Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[aaronjb]

You may not be able to win a poker game if everyone else leaves, but you certainly could win a war if everyone else had no weapons - all you have to do is push the button and they're suddenly vaporised.. and if you're only goal is to rid the world of people who don't meet your ideals and/or follow your laws, you've won.

And yes, I can see Ahmadinecrazy doing that!

[cem_devecioglu]

The point is Cem - if we were all to unilaterally disarm the nuclear weapons then we would have nothing to deter the bad guys

nothing :-?

what about all those aircraft carriers, warships,warplanes, helicopters, rockets, tanks , artillery , soldiers .. is that not enough, or is it necessary to spread radioactivity everywhere ?

and at that point, it may be interesting to remember the history..first of all, a power who claim to be the supporter of democracy in the world, supporting shah for long years then after the iran revolution giving arms to Saddam and after invading iraq again for democracy then says iran is the devil..would you believe that ? although I hate those mullahs and their dictatorship who mess up with middle east and create the conditions that those mullahs became now the management.. also who helped those religious powers and give arms in afghanistan and now try to destroy..and finally who now help the religious group leader and arrest people in my country 

in the simplest form of word thats hypocrisy..

 (Iran being one example which springs to mind) from using them against us.
Can you imagine what would happen to Isreal for example if it or its allies didnt have nuclear weapons.

Israel can beat middle east countries with hands down.. and even without shooting a bullet.. thanks to big brother

Its enemies in the middle east would be arguing about who was first in the queue to fire a nuclear weapon at it.

now may be good question to ask , whose idea was  to found a country for jews in the middle of many enemies.. :-?   

and if we think realistically, no middle east country would have the courage of using nuclear against israel even israel dont have even 1 nuclear head..  conventional weapons may be.. and after the II. world war who have the courage to use it ?

any country with an average level of knowledge can guess that those radioactivity clouds will spread everywhere (except Russia  )

[cem_devecioglu]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

nope.. not that easy..

[aaronjb]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age?  :-?

[cem_devecioglu]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age?  :-?

so those weapons pretty useless

[aaronjb]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age?  :-?

so those weapons pretty useless

No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..

[cem_devecioglu]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age?  :-?

so those weapons pretty useless

No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..

first this theory is lacking the reason/result relationship..dont give a reason them to use nukes then you wont have problem.. simples..

and also if you have enough power to damage the country (without nukes) that threats you there will
be no reason to have them.. and in our case which is UK , imo have enough power and technology to give the answer..

imo no need for ghost enemies.. who do you think will use nuke against UK ?  Russia .. for what ?

[aaronjb]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age?  :-?

so those weapons pretty useless

No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..

first this theory is lacking the reason/result relationship..dont give a reason them to use nukes then you wont have problem.. simples..

and also if you have enough power to damage the country (without nukes) that threats you there will
be no reason to have them.. and in our case which is UK , imo have enough power and technology to give the answer..

imo no need for ghost enemies.. who do you think will use nuke against UK ?  Russia .. for what ?

What do you do, then, when their reason for wanting to wipe you out is the simple fact of the way you live? Should we all live by Iranian (to use an example) law? Stone our women? Have them all wear veils etc? That would keep them happy.. maybe.

And no, not Russia - like I say, the states you have to worry about are the 'rogue' states like Iran etc.

As for wiping them out with conventional weapons - the problem is that once they've nuked the UK off the face of the ocean, who is left to command the remaining conventional weapons (the ones at sea, stationed in other countries etc)?

[edit] I'm not arguing that unilateral disarmament and/or world peace & harmony wouldn't be nice things, of course.. that would be great.

Unfortunately if you take away all weapons (including guns.. from America.. ) then it still only takes one bloke with a big stick with a nail in the end of it and then you need one too to defend yourself and .. it all escalates back up.

I don't think an end to the arms race will happen until we transcend beyond physical bodies

[cem_devecioglu]

and another question, is it logical to spend all those money for something you cant use.. if you can use why not use in afghanistan and finish the problem ..

Because laying waste to an entire country (and probably quite a bit of surrounding area) and murdering millions of civilians tends to be frowned upon in our 'enlightened' age?  :-?

so those weapons pretty useless

No - because some countries and some rulers would have no problem at all nuking an entire country.. so therefore the only thing stopping them from doing that is our ability to retaliate with equal or greater force..

first this theory is lacking the reason/result relationship..dont give a reason them to use nukes then you wont have problem.. simples..

and also if you have enough power to damage the country (without nukes) that threats you there will
be no reason to have them.. and in our case which is UK , imo have enough power and technology to give the answer..

imo no need for ghost enemies.. who do you think will use nuke against UK ?  Russia .. for what ?

What do you do, then, when their reason for wanting to wipe you out is the simple fact of the way you live? Should we all live by Iranian (to use an example) law?

of course not..

Stone our women? Have them all wear veils etc?

thats violence and a big a shame..

That would keep them happy.. maybe.

And no, not Russia - like I say, the states you have to worry about are the 'rogue' states like Iran etc.


