Nuclear Weapons -- Here to Stay?

[Birdseye]

As the rest of the world becomes more technologically savvy, we are going to see more countries have access to nuclear technology, and hence nuclear weapons.

Are we to:

- Continue to prevent new countries from gaining this technology as a short term strategy, realizing that eventually we can't stop this train?

- Attempt to permanently control nuclear technology, despite the rapid technological proliferation?

- Embrace the technological progress of our brethren, and attempt peace through education and aid, as long as we aren't helping complete psychotics.

- Add your variation of the above question

This is something I keep thinking about... technology will only continue to proliferate, what are we to do?

It leads me to my next question of: when everyone is going to be able to blow everyone else up, what will happen with foreign policy?

[Immortal Lobster]

Foreign image will be the image posted on the noe of a warhead if that occurs.

Its not that the US or other nuke capable ountries are flat ou saying no to nuclear weapons n other countries, we just say no to the countries that we know cannot handle the responsability and keep theyre cool. North Korea is a hot spot, china hates it, south korea hates it, japan hates it, hell even russia hates it, its like putting a wolf inside a chicken farm, it doesnt work, so by giving that wolf an edge, say a fork and knife as well as a grill is bad. same is true in the middle east, except I feel that pakistan and Israel should decommission, they make me feel queezy. what needs to be developed is a better power source, or a grade or uranium that can not be weaponized and only allowing those. until that occurs, yeah, i think its the US's, UKs, Chinas, etc responsability to keep the technology in check

[Ford Prefect]

The genie is out of the bottle. At one time Dreadnaught fighting ships were the ultimate weapon and the hand wringing was all about who had them and who would rule the seas. The more it changes the more it remains the same. Conflict and aggression are the keys not the weapons involved.

[TIGERassault]

I'd like to see the major countries get rid of their own bombs before they try removing bombs from others.

[DCrazy]

I'd like to see the major countries get rid of their own bombs before they try removing bombs from others.

Uh...

That kind of logic is what drives Britain to take away its police officers' guns and expect them to stop handgun violence.

[Immortal Lobster]

Hey you, north Korea, disarm your nuclear weapons, or the US and China will make you, and we have pea shooters!!!!

[Flabby Chick]

It leads me to my next question of: when everyone is going to be able to blow everyone else up, what will happen with foreign policy?

Every one will blow everyone else up, and then we'll learn from it. That is how intelligent we are, you know that birds...there is no avoiding it. We're friggin human....

...and stupid!

[TIGERassault]

I'd like to see the major countries get rid of their own bombs before they try removing bombs from others.

Uh...

That kind of logic is what drives Britain to take away its police officers' guns and expect them to stop handgun violence.

Here in Ireland, the police officers are forbidden to use guns. And yet, the country has not suddenly spiraled into a hellhole!
The truth is that good actions do encourage good actions, even in bad people! The best example of this is that the IRA, the big old Irish terrorist force, wilfully forbade their members from using guns!

[Flabby Chick]

Plastic explosives however were perfectly ok....

[DCrazy]

\"Our terrorists didn't even need guns, our people are so scared all you have to do is say 'boo'!\"

[Kyouryuu]

Education, or lack thereof, has been at the core of the problems from day one. The only reason mad clerics and jihad leaders can have the power they do in the Middle East is because of the thousands of sheep that are willing to give their lives because they have nothing else worth living for. Driving cars into crowded markets and blowing themselves up? Walking onto a bus with a bomb strapped around your waist? Rational, educated people don't do such things.

The only way to combat this problem is through education.

Furthermore, I agree with the notion that the real danger in nuclear weapons comes from the cells like Al Queda. Yes, Iran can bark about nuclear weapons until the cows come home. At the end of the day, Iran would be decimated if they dared to use them. This is because Iran is a place with a government and a leader. The uncomfortable but logical concept of mutually assured destruction seems lost on pundits.

The nomadic terrorist groups, on the other hand, will simply go back into the caves they came from.

