Nuclear Weapons

[scieck]

It is for self-defense. Much like a treaty...

During the cold war there was a power struggle between USA and the Soviet Union, is called a power struggle because they were trying to prove each other who was the stronger not who can defend it self better.

Now days is the same, can you nuke me ? Then you are right.

I am with you (self defense wise) in regard with Iran, I am not surprise that Ahmadinejad wants to go nuclear, with the USA + allies occupying his neighbor country he must be, probably rightly, thinking that his country could be next.

In my opinion North Korea is the only country with nuclear capabilities for pure defense, is hoping (stupidly) to buy some extra time of dictatorship, is hoping to hold control of his own country for a bit longer before the allies will impose their own will. They are lucky their country is of no economic interest.

On a slightly different subject, if you get the chance to visit the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum don't miss it. That act was an unbelievable prove of stupidity, cruelty and a blatant example of crime against humanity.

 

[beckyKe.268]

Basically I am totally against nuclear weapons. No one should possess nuclear weapons. For me an ideal world would be without such weapons. I conceive it as very dangerous that countries possess these weapons. Now should be the time that India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but I think this is rather idealistic. Maybe some time in the future it is possible to live without nuclear weapons.

 

[Haruspex]

Basically I am totally against nuclear weapons. No one should possess nuclear weapons. For me an ideal world would be without such weapons. I conceive it as very dangerous that countries possess these weapons. Now should be the time that India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but I think this is rather idealistic. Maybe some time in the future it is possible to live without nuclear weapons.

Regarding that time... if we fire all nukes, there will be none left, right?
I'm being semi-serious here, and the series half is my scepticism towards the mental capacity and sense of reality of politicians.

 

[Mycernius]

Basically I am totally against nuclear weapons. No one should possess nuclear weapons. For me an ideal world would be without such weapons. I conceive it as very dangerous that countries possess these weapons. Now should be the time that India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty but I think this is rather idealistic. Maybe some time in the future it is possible to live without nuclear weapons.

Whether you like it or not you cannot uninvent the technology or wipe away the knowledge. The basics of nuclear fission can easily be read in books or online. Any country that has nuclear power has the knowledge to carry that into weapons technology, hence all the inspectors running about trying to stop other countries from having the weapons. When your the big boys you don't want all the rest having the same toys.

 

[Pachipro]

Somehow my post got deleted on my end. Will try again at another time.

 

[Proud Asian Kid]

One of the irony of american today is when they try to stop Iran or other country developing nuclear technology while the american themselves have nucleaer weapons and the only one who ever used it [ into Japan which killed over 500.000 innocent Japanese ].

 

[Half-n-Half]

One of the irony of american today is when they try to stop Iran or other country developing nuclear technology while the american themselves have nucleaer weapons and the only one who ever used it [ into Japan which killed over 500.000 innocent Japanese ].

America and Russia has worked together to set a goal to reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1500 weapons on each side. President Obama has stated he is going to work to reduce America's nuclear arsenal and to hopefully create a world free of nuclear weapons. To work with other countries to prevent proliferation, especially when you consider states like North Korea and Iran, is a step in meeting this goal.

 

[scieck]

America and Russia has worked together to set a goal to reduce their nuclear arsenals to 1500 weapons on each side. President Obama has stated he is going to work to reduce America's nuclear arsenal and to hopefully create a world free of nuclear weapons. To work with other countries to prevent proliferation, especially when you consider states like North Korea and Iran, is a step in meeting this goal.

Talks are all well and good, but until America, Russia, the UK and all the rest of bullies don't reduce their nuclear arsenal to 0 they have no rights in imposing/pretending that other countries don't develop their own nuclear weapons.

America and allies have nuclear weapons, this nuclear weapons gives them the power to dictate over other countries that don't have nuclear capabilities, is this fair ? Isn't this a classic example of bullying ? Why can they have it and other countries are not allowed ?
In my opinion before they can say half a word on nuclear weapons they should have none.
Once their nuclear capability is reduces to 0 they can have the world wide backing in case some retard still tries to develop a nuclear war head.

As it currently stands America + allies have no rights in criticizing Iran. If you were Iran wouldn't you try to defend your self specially after your neighbor has been occupied ?

