Yeah, it might get real ugly before it was all over.
Which is why I hope Iran never gets the bomb. Not because I think they’d actually use it on the US. I hope they don’t get it because some bin Laden wannabe might just get some nuclear material from them (by stealing, etc.) and make the world a much worse place.
This is also why I mourn the fact that Pakistan has the bomb.
Their leaders aren’t crazy enough to start a nuclear exchange. That doesn’t mean anything, though, if their version of Timothy McVeigh can steal some nuclear material from them.
Why are we as Americans so interested in policing the world? What makes us right and the rest of the world wrong? The problem, as I see it, is that most of us have never visited other countries other than short 1 to 2 weeks vacations, mostly at some island colony. Why don’t we seek to understand others? Why are we constantly looking to change others? And if change we must then why insist on a democratic form of government? How many here even know that we are Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy - at least per our constitution, which is consistently trashed and ignored by our very politicians (from both parties). What are we doing to reclaim our Republic?
What gives us the right to own nuclear weapons and wage wars (some illegally) with other nations while we seek to deny other nations from owning nuclear weapons. Which nation has ever used a nuclear weapon? We have! A post in this thread mentioned something about Islamic nations not tolerating dissent. Do we tolerate dissent? We have our heads so far in the sand that we can’t even tolerate the truth!
Sorry to get on a rant. Perhaps I should leave it at this…
Well, you apparently read that paragraph wrong then. I didn’t say nuclear weapons can’t be used to achieve diplomatic goals because they’re being countered by an opposing nuclear arsenal; they can’t be used to achieve diplomatic aims PERIOD. The full-scale nuclear exchange scenario everyone lived in fear of wasn’t prevented by MAD-- it never happened because there is no possible situation in which a sane government would think starting a nuclear war would achieve any useful diplomatic aim. After a decade of intensive nuclear testing, it became abundantly clear that the radioactive side-effects of a full scale nuclear attack would be too severe for it to be a realistic military option. Even if the US had unilaterally dismantled its nuclear stockpile, the Soviets still couldn’t have used their arsenal to press their aims in Europe without causing grievous harm to their own country and the places they wanted to conquer.
Now, the reason why the build-up and the arms race kept going was that both sides weren’t sure the other understood the realities of the situation, or had dehumanized them to a point that they thought they were crazy enough to try it. In retrospect and with now open archives from both sides, it is quite clear that at no point past the early-50’s did either side ever seriously consider a first nuclear strike. The only realistic chance of a nuclear exchange was an accident where one side thought the other had struck first. MAD had the potential to turn a tragic accident into a full scale end-of-the-world event.
(I’ll add that as someone who only really experienced the Cold War during the 80’s, me and the people around me were FAR more worried about an accidental exchange than the sneaky commies starting something)
You probably should stopped much earlier but that is OK. Lot’s of people think that way but thankfully they aren’t the ones keeping the world from going to a series of nuclear confrontations.
The harsh reality is that nuclear warfare is potentially civilization ending and would never be isolated. The U.S., as the sole remaining Superpower has the responsibility to ensure that no nation ever uses nuclear weapons on another without immediate and devastating consequences. I think everyone takes it for granted that we would never initiate a first strike but we are prepared to respond in a disproportionate way.
Your rant about being the world’s police force in general for all other matters is completely separate and may or may not have merit but nuclear weapons are a category of their own.
Superpower?!? Open your eyes. We are a financially and morally bankrupt nation. I literally weep when I think about how far my country has fallen. You need to do a lot of research before we can discuss any of the points you bring up. Until then I’d just be wasting my time and energy and I have no inclination to waste either.
Ok, this board does attract all types. I have never heard this before however.
Does anyone else in this thread believe the U.S. isn’t the sole remaining Superpower whether you agree with me or not overall? SunGazer has some views I have never heard before from anyone. We aren’t bankrupt and I am I don’t think morals have anything to do with being a Superpower good or bad. Anyone disagree?
Well, so far. But those kooks at DQ are our electorate. The USA is democratic enough that there could be overwhelming political pressures for a disproportionate response.
Der Trihs, you have half a point, but remember that the flag officer core and Foggy Bottom aren’t exactly Chaotic Stupid Evil.* Yet.* I can’t say they won’t degenerate to that over time, or be overtaken by stupid politics, but there are some people with brains and even conscience trying to avoid some of the worse stuff.
They are in fact referred to as “strategic weapons.”
I think you are unfairly equating different situations, and your memories are conflating different periods of atomic Angst.
Were Obama to give that speech, i’m quite confident that John Boehner and Mitch McConnell would respond by publicly converting to Islam and declaring their loyalty to Iran.
Then stop wasting your time and go elsewhere, because ‘WE’ do not need to “research” (ie, convert to your point of view) before we can discuss things with you.
Research does not equate to converting to anyone’s point of view. It’s merely a gathering of facts. If you insist on picking an argument then at least be logical. Without logic one cannot argue anything.
I shall decide whether or not I’m wasting my time or even where to waste my time. I certainly don’t need your permission for either of those. Go find someone else to bully. My knees aren’t knocking. I’ve dealt with a lot of bullies like you.
The USA has been operating like a democracy for some time now, however, our form of government is republican as far as I know. Here’s a link that explains this. Please correct me if you think I’ve misunderstood this. http://www.1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm
Why would everyone “take it for granted” that we wouldn’t launch a first strike? We have, after all. And we’ve rattled the nuclear saber at Iran in the past.
:dubious: This is absolutely untrue, historically and etymologically. A “republic” is not necessarily individualist by definition. Looks like you have someone making up their own definitions for words.
For some reason, it’s common for Americans to mention that the USA isn’t a democracy but a Republic. I’m not aware of any other country where such a statement is made.
“Democracy” and “Republic” aren’t antinomic. They refer to two different things. The USA is a democracy and a Republic, Syria is a Republic but not a democracy, Spain is a democracy but not a Republic, and Saudi Arabia is neither a Republic nor a democracy.
If you just say to someone who never heard of the USA that it’s a Republic, he can’t guess what your political system is. If you then add that it’s not a democracy, then he’ll rightly assume that it’s a dictatorship of some sort (or possibly an oligarchy).
My understanding is that when it is said, what is meant is that the USA isn’t a direct democracy. But then, there aren’t any direct democracy on the planet anyway.
ETA : the definition given in your link for “Republic” is wrong from the get go (“Republic. That form of government in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people”)
I read your link in more detail and it’s BS . For instance this gem (people have to vote about a bill mandating a reduction of water consumption)
Does it seem to you that in the USA, statutes are merely “advisory”? That, as a “sovereign” you can freely refuse to abide by laws?
What actually happens in the USA is exactly what he describes in his example of what a democracy is. Once the statute has been voted by the majority or its representants, it’s mandatory for everyone, whether or not they disagreed with it, and if they don’t abide by it they’re fined according to said statute.
What we have here in all likelihood is an author who thinks that the federal state should have no business regulating his way of life and is making up is own definition of what a “Republic” should be to justify his opinion.
The Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor unprovoked, their military was approximately as powerful as ours, and their dedication to winning at all costs measurably greater.
If you think we’d launch a truly unprovoked nuke attack ever, I don’t know what to tell you.