Right to be a nuclear state...

[Nofuture]

Some people say, some countries have a right to be nuclear states, some haven't.

What's your opinion on this?


And again, what country X is the author speaking about?:

"X is suffused for me with a moral meaning absent from the existence of any other nation in the world. If there was a war between the Y and X, I would choose X. Sometimes I think I am secretly glad for its occasional brutality so that the world will know there is a monster out there -- a monster who will never forget. Although in general I believe in nuclear disarmament, I am glad X has the atomic bomb, and the continued existence of X is the only cause for which I consider it justifiable to use nuclear weapons. Let me put this in its starkest and ugliest light: I am not sure, but I believe that, if the choice were between the survival of X and that of the remaining 4 or 6 billion people of the world, I would choose the ... million ..."

 

[Steve]

I personally believe that as long as nuclear weapons exist in ANY nation, they're a threat to peace throughout the world. Of course, it could be argued that unless stable, "good" nations possess counter-strike capability, they're leaving themselves open to nuclear attack.

 

[The Monkey]

I think that it weren't for the nukes; the cold war would have erupted into WWIII. None of the countries dared to attack, because of the nuclear threat. But it is a weapon capable of destruction beyond imagination, and could easily fall into the wrong hards, so I guess I'm against it.

 

[The Mullinator]

If you ask me the whole concept of defining who should have nuclear weapons is far too abstract to make any simple rules on. It also depends on you point of view. As a Canadian I am happy that the U.S. has nuclear weapons and unhappy that North Korea is developing them.

However if I was a North Korean nationalist then it would be the other way around. Its not about who deserves the right to have them based on some simple rules. Its about who deserves to have them based on who will benefit me the most by having them.

 

[Nofuture]

I agree with you, Mullinator. I don't think, it's possible to make an objective rule, who is to be allowed to have nukes, who not.
So I disagree that some countries have right to be nuclear, some not.

The best would be, there woudn't be nuclear weapons at all...

 

[seinfeldrules]

Man, reading this made me feel so awful that the US tries to prevent Iran and other nations from getting nukes... They are clearly capable of handling such weapons

 

[Icarusintel]

The best would be, there woudn't be nuclear weapons at all...

wow, not gonna happen
anyway, Kim Jong Il is crazy, he deserves no nukes, and neither do the Iranians, for all we know they'll make briefcase nukes and just hand em off to terrorists, people who'll actually use them, so, nukes only for the major countries to keep the scales balanced so no one country has all of them

 

[Nofuture]

anyway, Kim Jong Il is crazy, he deserves no nukes, and neither do the Iranians, for all we know they'll make briefcase nukes and just hand em off to terrorists, people who'll actually use them,

What?? Prove it!

Of course Iran has a right to get nuclear. Because of the huge threat from Israel and US this country even MUST; if they had, they coudn't be threatened any more.

so, nukes only for the major countries to keep the scales balanced so no one country has all of them

No. Either for no one for or all. What a dictatorship, you are allowed, but others not...

 

[Icarusintel]

What?? Prove it!

Of course Iran has right to get nuclear. Because of the huge threat from Israel and US this country even MUST; if they had, they coudn't be threatend any more.

No. Either for no one for or all. What a dictatorship, you are allowed, but others not...

Ummm... maybe you never heard the phrase "To the victor goes the spoils"
Countries who have the power get the nukes but keep the others from getting them, and it's not dictatorship, it's policy, and personally, I'd rather not find out if Iran is going to give nukes to terrorists, i'd rather them not have them at all so we don;t have to figure out, because America would certainly be a target, and I'd rather not have my family get wiped out by a nuke because then I'd have to kill every terrorist and person who looked like a terrorist that I could find... and that would take a while

 

[Nofuture]

Countries who have the power get the nukes but keep the others from getting them, and it's not dictatorship, it's policy,

Yes, of course it's policy, a dictatorial policy.

and personally, I'd rather not find out if Iran is going to give nukes to terrorists, i'd rather them not have them at all so we don;t have to figure out, because America would certainly be a target

No. I don't think it would. Somebody who strikes with nuclear weapons, will get them back. So why would he do it then?
Anyway, Iran is a more peaceful country then US.