 

[Half-n-Half]

Talks are all well and good, but until America, Russia, the UK and all the rest of bullies don't reduce their nuclear arsenal to 0 they have no rights in imposing/pretending that other countries don't develop their own nuclear weapons.
America and allies have nuclear weapons, this nuclear weapons gives them the power to dictate over other countries that don't have nuclear capabilities, is this fair ? Isn't this a classic example of bullying ? Why can they have it and other countries are not allowed ? In my opinion before they can say half a word on nuclear weapons they should have none.
Once their nuclear capability is reduces to 0 they can have the world wide backing in case some retard still tries to develop a nuclear war head.

As it currently stands America + allies have no rights in criticizing Iran. If you were Iran wouldn't you try to defend your self specially after your neighbor has been occupied ?

Yes, this is inevitably the question that arises when debating this topic. While I have no doubt America would much rather be the ones with nuclear weapons than anyone else, it's hardly reasonable to ask them to eliminate ALL their weapons before they can begin to reduce other countries' arsenals. If you believe that having nuclear weapons is wrong, then two wrongs don't make a right.

And it's not really just America that decides who does and doesn't get nuclear weapons. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is composed of over 30 countries working to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

About Iran, the alarming thing is that they signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty in 1970. It is believed that behind their nuclear energy program is a clandestine weapons program. They have also put uranium hexafluoride into centrifuges which obviously violates this treaty they signed.

 

[scieck]

.... it's hardly reasonable to ask them to eliminate ALL their weapons before they can begin to reduce other countries' arsenals. If you believe that having nuclear weapons is wrong, then two wrongs don't make a right.

I am not asking America + allies to reduce to 0 nuclear weapons BEFORE any other country, however with what face they ask other countries not to play with uranium when between the allies they have around 5000 war heads (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_with_atomic_bombs)

It is believed that behind their nuclear energy program is a clandestine weapons program. They have also put uranium hexafluoride into centrifuges which obviously violates this treaty they signed.

I am sorry Half-n-Half but aren't you even a bit suspicious..... after all this are the same people that told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they blatantly lied to occupied Iraq for pure economic reasons, they just tell us whatever makes us feel good.
500 years ago the justification for killing native Americans was to bring civilization and Christianity, at some point they were claiming that it was ok to kill this people because they don't have a soul.

The masses in the "civilized" countries some how believed them then and believes them now, wake up people !!!

Iran is of economic interest to the west, so nuclear or not nuclear they are going to bring Iran down one way or another.

They (the allies) should leave Iran alone, and think about reducing their nuclear weapons first, as priority number one, we are not talking about 2 or 3 bombs here we are talking about 5000 nuclear war heads, its ridiculous, one small mistake and the whole planet blows up, this is what we should worry about not Iran playing with uranium.

 

[Half-n-Half]

I am not asking America + allies to reduce to 0 nuclear weapons BEFORE any other country, however with what face they ask other countries not to play with uranium when between the allies they have around 5000 war heads (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countries_with_atomic_bombs)

Alright fair enough.

I am sorry Half-n-Half but aren't you even a bit suspicious..... after all this are the same people that told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, they blatantly lied to occupied Iraq for pure economic reasons, they just tell us whatever makes us feel good.

These aren't the same people involved in Iraq telling us Iran has been playing around with centrifuges trying to enrich uranium. I am not suspicious of an international agency comprised of over 30 countries, most of whom without nuclear weapons, investigating Iran's nuclear energy program.

500 years ago the justification for killing native Americans was to bring civilization and Christianity, at some point they were claiming that it was ok to kill this people because they don't have a soul.
The masses in the "civilized" countries some how believed them then and believes them now, wake up people !!!

You should understand that civilization has changed much over the past 500 years. The very fact that you can point out the absurdity of their actions 500 years ago when the common man could not is proof enough.

Iran is of economic interest to the west, so nuclear or not nuclear they are going to bring Iran down one way or another.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this point. If their economy is of value I think the west would much rather trade with them and establish good relations with the Middle East, rather than "bring them down."

They (the allies) should leave Iran alone, and think about reducing their nuclear weapons first, as priority number one, we are not talking about 2 or 3 bombs here we are talking about 5000 nuclear war heads, its ridiculous, one small mistake and the whole planet blows up, this is what we should worry about not Iran playing with uranium.

The US and Russia have; it's not all talk. If you look at the number of nuclear weapons during the Cold War and today, there is a drastic difference. And, like I said, they have agreed to reduce their arsenal from 5000 apiece to 1000-1500 apiece.

