Nuclear weapons: Can they be stopped?
- Thread starter yasin_khan
- Start date
Admin edit: DELETED COMMENTS
Although my knowledge on this issue is limited in comparisonto gary and some of theother guys doesn't mean im not entitledto my opinion, i mean regardless of what garysays, i still think th NPT isn't fair, and i dont think that opinion will ever change.
AND regarding the fact that the american view that a nuke war was not winnable, their actions suggest and lead many to conclude thay constantly attemepted to outdo teh russians in terms of wuantuity and quality throughout the cold war, so their view is nothing, it is a matter of the actions that one must judge them by.
Although my knowledge on this issue is limited in comparisonto gary and some of theother guys doesn't mean im not entitledto my opinion, i mean regardless of what garysays, i still think th NPT isn't fair, and i dont think that opinion will ever change.
AND regarding the fact that the american view that a nuke war was not winnable, their actions suggest and lead many to conclude thay constantly attemepted to outdo teh russians in terms of wuantuity and quality throughout the cold war, so their view is nothing, it is a matter of the actions that one must judge them by.
kashifshahzad
Banned Member
all the countries of the world have the right to keep and aquire the nuclear technology caz if the other big powers can hold this technology the other also wan to make their defence unbreakable :smokingc:
:cop
Admin: Please note the topic title. Do not drag your own poltical bugs into the conversation - this is not about Israel.
read the rules about posting!
:cop
Admin: Please note the topic title. Do not drag your own poltical bugs into the conversation - this is not about Israel.
read the rules about posting!
What really gets to people in India, is the presumption that the big 5 and the developed world is the sole repository of safe nuclear power/nuke weaponsand its responsible use. The US has dropped the bomb, France killed a billion fishes in the pacific in tests, the russians!less said the better, the UK could not properly cool Trafalgar and Swiftsure class nuclear submarines at one time, japan has had a string of nuclear mishaps.China, god knows!
Its as if the ICBMS/MRBMS of the west have warheads and MIRVS designed to drop chrysthanemums and the conning towers of the Subs are manned by a nanny.Sounds odd that the word restraint comes from countries who pioneered thousand bomber raids, city busting, dam busting carpet bombing ,napalm et al!
As long as some countries want nuclear weapons and that too as a right everybody else will want them.
Its as if the ICBMS/MRBMS of the west have warheads and MIRVS designed to drop chrysthanemums and the conning towers of the Subs are manned by a nanny.Sounds odd that the word restraint comes from countries who pioneered thousand bomber raids, city busting, dam busting carpet bombing ,napalm et al!
As long as some countries want nuclear weapons and that too as a right everybody else will want them.
Its not like that,
US reduced its Nuclear weapons Stockpile after Soviet Union Collapsed.
But they cannot remove all of their weapons becoz they need to maintain Minimum Deterrence against Countries like China and Russia.
Take the Example of China,I think China did help N.Korea with Ballistic Missile and Nuclear tech.
US accuses A.Q khan of selling Nuclear Tech to other countries.
After Sometime Iran will become Nuclear Power.
Then Countries like Iran and N.korea will begin giving Nuclear tech to other countries.
This Continues as far as till Terrorist.
After Some years whats the Guarantee that Terrorists are not going to get Nuke if Iran and N.korea are allowed to build Nukes.
Secondly if we observe Countries like US,UK,Russia etc they have a Nuclear Doctrine which they follow Strictly,Command of Nukes is only with their Leader,Political Stability for most of the times.
Some Third World Country leaders do not have Complete Command of their Country,I mean some or the other rebellion groups will be there
What the guarantee that these country leader will have complete command of Nukes,I mean if the good Leader is overthrown and if dictator(anti-US) takes over all the Command nukes then it would be too late for US to do anything.
Thats Why If US gets the Complete assurance that these Countries will not sell Nuke tech to others and there is a Strict Command and Nuke Doctrine of the Country then US will allow them to make Nukes.
Right now there are officially 4 nations that are not part of the NPT. That's Pakistan, India, Israel, and Cuba. North Korea, I believe has pulled out, but I am not sure if that's "official".
Countries that participate get benefits. Signatory nations are allowed to transfer technology and develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, provided that is is done within the guidelines of the treaty and the safeguards are complied with.
Signatory nations do not have the "right" to develop weapons. If they do, they lose the benefits of the treaty and are subject to sanctions. That's what they agreed to when they signed on.
