Nuclear free world?

[kactus]

The effort did begin (long ago) with the "chief players", and continues to this day. The risk is correctly focused on proliferation and unstable governments or actors possessing nuclear weapons, not because of the puny kiloton risk they represent, but because of the likely ramifications of counterstrikes and alliances.

Many Canadians don't even realize that nuclear weapons were deployed in country as late as 1984.

Hmm George Bush fitted the bill quite nicely. Are you telling me he wasn't an actor?A terrible one if you asked me.

A bit of an Orwellian touch!

Edited April 12, 2009 by kactus

[kactus]

can't wait till North Korea and Iran have them as well.

With the exception of the former neither can I dude!

Edited April 12, 2009 by kactus

[myata]

Unfortunately it is the "fringe scapegoats" who present the threat.

Good thinking. Somebody who doesn't even have these weapons, is a threat, while others, who got them in their ,000, and tested them numerous times, and demonstrated that they'd use them, and/or actually used them against humans, are the poor threatened bunnies.

I believe.

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmm George Bush fitted the bill quite nicely. Are you telling me he wasn't an actor?A terrible one if you asked me.

A bit of an Orwellian touch!

This has nothing to do with George Bush....but if you insist on challenging his acting skills...just ask Saddam Hussein.

Edited April 12, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

Good thinking. Somebody who doesn't even have these weapons, is a threat, while others, who got them in their ,000, and tested them numerous times, and demonstrated that they'd use them, and/or actually used them against humans, are the poor threatened bunnies.

I believe.

It may be news to you but the allies didn't start WW2. Do you honestly believe that Germany and Japan wouldn't have used nuclear weapons if they had had them? The US used them twice and they ended the war. The estimated loss of life from an invasion of Japan was much higher than the number of deaths they caused. You can bet the majority of casualties resulting from such an invasion would have been Japanese civilians. Not to mention the additional deaths caused by starvation and disease which would have resulted from further extending the war.

Are you against gun control then because you believe the more people who have them, the safer we are? Or do you feel we would be much safer if we took them away from our police and military as well?

I'm having some difficulty in understanding what you feel would make the world a safer place in view of the fact we can't uninvent nuclear weapons and knowing that to date, the two most destructive wars in history were not nuclear wars.

[Wilber]

With the exception of the former neither can I dude!

You will have to explain to me why you think the Mullahs and Imadinnerjacket having nukes will make the world a safer place.

[KrustyKidd]

Wilber

can't wait till North Korea and Iran have them as well.

kactus

With the exception of the former neither can I dude!

I am sure that many on the extreme far right in both the US and Isarael agree with you.

[myata]

It may be news to you but the allies didn't start WW2. Do you honestly believe that Germany and Japan wouldn't have used nuclear weapons if they had had them? The US used them twice and they ended the war. The estimated loss of life from an invasion of Japan was much higher than the number of deaths they caused. You can bet the majority of casualties resulting from such an invasion would have been Japanese civilians. Not to mention the additional deaths caused by starvation and disease which would have resulted from further extending the war.

I have little doubt that almost any act imaginable in this world can be rationalized with only three arguments:

#1 "It's for your own good"

#2 "It's for the better good"

#3 "It would have been worse if we did not do it"

Note that all three have 100% moral foundation, from the standpoint of the executor.

Are you against gun control then because you believe the more people who have them, the safer we are? Or do you feel we would be much safer if we took them away from our police and military as well?

If we implicitly assume that somebody (or something?) have appointed us the police of this world? Otherwise, another model would apply: somebody(ies) got to the pie first, and they are extremely unhappy if it had to be shared (the pie = power balance of course).

I'm having some difficulty in understanding what you feel would make the world a safer place in view of the fact we can't uninvent nuclear weapons and knowing that to date, the two most destructive wars in history were not nuclear wars.

And what could the war resulted from e.g Cuba crisis have been? Are we in any rush to find out?

To make my position 100% clear. Other than Russia and the US, nobody appears to have more than a few hundred nukes. How about this: 1) US and Russa agree to reduce their store to below 1,000 of nukes (both active and "decomissioned"). 2) some kind of discussion to assure a safer future for us all, begins.

[Wilber]

I have little doubt that almost any act imaginable in this world can be rationalized with only three arguments:

#1 "It's for your own good"

#2 "It's for the better good"

#3 "It would have been worse if we did not do it"

Note that all three have 100% moral foundation, from the standpoint of the executor.