Aaronjb, at that point I must remind that iran is not a whole united country.. there are many opposing forces/people in that country waiting for the day..
the problem is they cant break the mullahs power..
but threating iran makes them come together..

As for wiping them out with conventional weapons - the problem is that once they've nuked the UK off the face of the ocean, who is left to command the remaining conventional weapons (the ones at sea, stationed in other countries etc)?

thats just an assumption..    before something like that happens your intelligence services will have loads of info.. and iran dont have that long range missiles..

let the worry problem for my country as they mess
here more than anywhere else..

[edit] I'm not arguing that unilateral disarmament and/or world peace & harmony wouldn't be nice things, of course.. that would be great.

Unfortunately if you take away all weapons (including guns.. from America.. )

I'm afraid thats not possible.. the cowboys will always need some toys to play and places to invade..
why .. because their system needs that..
and will always find new enemies


then it still only takes one bloke with a big stick with a nail in the end of it and then you need one too to defend yourself and .. it all escalates back up.

I don't think an end to the arms race will happen until we transcend beyond physical bodies

[aaronjb]

All good points - and I was trying to avoid using Iran as an example all the time, but it was the only one I could come up with I could have said North Korea etc actually, thinking about it and I probably should have kept away from the state/religion angle (because I don't want to end up arguing the relative merits and morals of different religions - personally I don't think any religion is blemish free where it comes to that kind of thing - and as soon as I say Iran it does bring religion into it to an extent)

Anyway, sooner or later they'll all develop long range ICBMs capable of carrying nuclear payloads whether we like it or not

And you're right of course, none of those countries are united - it's just a sad fact that right now they're ruled by tyrannical despots

If we could remove all of the reasons for war - greed, famine, etc then we could do away with all weapons .. except there's always the chance of the nutter next door who'll start a fight for no reason (the random serial killers of the despot ruler world, if you will)

I think, sadly, the human race is inherently a violent and confrontational race - if we ever evolve past that, then we can get rid of all the weapons

Anyway.. I trust you know I'm not trying to argue with you, just different points of view

[cem_devecioglu]

All good points - and I was trying to avoid using Iran as an example all the time, but it was the only one I could come up with I could have said North Korea etc actually, thinking about it and I probably should have kept away from the state/religion angle (because I don't want to end up arguing the relative merits and morals of different religions - personally I don't think any religion is blemish free where it comes to that kind of thing - and as soon as I say Iran it does bring religion into it to an extent)

Anyway, sooner or later they'll all develop long range ICBMs capable of carrying nuclear payloads whether we like it or not

And you're right of course, none of those countries are united - it's just a sad fact that right now they're ruled by tyrannical despots

If we could remove all of the reasons for war - greed, famine, etc then we could do away with all weapons .. except there's always the chance of the nutter next door who'll start a fight for no reason (the random serial killers of the despot ruler world, if you will)

I think, sadly, the human race is inherently a violent and confrontational race - if we ever evolve past that, then we can get rid of all the weapons

Anyway.. I trust you know I'm not trying to argue with you, just different points of view

 

here comes the united nations organization into mind..


what does united nations do.. briefly nothing..
(other than some limited helps and paying salaries)

what does united nations say ? ~= what USA says (mostly)

if the most powerful countries of the world dont have nuke, they would have right to say  "you cant"

but if you take precautions that will cut their breath and squeeze their economy and threat them everyday they will try evil things.. :-/

[Varche]

It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.

[Dishevelled Den]

It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.

It can never work V because it's in our nature to fight, to be suspicious, to distrust, to hate, to be indolent, to be breakless, to be self-consumed, to be superficial, to be care less, to display avarice and be consumed with jealously.

To name but a few failings of the race.

Why we would want to be governed by a corrupt, inefficient and generally useless organ like the UN is anyone’s guess.

[cem_devecioglu]

It is time we had a world government (UN if you like). Too much money is wasted on war.

It can never work V because it's in our nature to fight, to be suspicious, to distrust, to hate, to be indolent, to be breakless, to be self-consumed, to be superficial, to be care less, to display avarice and be consumed with jealously.

To name but a few failings of the race.

Why we would want to be governed by a corrupt, inefficient and generally useless organ like the UN is anyone’s guess.

Zulu, imo if political visions and expectations of leading countries (at least) intersect UN will be different..  (I also dont believe this sentence ) its something like we build it we break it 

[Dishevelled Den]

On the point of nuclear weapons being held under the NnPT by the 5 'Nuclear States' and used as a deterrent, this has proved successful to date.

Nuclear weapons, in reality, will never be eradicated so they must be maintained at a cost.  The deterrent value is worth that alone.

Irrespective of what anyone thinks about the United States and her foreign policy she has - through NATO's nuclear weapons sharing arrangements -  been an effective guarantor of peace in Europe and a bulwark against Russian (as it now is) designs in the region.

In the coming world order things may well change for the worse, but whatever happens, the deployment of nuclear weapons will always be a possibility irrespective of whether we want it or not.