hrrmmmmm......

[phatmonky]

"N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapon"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040624/D83DK2M00.html

"Iran says it will resume enriching uranium"
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/24/iran.nuclear.program/

[selfAdjoint]

"N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapon"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040624/D83DK2M00.html

"Iran says it will resume enriching uranium"
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/24/iran.nuclear.program/

Could we get them mad at each other? :rolleyes:

[Adam]

Excellent. In this environment of rogue states ignoring the international community and wandering around attacking other states without reason or justification, less wealthy/powerful states such as Iran and North Korea must do everything they can to protect themselves.

[studentx]

Excellent. In this environment of rogue states ignoring the international community and wandering around attacking other states without reason or justification, less wealthy/powerful states such as Iran and North Korea must do everything they can to protect themselves.

good one Sandler :rofl:

[Adam]

Hey, I'm quite serious.

[Robert Zaleski]

Could we get them mad at each other? :rolleyes:
Good thinking SelfAdjoint, internecine is the right approach. We sit back and watch the slaughter. But how do we get them mad at each other. I guess Kim Jong-il could invite all the Iranian leaders over for a kosher chicken dinner and then have our mole in North Korea switch the chicken for pork chops.

[Pyrovus]

Well, this situation is a good demonstration of the brilliant success that this Iraq war has had on discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

[Robert Zaleski]

Well, this situation is a good demonstration of the brilliant success that this Iraq war has had on discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

[faust9]

Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

[Robert Zaleski]

Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm
Non Placet! Martin Indyk is a Leftist working for a Left-Wing think tank. If I provided you with a Heritage Foundation Op-Ed, would you accept it as fact?

[Pyrovus]

Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

So one country attempting the appeasement route by giving up their WMD and two countries deciding to increase their WMD stocks in order to have something to deter a US attack with adds up to less WMD?

[Robert Zaleski]

So one country attempting the appeasement route by giving up their WMD and two countries deciding to increase their WMD stocks in order to have something to deter a US attack with adds up to less WMD?
Would you prefer having three countries increasing their WMD stock?

[Pyrovus]

I'd much rather have one country with real WMD (Libya) and one with fictitious WMD (Iraq) than have two countries churning out WMD as a result of an attempt to eliminate fictitious WMD. Let's face it, the whole idea of "if we invade Iraq because of WMD it will intimidate other nations into giving up WMD" lost all credibility when the US invaded without bothering to prove that there actually were any there. What message does that send to states fearing a US invasion? Something along the lines of "if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless of whether or not you have WMD". Is it surprising that states like North Korea and Iran have decided that they have nothing to lose by developing more WMD, so that they might be able to deter the US from attacking, rather than disarming and simply relying on America's goodwill to not invade them? Let's face it, the real reason why the US wants "rogue states" (i.e. countries it doesn't like) to disarm is so that if it does decide to invade them, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. The US might think twice about invading somebody if it means sacrificing New York City and Washington, which is a real hinderance to the flexing of the imperialist muscle. The US doesn't like WMD because they behave as something of an equalizer - they allow a small state to do considerable damage to even a superpower like America should a war take place. The US would much rather be able to fight wars without having to think about the consequences.

[studentx]

I'd much rather have one country with real WMD (Libya) and one with fictitious WMD (Iraq) than have two countries churning out WMD as a result of an attempt to eliminate fictitious WMD. Let's face it, the whole idea of "if we invade Iraq because of WMD it will intimidate other nations into giving up WMD" lost all credibility when the US invaded without bothering to prove that there actually were any there. What message does that send to states fearing a US invasion? Something along the lines of "if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless of whether or not you have WMD". Is it surprising that states like North Korea and Iran have decided that they have nothing to lose by developing more WMD, so that they might be able to deter the US from attacking, rather than disarming and simply relying on America's goodwill to not invade them? Let's face it, the real reason why the US wants "rogue states" (i.e. countries it doesn't like) to disarm is so that if it does decide to invade them, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. The US might think twice about invading somebody if it means sacrificing New York City and Washington, which is a real hinderance to the flexing of the imperialist muscle. The US doesn't like WMD because they behave as something of an equalizer - they allow a small state to do considerable damage to even a superpower like America should a war take place. The US would much rather be able to fight wars without having to think about the consequences.