Yes, I'm sure that's how the Axis justified starting WW2 and how the Nazi's justified the Holocaust. You're the one talking about a moral foundation, not me. Mine is the first generation in nearly 200 years that hasn't had to go to war. Whether you like it or not, nukes and MAD are the reason why. If you want to harbour some sort of guilt complex over that, fill your boots. I'm just extremely grateful that I, my kids and grandkids haven't had to experience what my parents and grandparents went through.

If we implicitly assume that somebody (or something?) have appointed us the police of this world? Otherwise, another model would apply: somebody(IRS) got to the pie first, and they are extremely unhappy if it had to be shared (the pie = power balance of course).

Someone has to be. There was a period post dating the Roman Empire when there wasn't. It was called the Dark Ages.

And what could the war resulted from e.g Cuba crisis have been? Are we in any rush to find out?

To make my position 100% clear. Other than Russia and the US, nobody appears to have more than a few hundred nukes. How about this: 1) US and Russ agree to reduce their store to below 1,000 of nukes (both active and "decommissioned"). 2) some kind of discussion to assure a safer future for us all, begins.

One didn't, that's the point. Clearly they are not in a rush to find out. Why on earth would you want to put them on an equal footing with North Korea and Iran when it comes to nuclear capability? You can't honestly believe that would make the world safer. If you believe that even a limited nuclear war is unthinkable, the prospect of total annihilation should someone be tempted to try it, is far more likely to prevent one.

[KrustyKidd]

Myata

To make my position 100% clear. Other than Russia and the US, nobody appears to have more than a few hundred nukes. How about this: 1) US and Russ agree to reduce their store to below 1,000 of nukes (both active and "decommissioned"). 2) some kind of discussion to assure a safer future for us all, begins.

Bad idea. Many missiles are aimed at missile sites and launching platforms in each other's countries and so, more missiles are needed to ensure that in case one platform is compromised, another will still provide the detterent required by having full capability of destroying the enemy. Thus, the more there are in this case, the safer we are in that nobody gets any bright ideas of attemting a first strike, as it would simply result in their own destruction.

It is a rationale that many peaceniks miscontrue by saying that there is no reason to have the capability to destroy the world several times over. In fact, there is no intention to do that but rather, to be one hundred percent sure that they, and we, can both retaliate with full certain destructive capability no matter what, or, even if ninty percent of the retaliatory capability is destroyed. In this way, nobody even thinks about second guessing the other.

It's called peace and, as one poster observed, it has keep this peace for more than a half century. To lower the amounts of weapons is to create an imbalance that one side may try to exploit and thereing lies the danger. Another danger is that while these countries are stable, other countries such as North Korea and Iran are not. To state that they have the right to nuclear arms is wrong when there is no intent on the parts of these regimes to use them as a responsible detterent, but rather a means to intimidate neighbors who do not have these devices.

[tango]

In their London talks, Obama and Medvedev launched a milestone quest to slash their nuclear arsenals ...

...

They also discussed U.S. plans for a missile defence shield, based in former communist-bloc countries which are now members of NATO and the European Union, like the Czech Republic.

...

"Such defence measures should be carried out jointly" between Washington and Moscow.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Obama+get...0033/story.html

I'm reposting this as it provides information about what the plan actually is.

Better to discuss what is instead of speculating.

[kactus]

You will have to explain to me why you think the Mullahs and Imadinnerjacket having nukes will make the world a safer place.

Funny you mention this! I kinda do! And it doesn't bother me at all if they have a nuke or two.

Certainly with all the sabre rattlings and constant threats of an attack by Israel it does push them to become more vigilant. To say the least, the country's neighbours are invaded by the US forces coupled with the fact that if they have the nuclear capability it would make them deterrent against any eventual attacks. That kinda makes the rationale given the situation with North Korea. As for your comment regarding Ahmadinejad he is just a figure head and a mouthpiece and does not hold the real authority. In short the option of attacking Iran far outweighs benefits and opportunities. It's just how we are gonna have to accept to live with it. And that's my opinion.

[KrustyKidd]

Funny you mention this! I kinda do! And it doesn't bother me at all if they have a nuke or two.

Certainly with all the sabre rattlings and constant threats of an attack by Israel it does push them to become more vigilant. To say the least, the country's neighbours are invaded by the US forces coupled with the fact that if they have the nuclear capability it would make them deterrent against any eventual attacks.

