why some coutries are aloud to have nukes?

Great Debates
21

Ahahahaha…

But, i think, we just nuke the rest of the world, and say, gg.

Seriously though, NK is asking for another war. If I were Bush, I’d give them an ultimatum. “Stop jacking around, or we’re gonna jack with your country.” Standing by and being all pacifistic isn’t getting us anywhere. We need to show NK, that we mean what we say. Toy with us, and we’ll blow up your power, and send you back to the stone age again.

The next time that they jack with us, we seriously send them to the stone age. Not only that, but we slap them with sanctions so hard, that they can’t even breathe. Everytime they try to rebuild their infrastructure, we hit them again. Eventually, they will capitulate. This is the way that rogue states should be dealt with. Either that, or their people will rebel against their leaders, at which point, we step in, rebuild their infrastructure, and send them on their way.

Taking action in Iraq, is going a long way to say, that we won’t stand for provoking us. Our policy should be, you provoke us, we strike. You attack us, we annihilate your country. No one would even dare mess with us. Sure, we would be viewed as imperialistic, but I would guarantee you that overnight, there would be no more terrorist attacks. You bomb the countries that harbor terrorists, until they kick them out.

22

Don’t blame me, I voted for Kanos.

Sua

23

We invented them. (actually i think Russia has more, possibly China too but we may have more ready to use)

In short, countries don’t have rights, countries have to be able to defend themselves or prevent attack. Entering a nuke program could encourage an attack that could end the country

In Long:

As for ‘right’ I don’t know if a country can have any rights, a person has some given by God (in my (and a large group of people)humble O). Inside a country God given rights are perserved in laws such as The Constitution, and some man made ones are created by such laws.

We hear a lot about animal rights but most of them are made by man, IMHO the only true right an animal has is the right to try to survive. This is not to say that I think we should inflict unnessessary pain on it BTW.

Back to countries, you have to look to what is a country. Basically it is land that a group of people can defend. Defend can mean militarly or legally. It may only exist for a short time.

If a country can defend itself it may embark on a nuke program. Here’s the rub if another country can threaten that country not to build nukes then that country is only a country by not building them. Once they start building them they may be called upon to defend their country to perserve it if attacked. If they can’t then the country no longer exists.

24

The answer is:

a few years ago we made a rule saying “everyone that has bombs can keep them, but has to attempt to get rid of them over time, no one else should build them or we will be angry”

25

and it was also added “if we get angry, remember that we have deadly bombs” which implies “we want to reduce them but we cannot”

26

Sure we can. And if NK keeps up with the mouth they can help us reduce them alot cheaper than all those nosey IAEA and Russian scientists charge for observing the slow dismantling process. :smiley:

27

With that in mind I’d like to share this comic :smiley:

I do agree with your points… just had to share this!

:smack:
It is statements like these that put our ability to judge into question in the first place.

28

“we can reduce them, by dropping them on the others that has them, and we do not love the idea”
No?:wink:

29

*Originally posted by Hail Ants *
This is like asking why Hitler should have been prevented from getting the bomb, even before he went to war.

The situation is entirely different. Germany in the 1930’s is in no way comparable to modern “rogue” states.

The reason is because we’re better than they are. Better in the sense that countries like the USA, Britain, France etc. are civilized western democracies and appreciate the intrinsic value of human life… However, countries like Iraq and North Korea are a different matter. They are brutal and absolute military dictatorships. And both governments think nothing of sacrificing the lives of thousands of their own people, so it is quite obvious they would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons offensively on anyone.

Do i even have to mention Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

In fact, their cultures have a hard time understanding what stops the US from just nuking everyone and ruling the whole world. That’s what they’d do. They still accept the idea of despotism. If you’re more powerful and you want something, you smash the other guy over the head and take it.

The point of having nuclear weapons is rarely to use them. They exist (IMHO) primarily to preserve the balance of power (if they’ve got’em we gotta have them) and possibly in the case of these rogue states for blackmail purposes rather than using them on their enemies.

The leaders of Iraq and North Korea might be power hungry egocentric autocrats but they’re not crazy.

30

Go ahead I dare you to. Tell me how this is killing 1000’s of your own people.

or let me mention to you that using these bombs was a move to save 1000’s of US lives. It was risky as it was basically untested and it was unperfected technology. We even feared that it may ignite the atmosphere. We had no real concept of the long term effects, we just knew that this might end the war sooner, a war that we did not start and a war saw an attacked on our soil.

