TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why have nukes??
Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »

Why have nukes??

if this world is seeking peace, why have nukes. what would be the purpose of iran developing nukes, if they are not planning a war? or pakistan, or india?? the cold war's over, and wheres the threat??

i say, if a country is not planning a war, why have nukes at all??

well, why even have weoponds?

Nuclear weapons give a country instant clout.

You have to be ready to defend yourself from other countries.

It's like a discussion. Sometimes another person might challange you over a certain topic. That's when you have to bring out your heavy artillery to defend yourself and attack the other individual. You should always be ready.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium You have to be ready to defend yourself from other countries. It's like a discussion. Sometimes another person might challange you over a certain topic. That's when you have to bring out your heavy artillery to defend yourself and attack the other individual. You should always be ready.

but if we get rid of nucleur weapons, there is nobody to fear of being attacked. you could say, it is to defend yourself, but why is that country having them if they arent planning a war, and the other country, etc.

i guess it'll never happen. there's probably going to be one more world war, sometime in the future. and the only way its going to end is in the destruction of the earth.

We like war. We like to conquer. We like to dominate. It's just how it is.

pretty simple. because the other guy does.

The two real reasons:

You don't trust the other guy.
Deterence.

There is an old roman proverb that has been overused quite often :

"If you want peace, prepare for war."

1) The readiness dissuades attacks that weakness on the other hand could invite, thus keeping the peace

2) The readiness of war may convince the weak to yield to the strong without a fight

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: but if we get rid of nucleur weapons, there is nobody to fear of being attacked. you could say, it is to defend yourself, but why is that country having them if they arent planning a war, and the other country, etc.

In the case of North Korea and Iran, it makes a lot of sense for them to obtain nuclear weapons. They were singled out along with Iraq by Warmonger Bush a couple of years ago, and since then Iraq has been invaded by him. Clearly, an onslaught by the US army cannot easily be held back, and the sensible thing is therefore to have a nuke to deter Bush from attacking. If I were in charge in Iran or North Korea I would pool all resources into getting a nuke, as that would be the only thing that could ensure the survival of my reign.

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium We like war. We like to conquer. We like to dominate. It's just how it is.

"We" as in "the US"?

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic In the case of North Korea and Iran, it makes a lot of sense for them to obtain nuclear weapons. They were singled out along with Iraq by Warmonger Bush a couple of years ago, and since then Iraq has been invaded by him. Clearly, an onslaught by the US army cannot easily be held back, and the sensible thing is therefore to have a nuke to deter Bush from attacking. If I were in charge in Iran or North Korea I would pool all resources into getting a nuke, as that would be the only thing that could ensure the survival of my reign.

Yea that might be a nice theory if the timeline would actually be right.

The reality is Bush called North Korea and Iran evil because they were pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea did NOT pursue nuclear weapons because Bush called them evil.


Yyou should work for the Palestinians, you are a great revionists!

We as in world, look at the history of this planet. Since the dawn of man there has been one war after another with little peace.

North Korea doesn't need a nuclear weapon, they have 1million+ men who could easily destroy seoul before any American troops could get there. That is deterence enough. Remember they started the last war, if anyone needs deterence it is the South Koreans, not the North.

There are different reasons for creating them as we have seen in our history from using as a deterrence, to gain clout, to receive aid, to assure destruction, to end a war quickly with less casualties, to incite fear, etc.

They don't teach detente and MAD anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Yea that might be a nice theory if the timeline would actually be right. The reality is Bush called North Korea and Iran evil because they were pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran and North Korea did NOT pursue nuclear weapons because Bush called them evil. Yyou should work for the Palestinians, you are a great revionists!

I didn't intend to imply any cause-effect to the Bush - North Korea relationship. I was aiming for explaining why a country, not set for war, might develop nuclear weapons. And given the current political climate I think that it would be stupid of both Iran and North Korea to give up their ambitions. Maybe Iran can get away with it, as the EU, through its involvement in stopping Iran nuclear weapons development, would be commited to ensure that the US does not attack.