 

[Pachipro]

Look, the main reason why the powers that be do not want third world countries to have nuclear power is because they would then be able to thumb their noses st the US and such in that they do not need their oil. Nuclear energy would make them independent of oil and the US and the powers that be. Therefore, I believe that whenever a third world country is on the verge of obtaining nuclear power we are led by the controlled media into a frenzy and hysteria that we will be bombed and such if they had nuclear power when the fact is that they probably, more than likely, want it for independence from the oil companies and for their own independence and to not rely on any foreign powers for their energy supplies.

Sure, there may be some renegade nations that may develop nuclear weapons, but to use them against the US or any other nation would be suicide and signing their own death warrant. Anyone who is around my age would remember being taught about MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) if a country were to use nuclear weapons against another country that also had them.

Therefore, I believe other countries would want to develop nuclear power and weapons for their own protection in that they would now have independence from the oil companies and the power to fight back against threats from stronger countries that would attempt to subdue them. MAD would be in control.

If all countries had nuclear weapons and energy than none would use them as it would ensure an attack against themselves if they used them and all countries would have an independent supply of energy and would not have to rely on on oil rich countries and companies and the world would probably be a better, more safer place to live.

As long as there are the "haves and have nots" when it comes to nuclear energy there will always be someone in control to weild their influence and power over those "less fortunate".

 

[scieck]

These aren't the same people involved in Iraq telling us Iran has been playing around with centrifuges trying to enrich uranium. I am not suspicious of an international agency comprised of over 30 countries, most of whom without nuclear weapons, investigating Iran's nuclear energy program.

I take your point here, I don't know enough about the International Atomic Energy Agency, it could be as you say that they are an independent body and not influenced by political and economic issues.

You should understand that civilization has changed much over the past 500 years. The very fact that you can point out the absurdity of their actions 500 years ago when the common man could not is proof enough.

It is because the civilization has changed that the lies have also changed, to be able to invade a country they had to tell us that that country had uncivilized people without soul, now they can't tell us that any more, so they tell us that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction....
Civilization changed, lies changed, actions are the same.

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree with this point. If their economy is of value I think the west would much rather trade with them and establish good relations with the Middle East, rather than "bring them down."

And so would Iran, but America + allies want to impose their own conditions. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserve in the planet !!! (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran)
And this is what America + allies are after, they want so suck out Iran oil at the cheapest possible price they want to control that area.
In terms of power struggles, nothing has changed in over 500 years.

Saudi Arabia sheik have sold their country to America + allies, Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not prepared to do the same.

The US and Russia have; it's not all talk. If you look at the number of nuclear weapons during the Cold War and today, there is a drastic difference. And, like I said, they have agreed to reduce their arsenal from 5000 apiece to 1000-1500 apiece.

As I said, when that is going to happen, then they have to agree to farther reduce them to the level of other countries, then all the countries should agree to farther reduce them, once ALL reached 0 then any country is allowed to judge Iran.

But again, as it stands Iran is trying to protect it self because is alone against several countries with thousands of war heads ready to find an excuse to get their hands on Iran oil.

 

[scieck]

Therefore, I believe other countries would want to develop nuclear power and weapons for their own protection in that they would now have independence from the oil companies and the power to fight back against threats from stronger countries that would attempt to subdue them. MAD would be in control.

If all countries had nuclear weapons and energy than none would use them as it would ensure an attack against themselves if they used them and all countries would have an independent supply of energy and would not have to rely on on oil rich countries and companies and the world would probably be a better, more safer place to live.

I totally agree with you Pachipro, thank you I was waiting for your post.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Look, the main reason why the powers that be do not want third world countries to have nuclear power is because they would then be able to thumb their noses st the US and such in that they do not need their oil. Nuclear energy would make them independent of oil and the US and the powers that be. Therefore, I believe that whenever a third world country is on the verge of obtaining nuclear power we are led by the controlled media into a frenzy and hysteria that we will be bombed and such if they had nuclear power when the fact is that they probably, more than likely, want it for independence from the oil companies and for their own independence and to not rely on any foreign powers for their energy supplies.
Sure, there may be some renegade nations that may develop nuclear weapons, but to use them against the US or any other nation would be suicide and signing their own death warrant. Anyone who is around my age would remember being taught about MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) if a country were to use nuclear weapons against another country that also had them.
Therefore, I believe other countries would want to develop nuclear power and weapons for their own protection in that they would now have independence from the oil companies and the power to fight back against threats from stronger countries that would attempt to subdue them. MAD would be in control.
If all countries had nuclear weapons and energy than none would use them as it would ensure an attack against themselves if they used them and all countries would have an independent supply of energy and would not have to rely on on oil rich countries and companies and the world would probably be a better, more safer place to live.
As long as there are the "haves and have nots" when it comes to nuclear energy there will always be someone in control to weild their influence and power over those "less fortunate".