So do you want these countries to get WMD or not? Thats what it boils down to. I dont care how much youre pissed off at this war in Iraq, snap out of it.

[Adam]

If one country has nukes, then I think all should. The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic. Especially when the major source of the push to disarm other nations is the only nation to actually nuke cities. On the other hand, it would be even better if that dangerous nation would totally disarm, which would allow the others to disarm safely.

[russ_watters]

The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic. Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?

[studentx]

If one country has nukes, then I think all should.

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

[phatmonky]

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

I agree, I want a nuke too!

[kat]

Me too! Me too! and then one day...when my PMS is particularly unmanageable and I just want to send the whole lot of ya ta hell....BHAHAHAHAHA KABOOOM~! CYA!

[Adam]

Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.

[Adam]

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

Indeed. Let's all get nukes. Everyone will be too scared to say or do anything at all. We will have peace at last. It's just like owning a gun, the exact same sort of society, but on a larger scale. Arm everyone.

[studentx]

what if i get 2 nukes?

[Adam]

Even better.

[Njorl]

It's not like anyone ever blew himself up on purpose now, right?

[Robert Zaleski]

Waiter, I'd like to have two neutron bombs with a side order of mustard gas. Oh yah, give me some of that delightful serin gas too. Could you put that in one of those 32 oz. Big Glup canisters for me? Thank You.
This brought back memories of Dr. Strangelove. As a sidebar, one of the roles Peter Sellers played in the movie was United States President Merkin Muffley. If you want a good laugh, look up the word 'merkin' in the dictionary.

[phatmonky]

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.
So the crux of you argument is that since the first, only, and last nukes ever used were by us then we should arm countries with dictators? One man with a nuke, in essence?

Do you honestly think that if we hadn't used them, no one else would have? The same thing would have happened. It would have been detonated once somewhere, and the world would think "oh crap, this is awful" and revert to the same thing we have now - a stabilzed stalemate.

[Adam]

So the crux of you argument is that since the first, only, and last nukes ever used were by us then we should arm countries with dictators? One man with a nuke, in essence?

No.

I'm saying precisely what I have already said. Every nation on Earth (not merely dictatorships, but EVERYONE) is more trustworthy than the USA, when it comes to nukes. History is the reason. The USA has nuked cities full of people. Nobody else has.


Do you honestly think that if we hadn't used them, no one else would have? The same thing would have happened. It would have been detonated once somewhere, and the world would think "oh crap, this is awful" and revert to the same thing we have now - a stabilzed stalemate.
I really don't care how you justify it to yourself.

[loseyourname]

The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic.

Since when did Australia have nukes?

[Robert Zaleski]

I don't believe the Australians have nuclear weapons. Why would they need them. The British would come to the aid of Australia if it was in deep peril. The United States is also obligated to defend Australia as part of the ANZUS Treaty. I assume the defense of Australia would include the use of nuclear weapons if conditions warranted their use.

[Adam]

Since when did Australia have nukes?

I never said Australia has nukes.

[studentx]

No.

I'm saying precisely what I have already said. Every nation on Earth (not merely dictatorships, but EVERYONE) is more trustworthy than the USA, when it comes to nukes. History is the reason. The USA has nuked cities full of people. Nobody else has.

They dont use that type of atomic bomb anymore these days Adam. Theyve become much much more powerful, so your arguement is defeated:
America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.

[phreak]

America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.
Yes, but how many years has America had to use them? Not many, so the point is lost.

[studentx]

If im not mistaken America has had hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs for many decades, never used em!