Doesn't bother me either as, if it ever comes to pass will be a short lived event. As for a US attack, them having one nuclear weapon which would q2uickly become a puddle of waste on the first wave provides squat for detterence, rather, it makes them more of a target.

In short the option of attacking Iran far outweighs benefits and opportunities. It's just how we are gonna have to accept to live with it. And that's my opinion.

We're not going to live with it. Either is Israel.

[Wilber]

Funny you mention this! I kinda do! And it doesn't bother me at all if they have a nuke or two.

Certainly with all the sabre rattlings and constant threats of an attack by Israel it does push them to become more vigilant. To say the least, the country's neighbours are invaded by the US forces coupled with the fact that if they have the nuclear capability it would make them deterrent against any eventual attacks. That kinda makes the rationale given the situation with North Korea. As for your comment regarding Ahmadinejad he is just a figure head and a mouthpiece and does not hold the real authority. In short the option of attacking Iran far outweighs benefits and opportunities. It's just how we are gonna have to accept to live with it. And that's my opinion.

I am much less concerned with Ahmadinejad than the people behind him. Israel has had nukes for over thirty years and has shown no indication they might use them unless in danger of being overrun. This hasn't stopped them from being attacked. No one has threatened North Korea with invasion or nuclear weapons. It was the North that invaded the South in 1950 remember. In the dark days McArthur wanted to use nukes but Truman refused. Are you comfortable feeling the same way about North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria? My point is, the more people who have these things, the more likely you will eventually be proved wrong.

[kactus]

I am much less concerned with Ahmadinejad than the people behind him. Israel has had nukes for over thirty years and has shown no indication they might use them unless in danger of being overrun. This hasn't stopped them from being attacked. No one has threatened North Korea with invasion or nuclear weapons. It was the North that invaded the South in 1950 remember. In the dark days McArthur wanted to use nukes but Truman refused. Are you comfortable feeling the same way about North Korea, Iran, Iraq and Syria? My point is, the more people who have these things, the more likely you will eventually be proved wrong.

Trust me I have read so many posts and scenarios on Iran ever since after the invasion of Iraq that frankly I have grown a thick skin and got used to to the same rhetorics on Israel is gonna do this and Israel is gonna do that. People feel inclined to write based on certain preconceptions about this subject and I can honestly say that I have been through so many threads on this forum where likely scenarios of an imminenet attack has been discussed bu doesn't resemble the reality/ hasn't born fruition. It's not my job to convince you of what I think but it's necessary to see things from different perspectives!

I respect your opinion it's just that when people talk about each of these countries one should take the the geo-strategic and demographics of each of these nations into consideration. Just simply lump them as evil, terrorists, axis of evil is naive and counter-productive.

[Wilber]

Trust me I have read so many posts and scenarios on Iran ever since after the invasion of Iraq that frankly I have grown a thick skin and got used to to the same rhetorics on Israel is gonna do this and Israel is gonna do that. People feel inclined to write based on certain preconceptions about this subject and I can honestly say that I have been through so many threads on this forum where likely scenarios of an imminenet attack has been discussed bu doesn't resemble the reality/ hasn't born fruition. It's not my job to convince you of what I think but it's necessary to see things from different perspectives!

I respect your opinion it's just that when people talk about each of these countries one should take the the geo-strategic and demographics of each of these nations into consideration. Just simply lump them as evil, terrorists, axis of evil is naive and counter-productive.

I'm just saying the more people have nukes, the more likely one will be used. Same goes for any weapon. If people didn't think that, why does anyone believe there is an need for gun control.

As for Iran needing nukes because of Israel, the logic escapes me. Has anyone looked at a map? There is no way they can get at each other with out violating someone else's airspace, invading each other is totally out of the question. Why would anyone think that Israel would launch a nuclear first strike against Iran? What possible reason could they have for doing so? It is geographically impossible for Iran to invade Israel or vice versa. Does anyone think that a nuclear response from Iran to a conventional attack by Israel would be justified? If so, they are the truly scary ones.

Considering the present instability in Pakistan are you comfortable with the idea that they possess nuclear weapons? I'm not and it isn't because I believe they are all terrorists or evil people because of course that is not the case. Right now I would probably be a little more comfortable with Iran having nukes than Pakistan but either way, more countries in possession of nuclear weapons is not a good thing, particularly in that part of the world.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Note that all three have 100% moral foundation, from the standpoint of the executor.

Morality is irrelevant in such matters.....think means (capability) and geo-political will.