And US has already done it, even two times. They have the most nuclear weapons. And they have an aggresive offensive foreign policy. So this all gives me a slight reason to assume, the US belongs to countries which are more likely to use nuclear weapons than others.

 

[seinfeldrules]

And US has already done it, even two times. They have the most nuclear weapons. And they have an aggresive offensive foreign policy. So this all gives me a slight reason to assume, the US belongs to countries which are more likely to use nuclear weapons than others.

We have such a powerful conventional army that we dont need to use nuclear weapons. We dont need more countries with nuclear weapons, Iran is clearly a country that shouldnt have them.

 

[Pesmerga]

Hellz naw, only one country should legally own them! The good ol' U S of A!

Well, probably nuclear / hydrogen bombs are teh worst thing ever made, but if I had to choose a country to have them, it'd probably be Great Britian or USA.

 

[Nofuture]

We have such a powerful conventional army that we dont need to use nuclear weapons.

Then disarm, get non-nuclear. Be a good example.

Iran is clearly a country that shouldnt have them.

Any reason why? (except that there is no need to have more nuclear countries)

Anyway, I stay at my opinion that countries which already have nuclear weapons shoudn't forbid others to have or to get them.

 

[Kebean PFC]

Then disarm, get non-nuclear. Be a good example.

That would be seen internationaly as sign of weakness. Then what if we were attacked with nukes, what will we do, shoot our collective radioactive spit at them?

Study your history, always was a great disarmment followed by a large scale war. It just doesn't work.

the US belongs to countries which are more likely to use nuclear weapons than others.

I really question your logic on this one. Why would the US use nukes? That fact is it would take a nuclear launch by another country to get us to launch. That would be a global catastrophe, and to be honest, if it happened, most of us would die right away, so why worry?

 

[Calanen]

the US belongs to countries which are more likely to use nuclear weapons than others.

I don't even know what this means. 'The US belongs to countries?' Do you mean the US 'belongs' to a coalition of countries more likely to use nuclear weapons?

Well I don't think any1 in NATO is going to use nuclear weapons any time soon. Israel and Pakistan potentially could, if you say that they 'belong' to the USA?

America has had the bomb for the longest, and only used it twice to end WW2. Thats what 60 years now without using nuclear weapons on any1.

I think pretty much all the crazies at some stage will get a small amount of nukes. And I think like in the movie or the book 'The Sum of All Fears' they will detonate a smuggled nuke onto US soil. Just a matter of time. Would not even have to get it on land. Just have it in a container on a large ship in NY city harbour. Before the container is even inspected by customs, it goes off and would take out the city. I hope that never happens, but I could see how easily it could.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Then disarm, get non-nuclear. Be a good example.

Yeah, I'm sure our enemies around the world would really be behind us on that one... The US did try your approach at one point in time, then WWII slapped us in the face. After that it was Korea.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Only the buddhists monks should get nukes. No one else knows how to use them responsibly.

 

[Pogrom]

Yeah, I'm sure our enemies around the world would really be behind us on that one... The US did try your approach at one point in time, then WWII slapped us in the face. After that it was Korea.

I think you are confusing non-interventionism with disarmament.

What I would like to know is what gives the USA the right (and the high moral ground) to forbid for others what the US has already used?

 

[Calanen]

I think you are confusing non-interventionism with disarmament.

What I would like to know is what gives the USA the right (and the high moral ground) to forbid for others what the US has already used?

No he is not. There was a big push after WW1 and before WW2 to limit the size of the respective navies of the various nations of the world, including the USA. And it was led by the USA. I don't know much about the historical details it not being somethng I actually studied, but perhaps someone else (an American) could jump in here.