When countries like Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Iran develop clandestine weapons programs, they are breaking International law. Any transfer of materials or technology outside the safeguards is a violation if a signatory nation is involved, whether they be the seller or the buyer.
The presumption that all nations have the right to nuclear weapons is simply not true based on International law.
The objective of the NPT is to eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons for everyone, including the nuclear powers. Adding to the number of nukes in the world does nothing to promote the goals of the NPT.
Read the treaty.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
Countries that participate get benefits. Signatory nations are allowed to transfer technology and develop peaceful uses of nuclear energy, provided that is is done within the guidelines of the treaty and the safeguards are complied with.
Signatory nations do not have the "right" to develop weapons. If they do, they lose the benefits of the treaty and are subject to sanctions. That's what they agreed to when they signed on.
When countries like Iraq, North Korea, Libya, and Iran develop clandestine weapons programs, they are breaking International law. Any transfer of materials or technology outside the safeguards is a violation if a signatory nation is involved, whether they be the seller or the buyer.
The presumption that all nations have the right to nuclear weapons is simply not true based on International law.
The objective of the NPT is to eventually eliminate all nuclear weapons for everyone, including the nuclear powers. Adding to the number of nukes in the world does nothing to promote the goals of the NPT.
Read the treaty.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
mysterious
New Member
You seriously think US, Russia and China would give up their nukes (lets leave the others for the moment)?? NPT is rather useless.highsea said:
When we first discovered them, we placed sanctions, but they were dropped after the six days war. The so called "Pressler Amendment" passed by the US Congress requires that the US place sanctions on any nation that develops or proliferates nuclear weapons, and that's why the US put sanctions on Pakistan and India.redsoulja said:
This year Bush signed an executive order that exempts India and Pakistan from the law, which effectively lifted the sanctions on them. When Libya gave up their ambitions for nukes and made reparations for the downing of Pan-Am 103, we lifted the sanctions on them.
The only ME countries on the sanctions list today are Iran and Syria.
No, they were never deployed. The USN blockaded Cuba. Khruschev backed down, and the Soviet ships turned around. The components that were in Cuba were removed. Cuba doesn't have any missiles capable of hitting the US. They may have a few Soviet era SAM's, but Russia hasn't sold them anything modern.
Before Bush 2, relations with Cuba were thawing. Cuba was a popular vacation spot with Americans, even though it was technically illegal to spend money there. But the Cuban people love Americans, and Havana harbor used to be packed with yachties from the US. Nowadays it's empty, because the Navy is intercepting yachts from the US and turning them back.
Before Bush 2, relations with Cuba were thawing. Cuba was a popular vacation spot with Americans, even though it was technically illegal to spend money there. But the Cuban people love Americans, and Havana harbor used to be packed with yachties from the US. Nowadays it's empty, because the Navy is intercepting yachts from the US and turning them back.
mysterious
New Member
Ok, this might sound wierd but today I saw it in the news that certain companies are offering a "Canadian" package to Americans travelling to Cuba and other places (where anti-American feelings are a bit high) - and its in good demand by American tourists - which includes a shirt with a maple leaf on it and/or Canadian written on it and some other stuff identified as being Canadian so that they can enjoy their tourist vacations without being worried too much about their security. Totally wierd! :roll
Cubans are very friendly to Americans, and have been for years. It's only the governments that bicker. When an American enters Cuba, they give you a slip of paper to put in your passport so you don't have a stamp. Then when you leave, they just take the paper back. An American can't walk down the street without being offered a ride or an invitation to someones home.
There are lots of travel companies in Canada and Mexico that have packages for Americans who want to vacation in Cuba. It's always been a popular destination, especially if you like to fish (like me). Like I mentioned, before Bush 2, The Havana Yacht Club was full of boats from the US. From September to April, you couldn't get a slip without calling ahead. All of the Florida sportfishing fleet went there for billfishing. Sad now, it's empty. Bad for the local economy.
Almost all of the Carribean countries are that way, because they want the tourism. There are exceptions, the D.R. is not so great, but mostly because they will try to hustle you for money. Go to Bimini sometime, they will take you into their homes, and guard you on the streets at night to keep you from harm. They give you rides in their little golf carts if you are on foot, and if you want to walk, they will follow behind you till you get where you're going. They are very protective of their reputation, and the locals will do everything possible to kep a tourist from coming to harm.