That being said, I would like to take up your challenge Yoepus: First I'll adress your insinuation that North Korea is the rogue state threatening the world for no reason. I couldn't be bothered with searching for Internet-sources very long, so the one I got is written in a fairly biased language. The facts mentioned in the article stands solid enough though:

Linky

quote:

From the End of Korean War to the Present Together the Chinese and Korean fighters stopped the U.S./UN invaders and pushed them back to the 38th parallel--which is now the line between North and South Korea. The U.S. nuclear bullying of North Korea did not stop with the end of the war. The U.S. violated the armistice provisions at the conclusion of the Korean War by bringing nuclear-tipped Matador missiles into South Korea in 1957. In 1975, as the U.S. was withdrawing its last forces from Saigon after the defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese liberation forces, U.S. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger openly threatened the DPRK with nuclear retaliation if it tried to take advantage of the U.S. setback. By the 1980s, the ROK had become the most nuclear-wired place on the planet. North Korea was threatened with a whole array of U.S. nukes--from strategic and short-range missiles to neutron bombs to "tactical" weapons like nuclear land mines and artillery. According to Cumings, U.S. strategy in Korea in the 1980s involved several levels of nuclear warfare. First, the U.S. planned to use tactical nukes against large concentrations of DPRK troops in the early stages of a war. Second, the "AirLand Battle" strategy developed by NATO in the 1970s for war against the Soviet Union was also applied to Korea. This strategy "called for early, quick, deep strikes into enemy territory, again with the likely use of nuclear weapons, especially against hardened underground facilities (of which there are many in North Korea)." The third part of the U.S. war plan included the use of neutron bombs--also known as "enhanced radiation" weapons --which deliver deadly doses of radiation that kill people without causing extensive structural destruction. The U.S. envisioned using this weapon if DPRK forces took Seoul or other cities in the south--in order to decimate North Korean troops while preserving property and infrastructure. (Of course, the use of neutron bombs would also have caused huge casualties among the South Korean population.) According to Cumings, "This harrowing scenario became standard operating procedure in the 1980s, the kind written into military field manuals; the annual `Team Spirit' U.S.-South Korean military exercises, largest in the world with around 200,000 troops mobilized, played out AirLand Battle games." The U.S. claims that it withdrew its tactical nuclear weapons from southern Korea in the early 1990s. But this is not verified--since the U.S. refuses international inspections of its own weapons (while attacking others for refusing such inspections). Even if the U.S. has actually withdrawn its tactical nukes from the Korean peninsula, the DPRK continues to be surrounded and threatened by the U.S.'s vast nuclear armed forces. U.S. ships and submarines armed with nuclear and conventional missiles prowl the nearby seas. The U.S. military--in violation of international treaties--is now installing 20 new interceptor missiles in Alaska, including on a base only several hundred miles from North Korea. These missiles (if they work) will enable the U.S. to threaten a nuclear first strike against both North Korea and China. Earlier this year, as the Bush administration was heading toward war with Iraq, the U.S. further beefed up its forces targeted at the DPRK by sending stealth fighters to bases in South Korea and 24 long- range bombers to Guam. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote on Feb. 28 that secret plans are being developed within the Pentagon for possible military strikes against North Korea. According to Kristof, those plans include "a range of military options from surgical cruise missile strikes to sledgehammer bombing, and there is even talk of using tactical nuclear weapons to neutralize hardened artillery positions." North Korea is currently alleged to have at most one or two primitive nuclear weapons (and there is no real evidence that they even have that). North Korean missiles can reach only a few hundred miles beyond its borders. The U.S. imperialists have occupied southern Korea for more than half a century and prevented reunification of the country. They have imposed capitalist sweatshops and harsh repressive governments. U.S. occupation troops have raped Korean women, seized Korean land, turned the country into a permanent war zone, and generally run amok. The U.S. has repeatedly threatened North Korea, China, and others with nuclear weapons.

There's more on the linked page, but I guess that even a stubborn zionist extremist like you get the drift.

As to Iran being a rogue aggressor, I'll refer to the Iran-Contra scandal, and the open support of Saddam by the US during the Iraq-Iran war.

Both countries do have reasons to be scared. And since Bush turned on the cowboy rhetorics they have gained an incentive to hurry up their defense programs.

a lot of lies in that article.

the americans are occupying s. korea and running "amok"? why is s. korea one of the most prosperous countries in the world, and the north is one of the poorest in the world??

it wouldnt surprise me if a north korean wrote those from inside north korea.

I know, occupying?? When the US said it would start removing troops from the 38th parallel, there were actually protests in south korea to keep the troops there!