Besides that this isnt an issue of trust. Its an issue of intelligence and responsibility. I mean you probably trust your pet dog more than Bush

[Adam]

They dont use that type of atomic bomb anymore these days Adam. Theyve become much much more powerful, so your arguement is defeated:
America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.

Ah... That's not even close to being rational.

Slap your parents for me.

[russ_watters]

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities. Interesting. So you honestly believe that North Korea (for example) would be more trustworthy with nukes than the US?

Do you think that many of the members of the UN would agree with you on this?

Do you think historical context is at all relevant here?

[studentx]

Ah... That's not even close to being rational.

Slap your parents for me.

Tell me what is rational about your Hiroshima remark? Is there anybody that has anything to do with Hiroshima in the current american government?

[Pyrovus]

America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.

Are we to believe that the reason for this is the good intentions of the US? The real reason for why America never used modern powerful nukes on anyone is because they knew that if they did, the Soviet Union would have blown them to kingdom come. The US would use nukes if they thought they could get away with it - Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated this - they felt quite safe using them there, because they were the only nation that possessed them.

[studentx]

The US would use nukes if they thought they could get away with it - Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated this

60 years, new people, new governments, mean anything to you?
Its so easy for me to grab my timemachine and prove that you want to destroy the planet and commit genocide. I would like you to step back and think for a moment why i dont, and why you do. If you want a conflict with America, you will get it and you will lose.

[Adam]

Interesting. So you honestly believe that North Korea (for example) would be more trustworthy with nukes than the US?

Yep. Most definitely.


Do you think that many of the members of the UN would agree with you on this?

The nuclear powers? No. Others? Many would, especially those who want nukes for protection.


Do you think historical context is at all relevant here?
Bob is a known child molester. Fred is not. They both want to babysit my kids. Obviously I take into account their histories. The same applies with nukes. There is absolutely no rational reason to forget about what we know the subjects have done.

[Adam]

Tell me what is rational about your Hiroshima remark? Is there anybody that has anything to do with Hiroshima in the current american government?

I didn't mention Hiroshima.

[studentx]

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.

I never said you mentioned Hiroshima.

Yep. Most definitely.
Bob is a known child molester. Fred is not. They both want to babysit my kids. Obviously I take into account their histories. The same applies with nukes. There is absolutely no rational reason to forget about what we know the subjects have done.

Bobs dead and Fred molested just as many.
I think once you really are confronted with the choice between Bobs grandson and Fred, you will wake up Adam.

[russ_watters]

Bob is a known child molester. Fred is not. They both want to babysit my kids. Obviously I take into account their histories. The same applies with nukes. There is absolutely no rational reason to forget about what we know the subjects have done. Ok, but now that Bob and Bill are dead (Truman is long dead), how does that help you in predicting the actions of a current president?

[Robert Zaleski]

The US would use nukes if they thought they could get away with it - Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrated this - they felt quite safe using them there, because they were the only nation that possessed them.
This is a very cavalier statement.
How many millions of Allied soldiers and Japanese would have been killed if a land invasion of the Japanese mainland was conducted. How many cities would have been leveled by massive carpet and fire bombing raids. How much of the country’s industrial complex would have been destroyed. How many Japanese civilians do you think would have committed suicide rather than surrender or would have died from stavation. Truman's reason for using the atomic bomb was to diminish causalties and preserve as much of Japan’s infrastructure as possible.

[Adam]

Good grief, this is hopeless. Please watch, and pay attention.

1) You quoted ME, and replied with "Tell me what is rational about your Hiroshima remark?" Here is the post:


Originally Posted by Adam
Ah... That's not even close to being rational.

Slap your parents for me.

Tell me what is rational about your Hiroshima remark? Is there anybody that has anything to do with Hiroshima in the current american government?


2) In responding to that post, I typed: "I didn't mention Hiroshima.". Here is the post:


Originally Posted by studentx
Tell me what is rational about your Hiroshima remark? Is there anybody that has anything to do with Hiroshima in the current american government?

