal with North Korea with how we dealt with the Soviets."

Hmm. How exactly did you "deal" with the Soviets? The USSR collapsed from within, I don't recall a single thing your lot did to hasten their demise.

"Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, where if your country launches nukes, you're guaranteed of being destroyed yourself." Yes yes, we know. "Modify it a little bit so that, as soon as they develop/possess them...they are assured of destruction." So you think it's a bad thing for North Korea (in fact anyone except you and Israel) to have the bomb, but a good thing to use your bomb to kill millions of innocent people. Wowee.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 13, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1539 times:

Well, how do you know that? And why must anyone deal with Korea, unless we've been threatened by them

I don't think Japan took too kindly to the (conventional)missle test over the country's land a few years back for one thing.


User currently offlineJetService From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 4798 posts, RR: 11
Reply 14, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1523 times:

If you can't see the difference between NK/Iran and US/UK/France/etc. having nuke capabilities then you are a moron.


"Shaddap you!"
User currently offlineEA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 13612 posts, RR: 62
Reply 15, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1491 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How exactly did you "deal" with the Soviets? The USSR collapsed from within, I don't recall a single thing your lot did to hasten their demise.


C'mon Cedarjet, you're smarter than that.  Insane

The development of a strategic nuclear arsenal, the dramatic building up of the U.S. military during the Cold War (particularly the 1980s) and the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI or "Star Wars") hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union as they could not keep up with the spending of the U.S. militarily.

Their inability to "have both guns and butter at the same time" was exploited by the U.S. THAT is how we "dealt" with them.



"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
User currently offlineIakobos From Belgium, joined Aug 2003, 3313 posts, RR: 35
Reply 16, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1481 times:

AP

January 1, 2222

During today's extraordinary plenary assembly of the 94 United Nations, the Sec Gen Mr Ifok Nana proceeded with the long awaited ceremony.

All Chief of States and their deputies were solemnly invited to sign the "Balls for Peace" charter, thereby authorizing the newly created UN committee chaired by Dick Ball to supervise the immediate implementation of the sophisticated global security system known as "JEWELS project".

Although we have regularly updated our readers during the 72 years it took for the project to come to a fruitful completion, it might not be unuseful to remind that the system architecture rests on four key elements:

- the chip-size detonator which will be painlessly implanted in the scrotum
area of the counrties' leaders
- the middleware developped by Verysoftmicro Inc.
- the 2B+1D quorum sensor installed in the UN general assembly in Delphi
- the actuator and its rectangular shaped 8.5 x 1.5 meter red switch bearing
the engraving CUT-COUPER-SNIJDEN-KOBO and another 26 translations.

The 644 pages addendum to the charter defines the procedure whereby a weekly assessment of each leader will take place. At the end of each session every delegate, except the one representing the country in question, is required to cast his vote for CUT or KEEP.

In case a quorum of 66.66% (63 delegates) of CUT is reached, all will move to the activator panel and at a signal all will press on the large switch.

The castrated leaders are required to organize IP-based elections within the next 48 hours.

Following the strong opposition from Arab and EuroArab countries a separate procedure is still under study for female leaders, while a separate committee is investigating the USA request concerning gay leaders rights.

It is now deemed that the 49 billion inhabitants of planet Earth will be once and for all feel and be safe to live their life.


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5718 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1475 times:

Why do Russia or the US need to keep on their research if the weapons they have now are more than enough to deal with any emerging nuclear-hungry country??

In case of Russia nukes are the last thing that assures them to be taken seriously.

I feel safe with George W. Bush, Vladamir Putin, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac (shudder), etc having nukes. But Kim Jong Il, the Ayatollahs, or even Qadafi having nukes scares the crap out of me.

L.1011, I'm much more certain about Blair with Cirac than with mad cowboy Bush in the White House and his ex-KGB friend "Vladamur" flexing his nuclear muscles once again.

Our country does not start its day shouting the phrase "Death to Iran! Death to Iran !! God is great!!".

Not so sure about the last one...




User currently offlineMiamiair From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1463 times:

Imagine if Argentina had nukes when they sailed off to conquer the Falklands, yes, the Falklands. The argies set up shop and say to the Brits, you come near us, we'll swat your fleet out of the water like toys in the bath tub. See how the situation gets nasty? Dictatorships or people that use an ancient religion for the basis of their decisions should not have these things. The big powers had these things with the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction); which means you toss one at me and I'll wipe you off of the map. This only works for nation-states. Stateless entities like OBL and his happy horde of religion defiling nuts find WMDs so attractive. Who are you going to retaliate against? That's why these things are not supposed to proliferate. I can understand Israel having them, and I'll bet you the ranch they have the stones to use them, that's why the Arab nations have pretty much ignored them.

User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1423 times:

First off, Cedarjet, your post was nothing but criticism and mocking. Thanks. Sorry I didn't hit the spell check button first. I think EA CO AS put it right, the Soviets collapsed because of how they couldn't defend a nation AND take care of it's own business.

You make a valid point, but you are not going to deter these other countries if you yourself keep refining your weapons

Derico, you make a good point as well. I honestly believe that us further refining and bettering our weapons and delivery systems actually further deturs enemy forces, as they see we can do alot more killing with alot less bomb, so to speak. Would your enemy cringe if he saw you leaving your spear in the corner gathering dust, or you sharpening and training with it daily?

History has shown us that the US is not always responsable (sic) about using military force, so pardon my skepticism.