 

[Nofuture]

the US belongs to countries which are more likely to use nuclear weapons than others.

I really question your logic on this one. Why would the US use nukes? That fact is it would take a nuclear launch by another country to get us to launch. That would be a global catastrophe, and to be honest, if it happened, most of us would die right away, so why worry?

I don't even know what this means. 'The US belongs to countries?' Do you mean the US 'belongs' to a coalition of countries more likely to use nuclear weapons?

Well I don't think any1 in NATO is going to use nuclear weapons any time soon. Israel and Pakistan potentially could, if you say that they 'belong' to the USA?

It was stated earlier here that if Iran had nuclear weapons, US certainly would be a target of them. In this context I said, if any country used nuclear weapons at all (I don't say it will happen), then US (or some other countries and not necessarily as a coalition) would be more likely to do this.


As there is no sence in using nuclear weapons, countries obviously need them for their defence, so why should be some countries not allowed to have them? They need them for their own defence, like the others do.

 

[Nofuture]

Any suggestion for the quiz question?

 

[seinfeldrules]

so why should be some countries not allowed to have them?

Because a nuclear Iran would only incite much more tension/violence in the Middle East. Imagine Israel hitting a nuclear plant in the hopes of stopping the Iranian program before they actually acquire nuclear weapons. The strikes are successful, but Iran had already developed 2 nuclear devices in secret. They use these nuclear weapons on Israel. Israel responds in kind and the entire ME is at war.

 

[Pogrom]

Because a nuclear Iran would only incite much more tension/violence in the Middle East. Imagine Israel hitting a nuclear plant in the hopes of stopping the Iranian program before they actually acquire nuclear weapons. The strikes are successful, but Iran had already developed 2 nuclear devices in secret. They use these nuclear weapons on Israel. Israel responds in kind and the entire ME is at war.

So you are saying that countries that are likely to be involved in conflict shouldn't be allowed to have nukes?

What about the USA?

Oh, they need those for defence...

But what about the countries that need defence as well? From the USA, or their greedy neighbours?

 

[seinfeldrules]

So you are saying that countries that are likely to be involved in conflict shouldn't be allowed to have nukes?

No, countries that would be likely to use the weapons. It isnt just the US that agrees that Iran shouldnt have nukes, the UN is also in agreement. The world is a much safer place without these types of countries in control on nuclear weapons. I cannot believe you endorse the idea of a nuclear Iran.

 

[Pogrom]

No, countries that would be likely to use the weapons.

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons on another country.

But in the case of Iran, I don't reckon they would use nuclear weapons.

Just like Israel, they just want the threat of nuclear weapons to keep the neighbours polite.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Only one country has ever used nuclear weapons on another country.

Different time, different situation. You know that. Again, you are being quite unreasonable by supporting the idea of a nuclear Iran.

 

[Pogrom]

Different time, different situation. You know that. Again, you are being quite unreasonable by supporting the idea of a nuclear Iran.

I think your logic is a little unreasonable.

"No more countries are allowed to get nukes!"
"Why?"
"Because some of them might want to use them!"

And hey, if they are fighting to preserve their way of life, how is it a different situation to WWII?

What if they are invaded by a foreign power who's military might dwarfs their own? How shall they defend themselves?

 

[Nofuture]

Because a nuclear Iran would only incite much more tension/violence in the Middle East. Imagine Israel hitting a nuclear plant in the hopes of stopping the Iranian program before they actually acquire nuclear weapons. The strikes are successful, but Iran had already developed 2 nuclear devices in secret. They use these nuclear weapons on Israel. Israel responds in kind and the entire ME is at war.

Hey? Israel will hit and Iran has to be responsible?!

Israel is an extraordinary dangerous and unstable neighbor and hostile country concerning Iran. She should be forced to get non-nuclear.
As it is imposible (I suppose), Iran MUST get nuclear to protect itself.

