Who gets nukes, who doesn't?

[OpIvy420]

Isn't it sort of hypocritical that warlike nations like the United States and its allies all get to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, but when a small nation like Iraq may or may not be considering thinking about researching nuclear weapons, they need to be bombed? Or is Saddam Hussein such a crazed dicatator that Iraq should not be armed?

[LedZep77]

No one should get nukes. It ruins everything tat was built up and scares other countires to do stuff.

[Jimsween]

Its not that we decide who gets nukes we dont want anyone to have nukes. I dont think weve ever told a country that has nukes to get rid of them (except for maybe the USSR) and im certain we never told a country that didnt already have them that they could. Its not that complicated, if you have nukes we dont usually mess with you, if you dont have nukes we wont let you get nukes. Sorry for the constant use of the word "nukes" I prefer to call them plutonium kisses but it takes too long to write.

[TheEvilOne]

At 3/13/03 11:24 PM, OpIvy420 wrote: Isn't it sort of hypocritical that warlike nations like the United States and its allies all get to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, but when a small nation like Iraq may or may not be considering thinking about researching nuclear weapons, they need to be bombed? Or is Saddam Hussein such a crazed dicatator that Iraq should not be armed?

Yes, Saddam Hussein IS such a crazed dictator that Iraq should not be armed.

[XkwiziTOnE]

All nations must be careful with what is at hand with nuclear weapons and all that it's composed of......

[Romero]

The yanks have taken the role the anti-nuke police. They have stopped numerous countries developing their own nuclear weapons programme. For example, the US has stopped Taiwan from building nukes, which it needs to use as a deterrent against China. In return, the US sold them a shit load of weapons.

Fair enough, 'rogue nations' shouldn't be allowed nukes, but any other country should be allowed to have them just to defend themselves.

[D2Kvirus]

Just read this.

http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/ballisticmissilechart.htm

Sleep tight.

[TheShrike]

The problem is that no nation on this planet is derserving of nukes, but a good point has been put forth, the US is completely anti-nuke, yet we have one of the largest arsenals of nukes on the planet, along with the technology to deliver the destruction anywhere.
But if everyone had nukes, we'd probably all be gone by now.
Catch-22

[Tucanazo]

At 3/13/03 11:32 PM, jimsween wrote: Its not that we decide who gets nukes we dont want anyone to have nukes. I dont think weve ever told a country that has nukes to get rid of them

come on!!! there is no country without a request from the US about nukes

"you gotta destroy your nukes" "don´t play with that, it´s not a toy" and shit like that...

get rid of your nukes too!

[JMHX]

Nukes will be the convenient end of life as we know it. I wouldn't be in a big hurry to see what that different life is going to be. Just keep Korea in the corner of your eye and keep wondering about giving nations nuclear power.

[NEMESiSZ]

Hey, the USA doesn't have UN sanctions against it, the USA doesn't invade its neighbors to take control of resources, the USA doesn't have a history of human rights atrocities.

Iraq does.

If you can't see the difference between the USA and Iraq you shouldn't post in the Politics forum, because you're a moron.

Nothing you've said hasn't been said by a million idiots before you.

[OpIvy420]

At 3/14/03 06:24 PM, NEMESiSZ wrote: Hey, the USA doesn't have UN sanctions against it, the USA doesn't invade its neighbors to take control of resources, the USA doesn't have a history of human rights atrocities.

Iraq does.

If you can't see the difference between the USA and Iraq you shouldn't post in the Politics forum, because you're a moron.

Nothing you've said hasn't been said by a million idiots before you.

Allright, I guess I'm a moron. The U.S. doesn't have a history of human rights atrocities? The U.S. doesn't invade its neighbors to take control of their resources? What about the Native Americans?! We almost wiped out an entire race of people just because we felt we were the superior race.

[Ted-Easton]

What would be good is if someone were to remove the nuclear capabilities of all nukes. They would still serve the deterrant purpose, but if push ever came to shove, they would be firing off duds.