Apparently you managed to overlook that

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic [the source] is written in a fairly biased language. The facts mentioned in the article stands solid enough though

But let me provide you with a study guide:

quote:

The U.S. violated the armistice provisions at the conclusion of the Korean War by bringing nuclear-tipped Matador missiles into South Korea in 1957. In 1975, as the U.S. was withdrawing its last forces from Saigon after the defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese forces, U.S. Defense Secretary James Schlesinger openly threatened the DPRK with nuclear retaliation if it tried to take advantage of the U.S. setback. ...the annual `Team Spirit' U.S.-South Korean military exercises, largest in the world with around 200,000 troops mobilized, played out AirLand Battle games." The U.S. claims that it withdrew its tactical nuclear weapons from southern Korea in the early 1990s. But this is not verified--since the U.S. refuses international inspections of its own weapons. Even if the U.S. has actually withdrawn its tactical nukes from the Korean peninsula, the DPRK continues to be surrounded and threatened by the U.S.'s vast nuclear armed forces. U.S. ships and submarines armed with nuclear and conventional missiles prowl the nearby seas. The U.S. military--in violation of international treaties--is now installing 20 new interceptor missiles in Alaska, including on a base only several hundred miles from North Korea. These missiles (if they work) will enable the U.S. to threaten a nuclear first strike against both North Korea and China. Earlier this year, as the Bush administration was heading toward war with Iraq, the U.S. further beefed up its forces targeted at the DPRK by sending stealth fighters to bases in South Korea and 24 long- range bombers to Guam.

Are these lies?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider They don't teach detente and MAD anymore?

I guess not. I haven't heard those terms with any regularity since the 80's. Nowadays, MAD makes people think of MADD--Mother's Against Drunk Drivers--not Mutually Assured Destruction

Not lies (assuming the source is correct), but open to interpretation.

When since 1974 has the US threatened nuclear war against North Korea in any fashion unless they develop nuclear weapons themselves?

Of course the S Koreans and Americans play war games, they are severly undermatched in terms of manpower and there is enough artillery aimed at seoul to destroy it in hours. They have to be ready to work together in the case of the break of the ceasefire.

We have nuclear vessels all over the world, not just in Korea and they aren't in the North Korean sovereign waters. One of our largest naval ports is located in Japan, which is nearby.

The missiles in Alaska, the interceptors are meant to destroy incoming missiles before they reach the US mainland.

quote:

China suspects that the creation of a limited U.S. anti-missile defence system, which envisages the deployment of interceptor missiles on Alaska, is in reality called upon to neutralise the few dozens of Chinese missiles aimed at America. This will upset the balance of nuclear containment forces and Beijing cannot put up with this

The forces sent to the Korean area, including the stealth bombers was done as a measure to prevent the North Koreans from taking advantage fo the majority of US forces in iraq. They didn't want the North Koreans to take advantage of the US forces being in combat elsewhere so it was a show of force that we are still watching.

during the eighties Iran realized they lived next to a madman. and yes, they were our sworn enemy for reasons only they knew. after 1991 however, there was absolutely no reason for them to be concerned with a nuclear first strike from the U.S.. coincidentally, thats when they began to seriously come on line in a nuclear fashion vesa vi Abdul Q. Khan and Pakistan. some say to strike Israel, others say to defend themselves from Saddam. since we know a couple things for certain, that Saddam is out of the picture and we do not strike unless being struck first, that leaves Israel. within reasonable certainty and logically, a delivery system and a nuclear bomb go hand in hand (why else would you have bomb?) we know exactly what their current missile arsenal is capable of and now we've been told that they want to put a bomb on a delivery system. it just happens that their best missile has an 800 mile range.

Iran has a right to defend themselves from anyone. their many nuclear facilities are not fair game for Israel. but history does not favor a terrorist state like Iran.

as far as DPRNK is concerned, Bush 41 pulled back all nukes off the peninsula 1991. we cannot be responsible for idiot like Kim Jong Il to develop nukes after that fact. he knows damn well that we can strike anywhere on the planet from anywhere on the planet only as a retaliation from said nuke. he figures nukes are more like chips at a poker table where he can cash them in to feed his regime first and his people last.

so the reasoning that Iran and DPRNK are just developing nukes to defend themselves from a war-mongering Texan is not even a fraction of the story.

