|
Iran joins nuclear technology club (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| psychosomatica |
| Everyone should be allowed to have their nukes. Otherwise, some people will go on bullying other people i.e. airstrikes in foreign countries. I won't name names... that would just be inflammatory. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
Everyone should be allowed to have their nukes. |
Sorry but that's just stupid. |
|
|
| zokissima |
| It will be interesting to see where this goes. |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
Sorry but that's just stupid. |
Okay. So we should just keep the power to a select few. Great idea... as if jealousy has never been an issue in the past. |
|
|
| TheVrk |
| quote: | Originally posted by spitty
there are seven countries that are known to have exploded nuclear weapons; the United States of America, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India and Pakistan, while Israel is suspect. |
Obviously Israel has them |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
Okay. So we should just keep the power to a select few. Great idea... as if jealousy has never been an issue in the past. |
I'd rather deal with jealousy than unstable states who could use nukes at any given time just because their leader is too caught up in his own idealogical issues. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
Also, NK is restrained by China from doing anything really stupid and if Kim Jong Il (current NK leader) does something stupid, China will intervene with military if necessary.
China has too much economic relationship with Japan and South Korea to allow NK to do something stupid.
Iran on the other hand... Well, any leader of a nation who says stupid things like what he's been saying deserves a punch in the balls. Repeatly.
Scary part is I do not believe no one exactly understands why Iran chose to make noise at this time. (Maybe Iran is going for leadership of an anti US allaince) |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
Everyone should be allowed to have their nukes. Otherwise, some people will go on bullying other people i.e. airstrikes in foreign countries. I won't name names... that would just be inflammatory. |
Well, this depends on whether there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' on this planet.
While nations are driven by self interest, and there are so many shades of grey in modern world politics, we, as Canadians, are still allied with particular nations so does that mean we're allied with the 'good guys' or not?
I dunno about you, but I'd rather be buddies of US and UK than Iran or North Korea or Zimbabwe. |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| quote: | Originally posted by infinity HiGH
I'd rather deal with jealousy than unstable states who could use nukes at any given time just because their leader is too caught up in his own idealogical issues. |
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was something called the "Cold War" and in this "Cold War" there was definitely enough nuclear power to level the planet. It didn't happen because people suddenly realized they had responsibility along with their new found power. Same goes with India and Pakistan.
| quote: | Well, this depends on whether there are 'good guys' and 'bad guys' on this planet.
While nations are driven by self interest, and there are so many shades of grey in modern world politics, we, as Canadians, are still allied with particular nations so does that mean we're allied with the 'good guys' or not?
I dunno about you, but I'd rather be buddies of US and UK than Iran or North Korea or Zimbabwe. |
I wasn't really referring to good guys or bad guys. It's really all about people in inferior positions trying to catch up to those in the superior positions. Those in the superior positions usually use/abuse their positions for self-interest, leaving the inferiors behind. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was something called the "Cold War" and in this "Cold War" there was definitely enough nuclear power to level the planet. It didn't happen because people suddenly realized they had responsibility along with their new found power. Same goes with India and Pakistan. |
Well, the threat of your country being turned into a parking lot if you ever use a nuke against another country is pretty good safe measure.
| quote: |
I wasn't really referring to good guys or bad guys. It's really all about people in inferior positions trying to catch up to those in the superior positions. Those in the superior positions usually use/abuse their positions for self-interest, leaving the inferiors behind. |
And having a nuke will certainly give 'inferior' powers same clout as the 'superior' powers? Unless a nation can develop strong enough conventional military to project its power globally (and only nation that can effectively do that is US atm) it's pointless having a nuke, other than for propaganda and deterring other nation from invading yours. Even then, using nuke for self defence will probably turn the entire world against you.
Unless a nation has economic power to back up its military power, it's pointless having a weapon that you'll mostly likely not use. (And bloody expensive too) Having a nuke doesn't give automatic economic advantages. (You can ask North Korea how that worked out for them) |
|
|
| Moral Hazard |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
Perhaps you've forgotten that there was something called the "Cold War" and in this "Cold War" there was definitely enough nuclear power to level the planet. It didn't happen because people suddenly realized they had responsibility along with their new found power. Same goes with India and Pakistan. |
Perhaps you have forgotten about the nuclear deterant system we've come to know and love as "mutually assured destruction". The nuclear arms race was predicated on this theory. Each "side" wanted to possess sufficient enough weapons to assure that their opponant would be completely destroyed if they were ever to use nuclear weapons against them. Due to the time lag between the launching of ICBMs and their arrival at target there was sufficient time for any offensive move to be detected and responded too. The response in all probablility would be a launching of all warheads as it would be impossible to launch any warheads after the detonation of the enemy's missles. All sides knew this, if they ever attacked another nuclear power (or their allies) with nuclear weapons the end result would be the total destruction of their own nation. That is why no one ever launched the missles.
The unfortunate reality with a country such as Iran, driven by ideology, is that they may believe their destruction to be fair trade for the advancement of their ideological beliefs. See, the cold war was about territory and people aren't willing to destroy the territory they already have in order to aquire more territory therefore the MAD theory works. Iran doesn't care about territory, they are driven by theology. People are willing to die for theology, and a theocratic country such as Iran could, conceivably, be willing to destroy itself for theology. |
|
|
| infinity HiGH |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
Perhaps you've forgotten |
No actually I haven't forgotten but thanks for reminding me anyways what this "Cold War" was about. Also, these are two completely different situations. The USSR, nor the States, would risk sending out their nukes because if they did, that would mean their own destruction. That was never an option. In this case though, death is an option.
edit: what Moral said. |
|
|
|
|