Again, this is where education comes into play. Because with education, people will shy away from joining terrorist factions and chose to resolve problems through government and diplomacy, not suicide bombings because some holier-than-thou cleric said so. They will realize the alternatives they have.

Hence, regardless of whatever Bush's ulterior motive for Iraq may have been, the concept of trying to establish a democracy and thus an educated people in the Middle East has good intentions. I just believe the region is a lost cause. They are irrational. A bomb goes off in a mosque and now everyone is parading down the streets with bloodthirsty, vindictive intentions. And bombs go off in the mosques of the other faction, repeating the vicious cycle. Neither side realizes how depraved their bloodlust is and neither side stops to reflect. It's all kneejerk, reactionary murder by extremists that don't think.

[Will Robinson]

Education, or lack thereof, has been at the core of the problems from day one. The only reason mad clerics and jihad leaders can have the power they do in the Middle East is because of the thousands of sheep that are willing to give their lives because they have nothing else worth living for. Driving cars into crowded markets and blowing themselves up? Walking onto a bus with a bomb strapped around your waist? Rational, educated people don't do such things.

The only way to combat this problem is through education.

Furthermore, I agree with the notion that the real danger in nuclear weapons comes from the cells like Al Queda. Yes, Iran can bark about nuclear weapons until the cows come home. At the end of the day, Iran would be decimated if they dared to use them. This is because Iran is a place with a government and a leader. The uncomfortable but logical concept of mutually assured destruction seems lost on pundits.

The nomadic terrorist groups, on the other hand, will simply go back into the caves they came from.

Again, this is where education comes into play. Because with education, people will shy away from joining terrorist factions and chose to resolve problems through government and diplomacy, not suicide bombings because some holier-than-thou cleric said so.

A couple of things come to mind here.
One, Muhammed Atta, the supposed ringleader among those islami-kazi's on the 9/11 flights was quite educated and from a well off, educated family. I believe he wasn't the only one with a college level education either.
I've also read of doctors strapping on the suicide bomb to end it by blowing themselves up in Israel...
It's a cultural thing more than either a lack of education or a nothing to lose thing I think.
Obviously education can change the culture but you have to be willing to learn a different line of reasoning to be changed. Right now we won't allow bibles in school but we have dress like a Muslim day so our kids won't be poisoned by Christianity yet be accepting of Islam...over there...well you get arrested for trying to get of the plane with a single bible in your luggage! So tell me which culture is open to change?!?

Second, the president of Iran doesn't seem to subscribe to the mutually-assured-destruction-is-bad school of thought because he has, for many many years, on many occasions, preached the bringing about of the arrival of the twelfth imam by starting world war three! He seems to subscribe to the martyr-yourself-is-good school of thought so even if he doesn't send up a nuke warhead on official Iranian military hardware he is a highly likely conduit for supplying the next 9/11 group with something better than money for flying lessons!

[dissent]

Well, I posted this in a related thread, but I'm unsure if anyone read it.

http://www.hoover.org/publications/poli ... 60936.html

(linked in this book review)

then followed up with this article,

and then this one.

I also don't think it is simply a matter of increasing education, though this will probably help. There are distinctive cultural differences within Islam that have to be taken into consideration, if you genuinely want to understand their view of the world and how it ought to operate.

[Kyouryuu]

Of course education isn't the only thing. What it comes down to is having, at the most primal level, respect for human life. To me, there is something fundamentally wrong with a person who chooses to become a suicide bomber and indiscriminately walk or drive into an Iraqi college with the hope of killing hundreds of students. It is depraved indifference to the value of human life. The extremists and the bombers have put their faith and their zeal ahead of respect for their fellow human.

Sadly, this seems to be a difficult lesson to teach, insomuch as it would be common sense to us.

The paper was a good read, nonetheless.

As for the Iranian leader, Will, I tend to see him as crazy, but controlled. Give the Iranian people some credit, Will. Polls suggest Ahmadinejad is not especially popular in his home country. The Iranian government has a parliament of 290 people. Iranians can still protest and criticize their leader. Iran is hardly united behind their leader and I believe, given time, Iranian politics will resolve the situation. What we shouldn't do is engage Ahmadinejad with hostile rhetoric or act as though he speaks for the global people of Iran. We do not want to validate his ideology, for doing so could spark dangerous nationalism and cause Iranians to rally behind their President.