I guess you people have never seen Dr. Strangelove.

"Zee point of zee ultimate doomsday weapon, is that everyone knows you have zee ultimate doomsday weapon" - Dr. Strangelove -

Personally, the nuclear cat has been let out of the proverbial bag and once the rest of the world catches up to speed things should be a little more fair and equal. I know if I lived in a country without nuclear tech I'd want my government to develop it. If not it would be like saying; I know you guys have sniper rifles but we don't want to seem like a threat to your security or be viewed as a "rogue" nation so we'll just keep using these pointy sticks, they work pretty well.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Not lies (assuming the source is correct), but open to interpretation.

Which is exactly what the North Koreans do - and why I understand their actions.

quote:

Originally posted by BadBadNeil Of course the S Koreans and Americans play war games, they are severly undermatched in terms of manpower and there is enough artillery aimed at seoul to destroy it in hours. They have to be ready to work together in the case of the break of the ceasefire.

The problem with the North Korean firepower is exactly that it is devastating in the course of some hours. A couple of nukes can wipe out a million troops in less than an instant, and the same goes for heavy guns.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo since we know a couple things for certain, that Saddam is out of the picture and we do not strike unless being struck first,

Ahh, come on. Vietnam? Iraq? Serbia? Iraq again? Did any of those strike you first? What? You meant *nuclear* strike? What about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo as far as DPRNK is concerned, Bush 41 pulled back all nukes off the peninsula 1991. we cannot be responsible for idiot like Kim Jong Il to develop nukes after that fact. he knows damn well that we can strike anywhere on the planet from anywhere on the planet only as a retaliation from said nuke.

Maybe that's exactly what he knows - and he figures that the US won't attack him if he has the ability of sending at least one nuke in your direction. Kim Jong is definately a psycho, but that does not automatically make him a fool.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo he figures nukes are more like chips at a poker table where he can cash them in to feed his regime first and his people last. so the reasoning that Iran and DPRNK are just developing nukes to defend themselves from a war-mongering Texan is not even a fraction of the story.

It is a fraction of the story, but not as little as you would like to make it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic That being said, I would like to take up your challenge Yoepus: First I'll adress your insinuation that North Korea is the rogue state threatening the world for no reason. I couldn't be bothered with searching for Internet-sources very long, so the one I got is written in a fairly biased language. The facts mentioned in the article stands solid enough though:

Heh.

I was right, you would make a good palestinian revisionist:

First if the recent historical case doesn't match, go farther back in history until you stumble on a point of time where your case might be valid.

Next, use one-sided biased sources to make your claim.

Third, blame America.



I wouldn't be suprised if some new job opprotunities open up for you...

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Ahh, come on. Vietnam? Iraq? Serbia? Iraq again? Did any of those strike you first? What? You meant *nuclear* strike? What about Hiroshima? Nagasaki?

Vietnam. a clusterfuck? yes. communist imperialism tends to foster that in us.

Iraq. Iraqi imperialism fought by the UN. not to mention the fact that at that same time Saddam, their sworn enemy, no longer posed a threat to them yet their nuclear ambitions mushroomed. pun intended.

Serbia. UN also, had nothing to do with a balance of power regionaly or globally, at least not in a way that would impress an already burgeoning nuclear power.

their are way too many reasons for a sane person accept Iran's nuclear ambitions as a malevolent export. and after thinking about it, it's my opinion that their delivery system development is aimed at Israel above all other targets. but one cannot ignore the obvious terror question.

quote:

Maybe that's exactly what he knows - and he figures that the US won't attack him if he has the ability of sending at least one nuke in your direction. Kim Jong is definately a psycho, but that does not automatically make him a fool.

what kind of fool can't even feed his own people but has no problem extorting the free world with nuclear weapons? let's not even mention his government is in the political stone age. your feelings for my country has distorted your perceptions on just what is exactly at stake here. have you thought about Japan's interest in all this? how about China?
S. Korea? you call him a psycho but i get the feeling that there is some sort of admiration you have for someone that has gotten my country's attention with the worlds most deadly of weapons for the sole purpose getting attention.

quote:

It is a fraction of the story, but not as little as you would like to make it.

fraction being a figure of speech, all i meant was that there is a lot more to this than just hating this or previous administrations.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.