And so would Iran, but America + allies want to impose their own conditions. Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserve in the planet !!! (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_Iran)
And this is what America + allies are after, they want so suck out Iran oil at the cheapest possible price they want to control that area.
In terms of power struggles, nothing has changed in over 500 years.

Saudi Arabia sheik have sold their country to America + allies, Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not prepared to do the same.

I can't pretend to know the true intentions behind the US government. Whether they are really after the oil reserves and nothing else is up for debate. With Saudi Arabia, there are two facets. Yes, it is about the oil, but it makes it nothing more than a good trading partner alliance; nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Second, it's nice to have an ally in the Middle East.

Pachipro: your point has validity, no doubt. However, I would argue that countries such as North Korea and Pakistan go against traditional views on nuclear war. North Korea is run by a mad man who treats his people like toys. I fully believe that M.A.D. has no bearings on such a man. The same goes for Pakistan. It's not necessarily the Pakistanti government, but the Al Qaeda. It is currently predicted that Pakistan has around 85 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. Al Qaeda has a big influence in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. If they were able to get their hands on any weapon I have no doubt they would not think of the consequences of M.A.D; just look at 9/11.

 

[scieck]

I can't pretend to know the true intentions behind the US government. Whether they are really after the oil reserves and nothing else is up for debate.

You must be at least a bit suspicious, or do you believe that Iraq was taken down because had weapons of mass destruction and because the allies are so caring about the people condition under Saddam Hussein ? If that was the case why is North Korea not occupied yet ? The reason is there is nothing there of economic interest, not even strategically as the US has already several bases in both South Korea and Japan.

With Saudi Arabia, there are two facets. Yes, it is about the oil, but it makes it nothing more than a good trading partner alliance; nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Second, it's nice to have an ally in the Middle East.

I can only see one facet; Sheikh amongst the richest people in the planet, Saudi Arabia population leaves in incredible poor conditions with the bare minimum of human rights and the allies close an aye, why ? Because the Sheikh let them take all the oil they want in exchange for a bunch of Sheikh been super rich.

Have you asked your self why is Saudi Arabia so poor, it owns 1/4 of all the oil in this planet yet people leave far below our standard of life.
The reason is there is not fair trading going on between Saudi Arabia and the US, is as simple as Sheikh are extremely corrupted, give away their oil to gigantic Oil corporation in exchange of being ultra rich.

The US government is pressurized by the people that actually control the planet, oil companies, to get the same type of deal (Saudi Arabia style) with other Middle East countries, those that don't accept (i.e. give away oil for peanuts) are taken down.

There is not much I can add, of course every body is free to believe what ever they like, and have my full respect, but personally I don't believe a word of what I am told from the media, or our politicians.
With the exception of Barack Obama, I can't help liking and admiring him, after the unbeliavable president the US had for the past 8 years Obama is excactly what the US and this world needed.

 

[Haruspex]

Over the centuries, tension kept building up. The two World Wars were not enough to release the steam properly. I think there is more to come.

 

[Hezam]

Sorry scieck,the correct word is not Sheikh but "Government".
"Sheikh " means Cleric,And Saudi Shiekh did not sell the oil and they will never do that.

 

[scieck]

Sorry scieck,the correct word is not Sheikh but "Government".
"Sheikh " means Cleric,And Saudi Shiekh did not sell the oil and they will never do that.

Thanks for the clarification, Hezam, of course you are right, I should have used the word government rather than Sheikh.

Over the centuries, tension kept building up. The two World Wars were not enough to release the steam properly. I think there is more to come.

I agree with you Derfel, but I so wish we are both totally wrong.

 

[Half-n-Half]

You must be at least a bit suspicious, or do you believe that Iraq was taken down because had weapons of mass destruction and because the allies are so caring about the people condition under Saddam Hussein ? If that was the case why is North Korea not occupied yet ? The reason is there is nothing there of economic interest, not even strategically as the US has already several bases in both South Korea and Japan.

Again, I cannot pretend to know whether the weapons of mass destruction information was just a fabrication to invade Iraq. However, it does have some plausible backing. Around the time of the Gulf War Saddam Hussein had hoarded around 550 tons of uranium hexafluoride, a major component in designing nuclear weapons. This clearly shows intention to develop nuclear weapons. And call me crazy, but yes, I do think the allies cared at least a little bit about the people's suffering in Iraq.