Additionally, I could find no verification of your claims about his comments on twelfth imam, World War III, or even his martyrdom.

[Will Robinson]

Additionally, I could find no verification of your claims about his comments on twelfth imam, World War III, or even his martyrdom.

Hmmm, that's odd, I saw the text of a speech where he brought it up and I believe he was speaking to the U.N. at the time. I'll try to find it later, no time right now.

[Immortal Lobster]

Aye, the middle east is a lost cause. however, in a wierd twist of fate, those crazy people control something the rest of the world needs. Not just oil, but religeon. all the major religions outside of budhism have their roots in the middle east. religeous people all seek solace in pilgramges there, they all want to see the area stabalized, etc. It is a power center of the world being driven in the ground by the uneducated suicide bombers. HOWEVER, in the case oof most islamic sects, even the educated strap bombs to themselvess, why? becuase they believe, through theyre education, that they are right, that what they are doing is what they have been taught, whether in school or socially, is the right thing to do. Killing all the infidels for instance, yeap, socially, morally, religeously, according to them, it is the RIGHT thing to do. so its not that a person has to be holier then thou, or has to be crazy, all it needs is the right social upbringing.

[Will Robinson]

I found a few pretty quickly by googling 12th imam and Ahmadinejad here and here
The second one sums it up pretty well but the first examines the situation in Iran a little deeper and if one is curious you could follow up on some of the points raised in the article and learn enough to understand that this guy could really be trouble for the world.

A lot of people think America isn't ready to move pre-emptively and it will take another 9/11 like attack to open that door. Ahmadinejad is the guy with the itchy trigger finger that might just kick that door open in a big way. If you think Dubyah was wreckless, rash and stubborn just wait until his counterpart in Iran takes his turn at forcing an issue on the world....

[Immortal Lobster]

If you think Dubyah was wreckless, rash and stubborn just wait until his counterpart in Iran takes his turn at forcing an issue on the world....

yeap, I know a lot of people out there arent dubyah fans, and think if we did go to war with iran that it would just be another bush vendetta, but people, open your eyes, iran really is going to be a problem. Think of it as prevenative maintenance

[Will Robinson]

If you think Dubyah was wreckless, rash and stubborn just wait until his counterpart in Iran takes his turn at forcing an issue on the world....

yeap, I know a lot of people out there arent dubyah fans, and think if we did go to war with iran that it would just be another bush vendetta, but people, open your eyes, iran really is going to be a problem. Think of it as prevenative maintenance

You're jumping the gun just a bit. I'm not saying we need to go now, I'm saying we need to recognize the danger in listening to those who say Bush is just lying about Iran and all we need to do is pull out of the region. If the U.S. congress would stand up and be united in their recognition of the potential dangers posed by Iran then most of the worlds powers would realize they need to take part in deciding whatever course is ultimately followed.
However, if our congress divides along partisan lines and the press allows the issue to be defined as simply as 'Bush is leading us astray again...' then the world powers won't want to take part in addressing Iran (after all who wants to own a piece of the next Bush fiasco?), therefore pressure will not be brought to bear on Iran and ultimately we will have to go in...or Israel will have to bomb the Iranian targets and we will will once again be the "imperialists who protect the evil Israeli's...."(wash/rinse/repeat)

If the Iranian threat is allowed to be politics as usual it will continue the cycle. It's time for some leadership, way past time actually but now is better than after the next 9/11 sized attack!

[Immortal Lobster]

aye, the house and congress have been divided too damned long, its bad, and thats why people laugh at us. its either black and white anymore, and for politics to function correctly, we need a lot of grey.

[Mobius]

Just give EVERYONE nukes. Then there's no question about who has one. And (hopefully) the US would become slightly less likely to keep invading countries willy-nilly.