If we implicitly assume that somebody (or something?) have appointed us the police of this world? Otherwise, another model would apply: somebody(ies) got to the pie first, and they are extremely unhappy if it had to be shared (the pie = power balance of course).

Such an appointment only exists in relative terms. The Unitd States acts in self interest, just like any other nation state.....and sometimes that does include "sharing" (e.g. UK SLBMs)

....To make my position 100% clear. Other than Russia and the US, nobody appears to have more than a few hundred nukes. How about this: 1) US and Russa agree to reduce their store to below 1,000 of nukes (both active and "decomissioned"). 2) some kind of discussion to assure a safer future for us all, begins.

What is a safer future? Does that include asteroid impact or global pandemic? By comparison, motor vehicle death and injury are a more pressing matter.

Edited April 13, 2009 by bush_cheney2004

[JerrySeinfeld]

I'm all on board, 100%. Or even 110%.

But how and why did the conversation almost immediately shifted to N.Korea and Iran?

Can somebody do simple math? No, rather, basic arithmetics?

So, is it the new vision for the world? Or still the old tired "see no evil"?

cooombaya m'lord

coooombaya.....

keep sing, my friend.

meanwhile the yellowcake keeps gettin' enriched and the Ayatollahs keep chirpin.

Is Obama a President? or a teenager who's been sittin in his dorm too long listening to "Imagine"?

[bush_cheney2004]

Is Obama a President? or a teenager who's been sittin in his dorm too long listening to "Imagine"?

Agreed....President Obama just passed his first brush with Jimmy Carter disease....there will be others.

[kactus]

I'm just saying the more people have nukes, the more likely one will be used. Same goes for any weapon. If people didn't think that, why does anyone believe there is an need for gun control.

Agreed! This is not an ideal scenario and infact I argue if the whole middle east becomes a nuclear free zone. But you know very well that realistically this isn't possible. If you look at the countries along the persian gulf for example and the amount of military hardware they have bought in the past few years you will realise that the entire region is almost turning into a military zone. With the amount of money invested by arm dealers and US companies in Israel and other middle eastern countries it will put them out of lucrative business of selling the key parts to these countries.

As for Iran needing nukes because of Israel, the logic escapes me.

Why? Israel has said repeatedly that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran and has warned that it will use nuclear bunker busters in the past. This is one of those plans that has been binned because of the ramifications.

Has anyone looked at a map? There is no way they can get at each other with out violating someone else's airspace, invading each other is totally out of the question.

Absolutely! But who is talking about invasion?

Why would anyone think that Israel would launch a nuclear first strike against Iran? What possible reason could they have for doing so?

Israelis have threatened to do so in Jan 2007. Infact thay have been discussing an attack on Iran for a while. Israel has had several jets flown around mediterranean region which is about approximately the same distance from Israel to Iran.

It is geographically impossible for Iran to invade Israel or vice versa.

Not disputing that statement.

Does anyone think that a nuclear response from Iran to a conventional attack by Israel would be justified? If so, they are the truly scary ones.

1- Where's the evidence that Iran has nuclear bomb?

2- Suppose there's an answer to question 1 which no body has a proof why should Israel attack Iran? Let me rephrase your question: Why should Iran deploy a nuclear bomb on Israel without being provoked in the first place and kill jews and palestinians and destroy all those religious places that is held sacred to both religions in the process?

Considering the present instability in Pakistan are you comfortable with the idea that they possess nuclear weapons?

I have made my position clear about nuclear free middle east but since your subject is shifting outside the middle east maybe that rule should also extend to other countries like Pakistan. I agree that Pakistan in the current state is more of a danger and unstable. especially with their relationship with taliban and intelligence sharing, which is not helpful. But you see you can not apply one formula to one country whilst India neighbouring Pakistan has several nuclear warheads at its disposal. Lots of fightings call it religious or the geo-politics of the region is the cause of rivalry between India and Pakistan to this very day.

I'm not and it isn't because I believe they are all terrorists or evil people because of course that is not the case. Right now I would probably be a little more comfortable with Iran having nukes than Pakistan but either way, more countries in possession of nuclear weapons is not a good thing, particularly in that part of the world.

Neither am I! But middle east affair is not two dimensional and it takes a lot more indepth knowledge of the region and other events happening right now that shapes the current affairs.