Concerning North Korea; that is a very delicate situation. North Korea has the 4th largest standing army in the world today. To invade the country would cost countless avoidable deaths. Regarding the people, China and South Korea send food aid into North Korea. However, the DPRK spins it as Kim Jong Il's gift to the people, rather than outside aid.

I can only see one facet; Sheikh amongst the richest people in the planet, Saudi Arabia population leaves in incredible poor conditions with the bare minimum of human rights and the allies close an aye, why ? Because the Sheikh let them take all the oil they want in exchange for a bunch of Sheikh been super rich.

Have you asked your self why is Saudi Arabia so poor, it owns 1/4 of all the oil in this planet yet people leave far below our standard of life.
The reason is there is not fair trading going on between Saudi Arabia and the US, is as simple as Sheikh are extremely corrupted, give away their oil to gigantic Oil corporation in exchange of being ultra rich.

The US government is pressurized by the people that actually control the planet, oil companies, to get the same type of deal (Saudi Arabia style) with other Middle East countries, those that don't accept (i.e. give away oil for peanuts) are taken down.

There is not much I can add, of course every body is free to believe what ever they like, and have my full respect, but personally I don't believe a word of what I am told from the media, or our politicians.
With the exception of Barack Obama, I can't help liking and admiring him, after the unbeliavable president the US had for the past 8 years Obama is excactly what the US and this world needed.

These are all good points and popular topics of debate when discussing the Bush administration. The only thing I can say in return is that I do not agree with everything the Bush administration has done, or my government in general for that matter. Hopefully Obama is what he is hyped up to be and can turn our image around in these Middle Eastern countries, though I fear as long as radical fundamentalist Muslims are in power it won't happen.

 

[Hezam]

though I fear as long as radical fundamentalist Muslims are in power it won't happen.

Muslims are not monsters,you have to trust them,show some good intentions and see how things change....the western countries are afraid of Islam and Muslims while they dont know how to deal with Muslims.
Muslims protect jewish when they have the power,dont belive the Media.

 

[scieck]

Again, I cannot pretend to know whether the weapons of mass destruction information was just a fabrication to invade Iraq.

No weapon of mass destruction was ever found, the intelligence gathered regarding the WMD is totally opaque and full of controversy, many of the key Security Council members like France, Germany and Russia wanted to wait because the inspections were starting to bring results.
At this point the UK and the US quickly (and illegally) invaded Iraq. Were they afraid that the only excuse they had to invade Iraq was going to be soon uncovered ?

And call me crazy, but yes, I do think the allies cared at least a little bit about the people's suffering in Iraq.

I don't call you crazy, I use to think like you.

Concerning North Korea; that is a very delicate situation.

True it was a bad example.

These are all good points and popular topics of debate when discussing the Bush administration.

I wasn't discussing the Bush administration, this things have been going on well before the Bushes, and still going on now days.

I am hopeful with Obama, but how much can he really change, how much is on his power and how much is controlled behind the scene by ruthless bankers and oil corporations.

 

[scieck]

Muslims are not monsters,you have to trust them,show some good intentions and see how things change....

There are monsters and good people on both side, but the good people should do more or this conflict is going to end tragically for one side, the other and the whole planet.

 

[Hezam]

I agree with you scieck,but i think good people can do nothing while they see US + allies destroying their countries.

like Iran,North Krea,they want to protect their lands..
The Big Question is Why when it comes to Israel US + allies close their eyes and ears ???

 

[Half-n-Half]

Muslims are not monsters,you have to trust them,show some good intentions and see how things change....the western countries are afraid of Islam and Muslims while they dont know how to deal with Muslims.
Muslims protect jewish when they have the power,dont belive the Media.

I wasn't meaning to imply that. I'm talking about people like Osama Bin Laden who hate anything Western and believe Muslim's need to kill Westerners anywhere in the world if possible.

No weapon of mass destruction was ever found, the intelligence gathered regarding the WMD is totally opaque and full of controversy, many of the key Security Council members like France, Germany and Russia wanted to wait because the inspections were starting to bring results.
At this point the UK and the US quickly (and illegally) invaded Iraq. Were they afraid that the only excuse they had to invade Iraq was going to be soon uncovered ?

Maybe no weapons have been recovered, but the 550 tons of yellow-cake were. You don't have yellow-cake unless you intend to make a bomb. I don't necessarily agree with how the US went about invading Iraq, but the intel wasn't completely false.