I have traveled extensively throughout the carribean and Central America. Not one place did I encounter anti-American feelings, including Cuba. The only place I advise people to avoid right now is Guatemala, because it's dangerous. But El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama are all competing very hard for tourism from the US. Even Colombia is friendly to Americans, it's not at all like what you see in the news. You just have to avoid certain areas where the government doesn't have much control. But everyone avoids those areas anyway, they are controlled by drug cartels, and you risk being kidnapped for ransom.
I spent 4 months last winter traveling from Mexico all the way down to the border of Panama, and I have never had more fun and felt more welcome. I found them to be more friendly to Americans than Canada, and I have spent a lot of time in Canada.
There are lots of travel companies in Canada and Mexico that have packages for Americans who want to vacation in Cuba. It's always been a popular destination, especially if you like to fish (like me). Like I mentioned, before Bush 2, The Havana Yacht Club was full of boats from the US. From September to April, you couldn't get a slip without calling ahead. All of the Florida sportfishing fleet went there for billfishing. Sad now, it's empty. Bad for the local economy.
Almost all of the Carribean countries are that way, because they want the tourism. There are exceptions, the D.R. is not so great, but mostly because they will try to hustle you for money. Go to Bimini sometime, they will take you into their homes, and guard you on the streets at night to keep you from harm. They give you rides in their little golf carts if you are on foot, and if you want to walk, they will follow behind you till you get where you're going. They are very protective of their reputation, and the locals will do everything possible to kep a tourist from coming to harm.
I have traveled extensively throughout the carribean and Central America. Not one place did I encounter anti-American feelings, including Cuba. The only place I advise people to avoid right now is Guatemala, because it's dangerous. But El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama are all competing very hard for tourism from the US. Even Colombia is friendly to Americans, it's not at all like what you see in the news. You just have to avoid certain areas where the government doesn't have much control. But everyone avoids those areas anyway, they are controlled by drug cartels, and you risk being kidnapped for ransom.
I spent 4 months last winter traveling from Mexico all the way down to the border of Panama, and I have never had more fun and felt more welcome. I found them to be more friendly to Americans than Canada, and I have spent a lot of time in Canada.
US bombing at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The US were losing large numbers of young men fighting a country that started, repeat, started the war against the US. How many more would have died trying to take the Japanese homeland against a force that thought death was better than surrender, and a belief that death against ones enemies means a special place in the here after (sounds familiar with some current fundementalist thinking). The bombs cost Japanese lives, several hundred thousand including radiation deaths, but how many were dying each day due to the military refusing to surrender and how many Japanese would have died when the battle reached their homeland, women and children were exorted to defend their homeland to their death, millions? It probably saved 100.000's of US lives, 500,000 deaths was a fiqure I saw, that was expected in taking Japan. Remember too that not a lot was known about nuclear power at that time. There were plans to use nukes to build canals, for large scale teriforming back in the 1950's, read some of the Popular Mechanics from that era. They were stationing soldiers nearby to see what the effects of radiation were 10 years after the war. We know the long term effects now from nuclear weapons, that knowledge was rudimentary back in 1945, and anything that could cut years off the war and save lives was bound to be used.
You will not see unilateral nuclear disarmament until ALL nations do so, unilateral would open one up to nuclear blackmail.
Israel and the bomb.
I too notice that it is always anti US and Israel sentiment you see. Israel has not denied any Arab countries their right to exist, but most Arab countries deny Israel's right to so exist, I saw a saying somewhere that went like this "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace, if Israel laid down it's arms, it would cease to exist" In my opinion, Israel would be history but for the US and its own nukes. Same bias in the media, Israeli soldier shoots back at someone firing at them hiding among civilians and an innocent is killed, front page news, bad Israel, a suicide bomb goes off in a bus in Israel killing many children, or in a crowded shopping mall, hardly rates a mention or is excused.
Some exerts which frighten Israel into having nukes,
Iranian Leader Khamenai
In a Friday sermon, (15 December 2000, Iranian TV ) "...Iran's position which was first expressed by the Imam and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region."
In a Friday sermon (5 April 2002, Khabar TV )
"Support for suicide bombings and the weakening of Israel – Khamenai praised the behavior of the Palestinian mother who sends her child on a suicide mission ..."
Iranian President Khatemi
In a conference on the subject of the Koran in Iran,
(24 October 2000, Khabar TV )
"If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime… if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.â€
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm
When a small state is surrounded by much larger and populous states with views like this, self defence with whatever means seems the only way for survivial, and if Iran develops it's own nukes, that is a frightening thought if you are an Israeli.
BTW, I don't support Israel in some of it's actions, I am just trying to see things from their viewpoint.