I don't know where I read this. A middle east or rather near east analyst wrote it:

If you take the analogy of a spectacle, Israel is like that spectacle through which US views middle east and shapes the foreign policy. Or something to that extent. Now I am not going to get dragged into palestinian/ israeli conflict but these words speak a volume on the way people see things differently.

[Wilber]

Why? Israel has said repeatedly that it will not tolerate a nuclear Iran and has warned that it will use nuclear bunker busters in the past. This is one of those plans that has been binned because of the ramifications.

Exactly, it was posturing.

1- Where's the evidence that Iran has nuclear bomb?

2- Suppose there's an answer to question 1 which no body has a proof why should Israel attack Iran? Let me rephrase your question: Why should Iran deploy a nuclear bomb on Israel without being provoked in the first place and kill jews and palestinians and destroy all those religious places that is held sacred to both religions in the process?

So why would they need and want one. The problem with nukes is that unless you have the capability to totally destroy another nuclear power it is a mugs game, all it can do for you is ensure your own destruction if you decide to use one. Even if Iran did become a low level nuclear power, one Trident sub somewhere under the Indian Ocean could make Iran disappear.

I have made my position clear about nuclear free middle east but since your subject is shifting outside the middle east maybe that rule should also extend to other countries like Pakistan. I agree that Pakistan in the current state is more of a danger and unstable. especially with their relationship with taliban and intelligence sharing, which is not helpful. But you see you can not apply one formula to one country whilst India neighbouring Pakistan has several nuclear warheads at its disposal. Lots of fightings call it religious or the geo-politics of the region is the cause of rivalry between India and Pakistan to this very day.

I agree that Pakistan has nukes primarily because of their relationship with India but where has it got either of them other than to live in a much more dangerous place. Any border dispute between them now has the potential to escalate into a nuclear exchange. Well done boys and girls.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Iran has provided both Hamas and Hezbollah (terrorist groups) with the most advanced weapons it possibly can for over 30 years with impunity, shipping those weapons through syria to the ultimate destination.

hese groups are essentially proxies for Iran and have used every weapon that has been made available to them.

Iran hates Israel and has a stated goal of eliminating Israel from existence and it's proxies both Hezbollah and Hamas have consistently an publically shown a penchant for continued violence even in the form of suicidal attacks on innocent jewish civilians.

WIth this history, I find it laughable that someone would question the validity of fearing a nuclear Iran. Given both Hezbollah's Hamas' and Iran's well documented history of "walking the walk" when it comes to using every weapon at it's disposal, not just talking the talk, the question isn't

"what makes you think Iran would use nukes on Israel", but rather, either directly or by giving nuks to it's proxies:

"what makes you think they wouldn't?"

[kactus]

"what makes you think they wouldn't?"

MAD

[kactus]

So why would they need and want one.

Again that was just a hypothesis that is based on threats from Israel to attack Iran. If nuclear bomb makes you detterent then you will think twice about attacking another country. This is a valid point when countries know they have the capability but depolying the weapons tantamounts to their own total destruction.

The problem with nukes is that unless you have the capability to totally destroy another nuclear power it is a mugs game, all it can do for you is ensure your own destruction if you decide to use one. Even if Iran did become a low level nuclear power, one Trident sub somewhere under the Indian Ocean could make Iran disappear.

Exactly! But it also acts as a deterrent and makes people think twice. Now I am not saying this is true in the case of Iran as there's no case to even substantiate the validity of the claim that they are in possession of a nuclear bomb. All we can do is to think of scenarios and just have a hog wash talk about the mullahs, terrorists, nuclear devices falling into the hands of hezbollah, and bla bla bla. The mullahs may be fanatics but they certainly are not stupid!

I agree that Pakistan has nukes primarily because of their relationship with India but where has it got either of them other than to live in a much more dangerous place. Any border dispute between them now has the potential to escalate into a nuclear exchange. Well done boys and girls.

Yes, but it was inevitable that Pakistan's possession of that technology is gonna happen sooner than later. Both countries know fully well the consequences of an attack will result in MAD but it was inevitable that Pakistan would eventually become nuclear. Call it from their perspective having a prestige to join a nuclear club, to leverage their power in the region or any other scenarios.

Edited April 14, 2009 by kactus

[DogOnPorch]

Iran with the A-Bomb actually violates the 'perfect rationality' portion of the MAD doctrine. Iran, afterall, is a religious theocracy which is currently awaiting the (re)appearance of the 12th Imam...perhaps an A-Bomb will speed that wait up.