I didn't mention Hiroshima.


3) To which you responded with "I never said you mentioned Hiroshima.". Here is the post:


Originally Posted by Adam
I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.

I never said you mentioned Hiroshima.


It's really not that difficult.

[Adam]

This is a very cavalier statement.
How many millions of Allied soldiers and Japanese would have been killed if a land invasion of the Japanese mainland was conducted. How many cities would have been leveled by massive carpet and fire bombing raids. How much of the country’s industrial complex would have been destroyed. How many Japanese civilians do you think would have committed suicide rather than surrender or would have died from stavation. Truman's reason for using the atomic bomb was to diminish causalties and preserve as much of Japan’s infrastructure as possible.

Pure bollocks. Some Americans, I am aware, tell themselves this to basically avoid any problems of guilty conscience. However, it's 100% rubbish.


According to Admiral William D. Leahy, Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and President Truman's Chief of Staff: "The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons... In being the first to use it [the atomic bomb], we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."

"Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'... It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing." (General Dwight David Eisenhower Commander in Chief of Allied Forces in Europe).

"It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Her defeat was certain before the first bomb fell." (UK Prime Minister Winston Churchill.)

"Certainly prior to 31 December 1945... Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." (US Strategic Bombing Survey, 1946.)

"General Curtis LeMay: 'The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb.'

Field Marshal Montgomery ( Commander of all UK Forces in Europe) wrote in his History of Warfare: It was unnecessary to drop the two atom bombs on Japan in August 1945, and I cannot think it was right to do so .... the dropping of the bombs was a major political blunder and is a prime example of the declining standards of the conduct of modern war.

Truman's Chief of Staff, Admiral Leahy, wrote: It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons ... In being the first to use it, we adopted an ethical standard common to the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in this fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children.

"The dropping of the first atomic bomb was also an act of pure terrorism. It fulfilled no military purpose of any kind. Belatedly it has been disclosed that seven months before it was dropped, in January 1945, President Roosevelt received via General MacArthur's headquarters an offer by the Japanese Government to surrender on terms virtually identical to those accepted by the United States after the dropping of the bomb: in July 1945, as we now know, Roosevelt's successor, President Truman, discussed with Stalin at Bebelsberg the Japanese offer to surrender....The Japanese people were to be enlisted as human guinea-pigs for a scientific experiment."
- F.J.P Veale, Advance To Barbarism: The Development Of Total Warfare From Serajevo To Hiroshima (California: Institute for Historical Review, 1979), pp.352-53.

[loseyourname]

Interesting that most of the Japanese generals wanted to fight on even after Nagasaki, rather than face the dishonor of surrender. It took the personal intercession of Emperor Hirohito for them to finally give up.

[studentx]

Adam, you started this whole thing about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. its just childish to deny this

[Adam]

Slap your parents for me.

[Pyrovus]

60 years, new people, new governments, mean anything to you?


And 60 years later, these new people in their new government are going about invading places such as Iraq just because they can. And let us not forget how George W Bush is now churning out a new generation of nukes:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1096298,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1130-04.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5695249.htm
etc

If they wanted nukes purely for deterrence, there'd be no need to go about manufacturing tactical nukes, when the current arsenal will do the job - unless they think that potential enemies don't know that they're able to blow up entire countries already. However, tactical nukes are seen as a bit more acceptable than regular nukes, because they (theoretically) can be used to kill a whole load of soldiers without killing too many civilians, so they presumably hope that they can use them with less outcry than would result if they used larger ones.

[studentx]

And 60 years later, these new people in their new government are going about invading places such as Iraq just because they can.

and they didnt use nukes. Whats your point?