Agreed Sean, I back you in the conventional-weapon sense. We have been pretty tight with our nukes however, note we haven't fired a nuclear shot in anger since WWII, and have had good control of our weapons. L.1011 hit it well when he said that we're trusted to have those weapons...we have many many many layers of safety and protocal in place before any Special Weapon is released. Other countries wouldn't have such safety, and wouldn't have the resolve NOT to use the weapons. We may act like cowboys sometimes with our Mk 82 bombs, but we sure don't mess around with the nukes.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 978 posts, RR: 51
Reply 20, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1417 times:

Honest to god learn from the U.S mistakes people. Look at the trillions of dollars we've spent on those nukes, and aircraft carriers, and stealth bombers. Trillions and trillions of dollars wasted.... like a sick McDonalds joke. Yeah we got force projection, but that's obviously made people love us.

Second, do you have the right to hold nuclear weapons? Maybe (I'd argue no one does)... but it's like SUVs. You have the right, but you sure as hell don't have the responsibility. People hate when you have force projection (a lesson the US is learning) so why blow all your treasury just to have people get pissed at you.

Nuclear weapons just don't make sense post-Cold War. Let's dismantle them at the first available chance, if you want them, you're a very very sick fucker.


User currently offlineYhmfan From Canada, joined Feb 2004, 607 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1414 times:

1. I wish there were no nuclear weapoin this world.
2. I hope countries like Iran never develop one because it gives an oppressive and irresponsible regime (Note I said regime NOT nation) more power.
3. Having said that, for the countries that have nukes to tell other countries not to develop them is illogical. The "we are a responsible bunch" argument does not hold true. After all, last time I checked, only one country has ever actually nuked another and the one using it was not Pakistan, India, North Korea, Israel etc.....



If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you
User currently offlineMD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8508 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1388 times:

People hate when you have force projection

Nah, just when it's used in a very irresponsible way every day all across the entire globe, used to meddle in affairs that are none of our business.


Let's put it this way--the US has no right to invade another nation just because they have nukes, are developing nukes, or are suspected of developing nukes.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 1373 times:

Let's put it this way--the US has no right to invade another nation just because they have nukes, are developing nukes, or are suspected of developing nukes.

So the US, and George Bush, had no right to invade Iraq?

Then again, you're a genius who thinks the best way to advocate change in the US is by not voting. Clever stuff.


User currently offlineNUAir From Malaysia, joined Jun 2000, 1181 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 years 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1344 times:

"I feel safe with George W. Bush, Vladamir Putin, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac (shudder), etc having nukes. But Kim Jong Il, the Ayatollahs, or even Qadafi having nukes scares the crap out of me."


I don't feel safe with Vladamir Putin having a water gun let alone nukes. He just derailed democracy in Russia and now we trust him? Not to mention the abundance of post-soviet nukes that the west has been trying to contain since the fall of the USSR. Which is also costing us billions of $'s. And now we think its ok for him to build more? What!!

The entire Cold War freak out was such BS. It was all about fear propaganda which helped scare the American and Russian public into trillions of dollars for defense contractors and better ways to kill each other while imposing pro-US or Russian dictators throughout the 3rd world. How do you think we ended up with so many of these idiot leaders today?

I guarantee that after the first nuclear weapon is used they will never be used again. After people realize the devastation and horror of the actual explosion and the toxic fallout we will all be embarrassed to even be a part of the human species that is capable of developing shit like this.

No nukes for anyone at anytime!




"How Many Assholes we got on this ship?" - Lord Helmet
25 L.1011 : Look, I don't particularly like Putin either. He's evil, but not stupid. He knows that while the US, UK, etc have been updating our nuclear arsenals c
26 L410Turbolet : The "we are a responsible bunch" argument does not hold true. After all, last time I checked, only one country has ever actually nuked another and the
27 AA777 : How about if the U.S., Russia and its security council allies all got rid of their nukes. (Also India and Pakistan). Then we wouldnt worry about these
28 Miamiair : Don't forget OBL and his happy bunch...Get real. The ultimate benefit of nuclear weapons is that Europe is free. Imagine if the Soviet Union would hav
29 Jaysit : Don't forget OBL and his happy bunch...Get real. But its not so easy to launch a nuclear missile from a cave near Kandahar. You need access to the inf
30 Derico : Quote by Miamiair #18: "...Dictatorships or people that use an ancient religion for the basis of their decisions should not have these things..." Agre
31 Miamiair : Compete with the US for what? Another nuclear arms race? Be serious...Do you know how much the R& D cost for these projects cost? That money is better
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
If Pakistan Have Nuclear Weapons, Why... posted Tue Jun 20 2006 17:18:46 by Bofredrik
US To Build New Nuclear Weapons posted Wed Jun 14 2006 15:03:26 by RichardPrice
Most Beautiful Part Of Your Country. posted Tue Apr 4 2006 11:32:35 by AndesSMF
Car Bestseller List Of Your Country posted Fri Jan 14 2005 16:10:01 by Racko
Design A Two Week Tour Of Your Country posted Mon Sep 13 2004 13:31:45 by Banco
Israeli Activists Recognize The Right Of Return posted Thu Aug 19 2004 21:39:50 by BA
Nuclear Weapons Found In Tikrit. posted Wed Jul 21 2004 15:30:23 by Galaxy5
Pedestrians Have The Right Of Way? posted Fri Jun 25 2004 07:55:06 by Clipperhawaii
Image Of Your Country posted Sun Jun 13 2004 03:28:29 by Horus
Geographic Center Of Your Country posted Sun Sep 14 2003 19:18:47 by PHX-LJU