31

Uh, yeah, but couldn’t it be argued that the bomb actually saved more lives, because it ended the war sooner?

32

No I think this is pretty much a fact, no arguing needed.

33

Well, let’s see.

Absolute dictatorship? Nazi party, Ba’athist party, Korean Worker’s Party - check.

Run by power-mad nutcase? Hitler, Saddam, Kim Chong-il - check.

Invasion of neighboring countries? Poland, Kuwait, South Korea - check.

Attempted genocide against ethnic groups among their own population? Jews/Gypsies/etc, Kurds, not North Korea - apparently not enough ethnic diversity - still, two out of three.

Economic chaos? Great Depression, economic ruin caused by Gulf War, famine - check.

OK, your turn - tell us some ways in which Germany in the 1930’s is not comparable to modern “rogue” states.

Regards,
Shodan

34

I think Shodan just showed how “Germany in the 1930’s is in no way comparable to modern “rogue” states.” is a false statement, as much as I hate to see the “Godwin” line being tread.

35

As a sovereign nation, the US has no right to tell another country they can’t have nukes. We don’t, however, have to have economic trade or political ties with other sovereign nations who violate a treaty they have signed or won’t sign it in the first place. We also have the right to try and persuade other sovereign nations to go along with us.

Countries who don’t have nukes but wish to have them can build them if they wish. They also have the right to try and persuade other countries to their point of view.

IMO, the fewer countries that have them, the less chance one will be used.

36

Hahahahahahahahahaha, oh my side hurts!

The US of A? Intrinsic value of human life? I hope you’re joking. ::lol::

37

Are modern rogue states really so very different? Hitler was democratically elected, but otherwise there do seem to be many similarities. From what I have heard and read, the sense of fear and tension in Iraq is very similar to that of Nazi Germany. Both regimes have invaded adjacent countries and made war on ethnic minorities within their borders.

Using the bomb against Japan was at least preceeded by much introspection and hand-wringing - I am not sure this makes any moral difference, it is actions that count in the end. Using the atom bomb probably saved not thousands but millions of lives - the great majority of which would have been Japanese.

The only alternative was to contiue the conventional bombing of Japan - massive raids which could and did cause more casualties that an atomic bomb - these would have been daily events until finally Japan surrendered. To the efforts of the USA would have been added the bomber fleets of Britian (very much at war with Japan BTW) and Russia (declared war on Japan shortly after German surrender). I would think that no invasion would be attemped until there was hardly one stone standing upon another in Japan.

38

Fugazi wrote:

Sorry, but for any number greater than zero, that has been proved false.

39

Proved? How?

40

The reason the USA and the rest of the world don’t want Iraq or North Korea getting nuclear weapons is because they’re trying to get them for the purpose of destablizing the regions they’re in and threatening other nations with them.

The world can be put into four categories:

COUNTRIES WITH NUKES: United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, Israel, Pakistan, India, maybe Ukraine, I don’t know.

COUNTRIES APPARENTLY TRYING TO GET NUKES: Iraq, North Korea.

COUNTRIES THAT COULD HAVE NUKES PRETTY QUICK BUT DON’T WANT THEM: Canada, Japan, Germany, Australia, Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, most other European nations, maybe Brazil, New Zealand.

COUNTRIES THAT WOULD NEED TO DEVELOP NUKES BUT DON’T WANT THEM OR CAN’T AFFORD IT: Everyone else.

I don’t think the nations of the world would threaten war with Canada or Germany if they said “We’re going to build a deploy a few nukes.” I’m sure they’d be upset at violations of the NNPT but it wouldn’t be a huge crisis. But it wouldn’t be a crisis because those are rational, civilized countries, and it’s because they’re rational and civilized that they aren’t building nukes.

The group of countries that today are highly interested in procuring nuclear weapons is made up of those countries most likely to want to use them. Who just got the Bomb? India and Pakistan, and doesn’t that make you nervous? Who wants it now? North Korea and Iraq, what a couple of prize nations those are. We don’t have to worry about Australia getting the bomb because the reason they aren’t trying to get it is the same reason we wouldn’t worry too much if they did get it. We have to worry about Iraq because the reason they’re trying to get it is the reason we have to stop them - because they’ll use it or the threat of it to aggressively dominate their neighbours.