If NK and Arab countries develop nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time before terrorist groups obtain them, a suicide bomber with a micro nuke is a situation that must never be allowed to develop, therefore the countries that would arm them must be stopped from developing nukes, and if they refuse inspections on their civil nuclear power systems, then they should be stopped from having them as well. Stopping the suicide bombers is next to impossible when disaffected youth are targeted with promises of 70 virgins, a permanent erection and eternal sex and pleasure in paradise when they are killed.
"one young bomber was found to have wrapped his genitals to keep them intact for the exotic heavenly thrills and pleasures awaiting him."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15733488%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2dthey%2dtried%2dto%2dmake%2dme%2da%2dsuicide%2dbomber-name_page.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4103
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=526
The US were losing large numbers of young men fighting a country that started, repeat, started the war against the US. How many more would have died trying to take the Japanese homeland against a force that thought death was better than surrender, and a belief that death against ones enemies means a special place in the here after (sounds familiar with some current fundementalist thinking). The bombs cost Japanese lives, several hundred thousand including radiation deaths, but how many were dying each day due to the military refusing to surrender and how many Japanese would have died when the battle reached their homeland, women and children were exorted to defend their homeland to their death, millions? It probably saved 100.000's of US lives, 500,000 deaths was a fiqure I saw, that was expected in taking Japan. Remember too that not a lot was known about nuclear power at that time. There were plans to use nukes to build canals, for large scale teriforming back in the 1950's, read some of the Popular Mechanics from that era. They were stationing soldiers nearby to see what the effects of radiation were 10 years after the war. We know the long term effects now from nuclear weapons, that knowledge was rudimentary back in 1945, and anything that could cut years off the war and save lives was bound to be used.
You will not see unilateral nuclear disarmament until ALL nations do so, unilateral would open one up to nuclear blackmail.
Israel and the bomb.
I too notice that it is always anti US and Israel sentiment you see. Israel has not denied any Arab countries their right to exist, but most Arab countries deny Israel's right to so exist, I saw a saying somewhere that went like this "If the Arabs laid down their arms, there would be peace, if Israel laid down it's arms, it would cease to exist" In my opinion, Israel would be history but for the US and its own nukes. Same bias in the media, Israeli soldier shoots back at someone firing at them hiding among civilians and an innocent is killed, front page news, bad Israel, a suicide bomb goes off in a bus in Israel killing many children, or in a crowded shopping mall, hardly rates a mention or is excused.
Some exerts which frighten Israel into having nukes,
Iranian Leader Khamenai
In a Friday sermon, (15 December 2000, Iranian TV ) "...Iran's position which was first expressed by the Imam and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region."
In a Friday sermon (5 April 2002, Khabar TV )
"Support for suicide bombings and the weakening of Israel – Khamenai praised the behavior of the Palestinian mother who sends her child on a suicide mission ..."
Iranian President Khatemi
In a conference on the subject of the Koran in Iran,
(24 October 2000, Khabar TV )
"If we abide by real legal laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime… if we abide by the Koran, all of us should mobilize to kill.â€
http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/bu/iran/shihab_11_03.htm
When a small state is surrounded by much larger and populous states with views like this, self defence with whatever means seems the only way for survivial, and if Iran develops it's own nukes, that is a frightening thought if you are an Israeli.
BTW, I don't support Israel in some of it's actions, I am just trying to see things from their viewpoint.
If NK and Arab countries develop nuclear weapons, it's only a matter of time before terrorist groups obtain them, a suicide bomber with a micro nuke is a situation that must never be allowed to develop, therefore the countries that would arm them must be stopped from developing nukes, and if they refuse inspections on their civil nuclear power systems, then they should be stopped from having them as well. Stopping the suicide bombers is next to impossible when disaffected youth are targeted with promises of 70 virgins, a permanent erection and eternal sex and pleasure in paradise when they are killed.
"one young bomber was found to have wrapped his genitals to keep them intact for the exotic heavenly thrills and pleasures awaiting him."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15733488%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2dthey%2dtried%2dto%2dmake%2dme%2da%2dsuicide%2dbomber-name_page.html
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=4103
http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,631357,00.html
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=526
Last edited:
Stryker001
Banned Member
Israel needs nukes and are not a danger by having them. The surrounding countries should not be allowed to develop or have that capability. If there is no deterrent there would be more will to apply conventional warfare on Israel. And any hope of a possible future "uneasy peace" in the region would be lost.