And let us not forget how George W Bush is now churning out a new generation of nukes:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1096298,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1130-04.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-06-nuclear-usat_x.htm
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5695249.htm
etc

If they wanted nukes purely for deterrence, there'd be no need to go about manufacturing tactical nukes, when the current arsenal will do the job - unless they think that potential enemies don't know that they're able to blow up entire countries already. However, tactical nukes are seen as a bit more acceptable than regular nukes, because they (theoretically) can be used to kill a whole load of soldiers without killing too many civilians, so they presumably hope that they can use them with less outcry than would result if they used larger ones.

The world knows the US cant use their big nukes unless its a doomsday scenario. So who's afraid of those nukes today? nobody. Big nukes are a deterrence for big enemies, but the enemies are smaller today.

[amp]

The trouble with the development of these new nukes is that another country can take the view that the US has belligerent intentions (pre-emption) and thus would likely use these nukes in its quest for control of certain regions of the world. Problem, if I were another country with nukes and the ability to deliver them I might not wait to see if the US behaves honorably, I could consider PRE-EMPTION to be in my country's best interest or as a national security matter. You may see what a can of worms this doctrine has opened up infused with the recent on going development of tactical nukes.

[selfAdjoint]

The US has always refused to reject first strike. If you are a head of state with nukes you will be aware of that. If the US convinces itself that you are preparing to strike, they will hit first. This was enough to control things during the cold war, we'll see how it plays out in the new world order.

[Pyrovus]

and they didnt use nukes. Whats your point?
My point being that the US, now, just like sixty years ago does whatever it feels it can get away with.

The world knows the US cant use their big nukes unless its a doomsday scenario. So who's afraid of those nukes today? nobody. Big nukes are a deterrence for big enemies, but the enemies are smaller today.
So, you believe that the US is so pacifist that it wouldn't respond to an attack using WMD with nukes? If these big nukes don't deter anybody, then why didn't Saddam use chemical weapons during the first Gulf War?

[studentx]

My point being that the US, now, just like sixty years ago does whatever it feels it can get away with.

and the US knows it cant get away with nuking other countries.

So, you believe that the US is so pacifist that it wouldn't respond to an attack using WMD with nukes?

Shouldnt it respond with nukes?

If these big nukes don't deter anybody, then why didn't Saddam use chemical weapons during the first Gulf War?

Because the US has more chemical weapons.

[russ_watters]

The US has always refused to reject first strike. If you are a head of state with nukes you will be aware of that. If the US convinces itself that you are preparing to strike, they will hit first. This was enough to control things during the cold war, we'll see how it plays out in the new world order. I keep going back and forth on this one. Regardless of how the plans were laid out, would any President actually give that order? It would probably depend on the President. Or would it? Faced with the decision of whether or not to annihilate an entire country and possibly cause your own annihilation, would anyone really make that decision?

IMO, nuclear wepons, once two countries had them, ceased to be useable weapons*. They are a strategic deterrent, yes - but they are only a deterrent. They are of no tactical value. The very term "tactical (battlefield) nuke" is a an oxymoron.

*This only applies to rational leaders of stable governments, and that of course is where the problem we are in today comes from. The global community doesn't trust Nork Korea (expecially), Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc with nukes because it doesn't believe their governments are rational/stable enough to handle the responsibility and choose not to use them.

[russ_watters]

Because the US has more chemical weapons. That isn't the reason. Saddam was rational enough to trust us. Or maybe that's giving him too much credit - maybe he was just fearful enough to trust us. He knew that we wouldn't take down his country if he didn't provoke us. We would not have responded to a chemical strike with a chemical strike or a nuclear strike. We would have responded by sending our military to Bagdhad.

[phatmonky]

*This only applies to rational leaders of stable governments, and that of course is where the problem we are in today comes from. The global community doesn't trust Nork Korea (expecially), Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc with nukes because it doesn't believe their governments are rational/stable enough to handle the responsibility and choose not to use them.

I think a good term is 'accountable'. I personally don't trust nukes in anyone's hands without a democracy as a minimum prerequisite.

[Adam]

Yeah, let the mob decide who should be obliterated...