[NEMESiSZ]

At 3/14/03 07:24 PM, OpIvy420 wrote:
Allright, I guess I'm a moron. The U.S. doesn't have a history of human rights atrocities? The U.S. doesn't invade its neighbors to take control of their resources? What about the Native Americans?! We almost wiped out an entire race of people just because we felt we were the superior race.

Yeah, because the actions of the settlers fully represent the USA in modern times.

Your arguments are all invalid, and yes, you ARE a moron.

[OpIvy420]

Look. If you want to just keep name-calling and saying that my agruments have no validity, go ahead. A lot of your Republican friends got elected by doing that to their opponents. I'm not saying that the actions of settlers fully respresent our modern government, but you were saying we had no history of atroscities, and I wanted to make the point that the United States doesn't have a totally clean concience. And if you respond again, I'm not replying, since it would just be a waste of time. You have the right to have your opinion, but I don't see any evidence that can back it up. Asshole.

[NEMESiSZ]

You made a stupid statement, it got shot down, deal with it.

[Jimsween]

(cheers on nemesis) Keep at it im tired of people using the slaughter of the indians in debates.

[the-unknown-soldier]

At 3/13/03 11:25 PM, LedZep77 wrote: No one should get nukes. It ruins everything tat was built up and scares other countires to do stuff.

true. the first atom bomb saved a lot of lives. it was wirth the blood. but the seconded shows how power is exploited and there fore nobody should have any

[the-unknown-soldier]

im more worried about all of pakistan and indias weapons. they are going to blow each toher up... hope nobody else getsd csaught in the line

[JMHX]

At 3/14/03 10:15 PM, jimsween wrote: (cheers on nemesis) Keep at it im tired of people using the slaughter of the indians in debates.

Hey, not too long ago you were a ranting idiot that got chewed to hell by everyone on this board. I wouldn't be going gung-ho against people just yet. Let it lay low for awhile and build your backing with some topics that make SENSE. Oh, yeah, feel free to join the Regulars Lounge. I don't know why, but there's something about how much you angered me when you first showed up that I've been chuckling about.

[mysecondstar]

sheesh, i've said this so many times it's coming out of my ears. nuclear weapons are more a diplomatic tool than a weapon. it scares everyone into thinking that they will use it. and it causes hysteria in the masses in neighboring country so that it will bog down to its demands ie. north korea. i'm too tired to elaborate, but i'll be more than willing tomorrow.

[NEMESiSZ]

All the intelligent people here should understand why this thread is retarded, lets stop replying to it.

[Jlop985]

I have an idea that would never get accepted: have all countries give up their nukes to the UN. That way, if a country develops and uses nukes offensively, the UN could vote on a resolution to make that country glow in the dark. As it is now, I see the hypocrisy in the US demands for disarmament, but we must have nukes if other countries have them, in order to provide deterrance.

[D2Kvirus]

At 3/14/03 10:23 PM, the_unknown_soldier wrote: im more worried about all of pakistan and indias weapons. they are going to blow each toher up... hope nobody else getsd csaught in the line

At last, somebody gets with the program. Which asks the question; why aren't the US doinbg anything about either nation. After all, Pakistan built their own nukes (India just bought them off the US), and Pakistanis were also on the streets cheering the collapse of the WTC. People bring up those about Iraq, as if they're the only nation that hates the US on the entire planet, therefore it's a good enough reason to invade, attack, and whatever, but why does Iraq get treated as an enemy, yet Pakistan gets ignored?

And I'm not surprised you're sick of Native Americans being brought into the argument - it goes against your perfect view of the US. By the way, remember the nations you enslaved for no gain apart from feelings of superiority until, in the case of Tennessee, 1994.

[JMHX]

Pakistan can (somewhat) fight back, and it has the nuclear weapons. It's a nuclear triangle between Korea, China, and Pakistan.

It's a very scalene triangle.

[NEMESiSZ]

Not so fast, I personally trust very few nations, but Pakistan, despite being a military regime, is proving be a loyal ally to the USA. I think problems with Pakistan and India can now be successfully moderated by the USA.

China and Korea are both manaces, though.

[Slizor]

America is the biggest menance to the world.