[Duper]

Just give EVERYONE nukes. Then there's no question about who has one. And (hopefully) the US would become slightly less likely to keep invading countries willy-nilly.

[BUBBALOU]

Just give EVERYONE nukes. Then there's no question about who has one. And (hopefully) the US would become slightly less likely to keep invading countries willy-nilly.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/Duper/pic3441.jpg

þwñËÐ

[Immortal Lobster]

Just give EVERYONE nukes. Then there's no question about who has one. And (hopefully) the US would become slightly less likely to keep invading countries willy-nilly.

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y258/Duper/pic3441.jpg

þwñËÐ

x2

[TIGERassault]

Just give EVERYONE nukes. Then there's no question about who has one. And (hopefully) the US would become slightly less likely to keep invading countries willy-nilly.

Yeah, they'll stop trying to invade contries without thinking it out.

Mainly because they'd be dead from the start!


Incidentally, I don't know why you're saying this. There are a lot of forumers here who have your address...
:p

[Beowulf]

Nukes are here to stay - and humanity is not. As Vonnegut says in Slaughterhouse 5, so it goes...

[Sirius]

The US pulling out of the Middle East would probably lead to a full-scale war between Israel and its neighbours. Don't know who would win, but it would be messy regardless.

[Immortal Lobster]

The US pulling out of the Middle East would probably lead to a full-scale war between Israel and its neighbours. Don't know who would win, but it would be messy regardless.

aye, but mosst people dont see past their nose

[Birdseye]

I think one thing we've overlooked is that countries realize that if you have a nuke, the US is not going to be as aggressive with you (i.e. North Korea). If I were a smaller nation, I would seek a nuke for security. I totally understand what Iran is doing.

[Will Robinson]

I think one thing we've overlooked is that countries realize that if you have a nuke, the US is not going to be as aggressive with you (i.e. North Korea). If I were a smaller nation, I would seek a nuke for security. I totally understand what Iran is doing.

I agree with that, not that I'm against stopping, or at least trying to slow down their success, but yea if I was in charge of any country anywhere that didn't have it I'd be quietly pushing to achieve nuclear missile capability as soon as possible.
I sure wouldn't be advocating the destruction of a neighboring country that does have it while I was trying to get my own though! You have to wonder a lot about a leader who would do that.

Probably, if I was advising Iran right now I'd tell them to quit spouting off about wiping out Israel and bringing about Armageddon and put a more moderate sounding leader in charge who could then demand equal rights to build the same kind of weapons that the U.N. Security Council members have. Right now Amadinejhad is playing right into the hands of the west. It makes me wonder if he doesn't truly want us to invade so he can cause the end of the world, bring the twelfth imam back etc.

[Shadowfury333]

It makes me wonder if he doesn't truly want us to invade so he can cause the end of the world, bring the twelfth imam back etc.

Despite the fact that he probably doesn't have a bomb yet. I don't expect that it would be to hard to decimate whatever forces happen to be fiercely loyal to his distorted vision, so unless he actually gets the bomb, I'll be more worried that his speeches are accelerating global warming.

[Will Robinson]

It makes me wonder if he doesn't truly want us to invade so he can cause the end of the world, bring the twelfth imam back etc.

Despite the fact that he probably doesn't have a bomb yet. I don't expect that it would be to hard to decimate whatever forces happen to be fiercely loyal to his distorted vision, so unless he actually gets the bomb, I'll be more worried that his speeches are accelerating global warming.

When he "gets the bomb" is it not too late? Or do you think there is no war worth fighting over there until it's a nuclear war?
I'm not sure I understand, for you, what event exactly would trigger the decimation of his loyal forces as you put it.
It seems like if it is determined he's a dangerous force, waiting for him to be armed with a nuclear device is the wrong time to say "OK, now we need to deal with him!"

[Shadowfury333]

It makes me wonder if he doesn't truly want us to invade so he can cause the end of the world, bring the twelfth imam back etc.