Every country has right to be concerned about her safety, every.

 

[Nofuture]

The world is a much safer place without these types of countries in control on nuclear weapons.

What types of countries? What countries?

I would put the USA on that list then.


It was already discussed that it makes no sense to use nuclear weapons -> So nuclear weapons are there for protection -> And every country is legitimated to protect herself -> As there are a lot of countries, which have that dangerous weapons, others which don't have, want to have them to protect themself from the countries which have

The other and better solution would be that ALL countries MUST get non-nuclear

 

[CptStern]

no country has the right to possess weapons that can instantly oblierate another country. Do we really want people who have no regard for our welfare to have that responsibility?

 

[Ennui]

no country has the right to possess weapons that can instantly oblierate another country. Do we really want people who have no regard for our welfare to have that responsibility?

amen. nuclear weapons should not be allowed to exist, if the human race knows what's good for it.

it never ceases to amaze me that things like this exist for the SOLE purpose of murdering other humans and for destroying what others have accomplished. ;(

 

[CptStern]

yet the people who support it say "it's just used as an intimidation, the threat of use" which is kina stupid because no one makes a tool if you dont intend to use it

 

[Nofuture]

yet the people who support it say "it's just used as an intimidation, the threat of use" which is kina stupid because no one makes a tool if you dont intend to use it

Intimidation or protection?

As long as there are aggressive countries with offensive foreign policy, it is a way to protect yourself.
If e.g. Iraq had nuclear weapons, do you think US would invaded them? I think, no.

 

[CptStern]

I agree, and that's what's used as a justification for nukes. In this specific case I think it's warrented ..yet if everyone was on a level playing field there'd be no need for nukes ....but the same could be said if EVERYONE had nukes.

If every nuke possessing country pointed their nukes at the US at the exact same time ...I bet there'd be a lot less "invasions to save the poor freedom loving people of _______, god bless america" :E

 

[ray_MAN]

I think the US are hypocrites for saying that some countries have no right to have nuclear material, while we have thousands of missles that are capable of destruction greater than those. If a country is capable, I think that it's ok if they develop nuclear material, as long as they use it wisely.
In the case of North Korea: A wacko controls the country. He dislikes the US's ways of butting into international affairs. He is not afraid of sending us to our doom. He is a direct thread because he has the means of transporting the nukes far enough to strike the mainland. I think his nuclear production should be stopped.
In the case of Iran: Once again, a wacko contols the country who dislikes the US's ways. He is also not afraid of sending us to our doom. However, there is almost no way Iran is capable of striking our mainland. They have no real means of this. I would be concerned, but not overlly worried about the situation in Iran. I would just keep an eye on them.

 

[CptStern]

"In the case of Iran: Once again, a wacko contols the country who dislikes the US's ways"


believe it or not Iran once had democracy ...which was overthrown by the US when they installed the brutal shah of iran ...so I can see why they have a reason to .....dislike them

 

[Nofuture]

In the case of Iran: Once again, a wacko contols the country

How do you know? I studied a lot of material about Iran and I didn't get that impression at all. It seems to be a peaceful country.

I would then rather say, Mr. Bush & Co. are wackos and extremely dangerous.

 

[Nofuture]

Please, doesn't anybody want to guess the quiz question?...
Just make a guess...

 

[seinfeldrules]

If every nuke possessing country pointed their nukes at the US at the exact same time ...I bet there'd be a lot less "invasions to save the poor freedom loving people of _______, god bless america"

So you do support a nuclear Iran/North Korea?

How do you know? I studied a lot of material about Iran and I didn't get that impression at all. It seems to be a peaceful country.

I would then rather say, Mr. Bush & Co. are wackos and extremely dangerous.

So you believe the US is more of a rogue state than Iran?

 

[Nofuture]

So you believe the US is more of a rogue state than Iran?

You don't?

I've studied a lot of material about the foreign policy of these two countries after WWII. So you know the answer now.