Prevention is better than cure
Prevention is better than cure
nz enthusiast
New Member
Stryker001, you actually want nuclear weapons. I got pics at home that my dad had from when he was at university which shows guys with three arms, no legs, extreme rates of cancer, third degree burns and scorched eye balls. and no i want show them on here because they are just far too disgusting (i threw up when i saw some of them).
What do nuclear weapons do, they either act as a deterant or they wipe out the surface of the globe. There is no real benefit from them when you think about, all of the people who die from skin cancer don't just die from over exposure to the sun, they because of some of the radiation in the air infecting them.
I am all for a nuclear free world, however i do agree with the American and Russian idea that with so large arsenals both sides will be to scared of starting a nuclear war because of the risk of wipeing out all of humanity. If both sides had small arsenals they would fire them beucase their wasn;t as great risk of whipeing out the plant.
What about French and US tests in the pacific and all the small island tribes who are now paying the price for doing nothing wrong. If anyone tries doing testing in the pacific again, i might just go buy me a fully automatic and go killer the ****ers.
George Bush (current president not his dad), listed Cuba as one of six threat nations ot the US and claims they have chemical and biological weapons. I would like to know hwere he got his sources from.
In the Isreal and Palenstine arguement, I support Palenstine (bad spelling). Why should Great Britian and the US come along essentially steal Arabian land for nothing (nop they did not pay for it) and just say you got new neighbours.
How would you feel Ozzies, if the US came along grabed parts of south Australia and said this is where we are moving the Kurds (those who were essentially torterd by Saddam) and those who suffered ill treatment in Bosnia and Serbia. This is now their land whether you like it or not. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed off by it.
What do nuclear weapons do, they either act as a deterant or they wipe out the surface of the globe. There is no real benefit from them when you think about, all of the people who die from skin cancer don't just die from over exposure to the sun, they because of some of the radiation in the air infecting them.
I am all for a nuclear free world, however i do agree with the American and Russian idea that with so large arsenals both sides will be to scared of starting a nuclear war because of the risk of wipeing out all of humanity. If both sides had small arsenals they would fire them beucase their wasn;t as great risk of whipeing out the plant.
What about French and US tests in the pacific and all the small island tribes who are now paying the price for doing nothing wrong. If anyone tries doing testing in the pacific again, i might just go buy me a fully automatic and go killer the ****ers.
George Bush (current president not his dad), listed Cuba as one of six threat nations ot the US and claims they have chemical and biological weapons. I would like to know hwere he got his sources from.
In the Isreal and Palenstine arguement, I support Palenstine (bad spelling). Why should Great Britian and the US come along essentially steal Arabian land for nothing (nop they did not pay for it) and just say you got new neighbours.
How would you feel Ozzies, if the US came along grabed parts of south Australia and said this is where we are moving the Kurds (those who were essentially torterd by Saddam) and those who suffered ill treatment in Bosnia and Serbia. This is now their land whether you like it or not. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed off by it.
First Cuba, what is the US's problem these days with Cuba, gone are the days when it was a Russian client state on the US's doorstep. If it's communism, then I suggest they also stop trading with China, if it's WMD, then again they trade with other nation's with WMD, food and nuclear technology to NK for example. It's been 40 years sheese, grow up.nz enthusiast said:
The analogy is flawed, Kurds have never lived in Australia, Jews (Hebrews) have occupied their current location since the time of Moses, after He lead them to the promised land, in fact further back to the time of Abraham, if you discount the time in Egypt due to drought in the land. Much of Jerusalem was built by King David and King Solomon, and other Hebrew Kings, including the Temple Mount. Every now and again the Jews would rebel against God and He would use the surrounding nations to drive them out, always leaving a remnant. Current Israel is only a small portion of the land they once occupied. Moreover modern Israel occupies 1/600 of the land area ocupied by their Arab neighbours, Jews and Arabs have been squabbling since Isaac and Ishmael and Jacob and Essau, so it's nothing new. But Israel has every right to have a homeland there.
A better analogy, and more accurate, would be the UN carving out a independent state in NZ for the Maori, one about the size of Waiheke Island, and the rest of NZ trying to drive them out.
Stryker001
Banned Member
I didn't endose their use. I can't see how letting other nations develop that capability is going to help the region. Other than that I believe Israel have the right to exsist and have a homeland, I have nothing to say about that issue.nz enthusiast said:
The issue about the US grabbing parts of OZ to move Kurds in well, its a illrelevant arguement in my opinion. But I welcome your input.
Cheers