Despite the fact that he probably doesn't have a bomb yet. I don't expect that it would be to hard to decimate whatever forces happen to be fiercely loyal to his distorted vision, so unless he actually gets the bomb, I'll be more worried that his speeches are accelerating global warming.

When he "gets the bomb" is it not too late? Or do you think there is no war worth fighting over there until it's a nuclear war?
I'm not sure I understand, for you, what event exactly would trigger the decimation of his loyal forces as you put it.
It seems like if it is determined he's a dangerous force, waiting for him to be armed with a nuclear device is the wrong time to say "OK, now we need to deal with him!"

I suppose I phrased that poorly, let me try again. If he does want to us invade, and we comply, since he has no nuke and probably not a very large standing army, it won't cause the end of the world. Eventually this will be the case, so I would rather that he be gone now, than after they get the bomb. However, if he is trying to get us to invade now, then he is as stupid as he seems.

[Mobius]

Little dudes, since when did posting a lame image with no relation to my post become \"owned\"? Duper - you're lame - and Bubba? I thought you were smarter and quicker than that.

Honestly, you guys need to work harder before you can claim to \"own\" ANYONE!

Frankly, my post has many more implications than you dismiss out of hand, and that one simple sentence contains more provocative and thought-inspiring content than any of the posts after it.

The fact you don't wish to address the issue, and descend immediately to self-congratulatory argumentum ad hominem simple re-inforces the strength of my statement, and the ridiculousness of your \"riposts\" (quoted to reverse the definition - which needs to be explained to you - no doubt).

Owned? I don't think so children.

[MD-2389]

Sorry Mobius, but there are some of us that are actually intelligent enough to not consider MAD a viable solution.

[Duper]

me..lame? This coming from a troll? bah.

If you had been contributing to the thread before that post, then it would have been ok, but sniping tiresome.

If you think that the US is all that bad and all its people along with it Mobius, you need to get off the island a bit more. People are more or less the same where ever you go. Give them power and they will abuse it.

You are not exactly one to make a moral judgment on an international level with any kind of staying power or credibility.

There is no "good" or "evil". These are simply subjective constructs within human brains. Nothing is inherently good or bad - things just ARE.

Ascribing definitions to things based on nothing but subjective feelings doesn't work; what you think is evil, I think is logical. What I think is evil, you may consider goodness.

Arguing semantics on the web is pointless and stupid.

Tiger's original question about pain is extremely simple to explain: God has nothing to do with it. Creatures must evolve a mechanism to help them survive injury and sickness: pain is the primary mechanism for humans to avoid further damage, and to mend as quickly as possible. If it were not evolutionarily beneficial to experience physical pain, then it wouldn't have made its way into the genome of all humans, because there would be no selective pressure for it.

nuff sed

[Kilarin]

If I were a smaller nation, I would seek a nuke for security. I totally understand what Iran is doing.

Absolutely true, that was the lesson most of the world learned from Iraq. But Iran is going about it STUPID. The other lesson they should have learned from Iraq is to NEVER belong to the camp of "ALMOST have a nuke".

If their leadership had half a brain, they would have told the world, "Of course we will stop all developments toward getting a bomb!" which would have shut the UN up, and then they would have gone right on working towards it.

[Birdseye]

Probably, if I was advising Iran right now I'd tell them to quit spouting off about wiping out Israel and bringing about Armageddon and put a more moderate sounding leader in charge who could then demand equal rights to build the same kind of weapons that the U.N. Security Council members have

From what I remember, that quote was taken badly out of context.

[Will Robinson]

Probably, if I was advising Iran right now I'd tell them to quit spouting off about wiping out Israel and bringing about Armageddon and put a more moderate sounding leader in charge who could then demand equal rights to build the same kind of weapons that the U.N. Security Council members have

From what I remember, that quote was taken badly out of context.

He's expressed that sentiment numerous times and only back pedaled slightly from it once that I know of. That time he was basically saying he thinks Israel should 'go away' without specifying how they should be removed, but on many occasions he's said they have to be destroyed. Do your own math based on the decades of terrorism he has sponsored there....