N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapons

[member 5645]

"N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapon"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040624/D83DK2M00.html

"Iran says it will resume enriching uranium"
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/24/iran.nuclear.program/

 

[selfAdjoint]

"N. Korea Threatens to Test Nuclear Weapon"
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040624/D83DK2M00.html

"Iran says it will resume enriching uranium"
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/24/iran.nuclear.program/

Could we get them mad at each other?

 

[Adam]

Excellent. In this environment of rogue states ignoring the international community and wandering around attacking other states without reason or justification, less wealthy/powerful states such as Iran and North Korea must do everything they can to protect themselves.

 

[studentx]

Excellent. In this environment of rogue states ignoring the international community and wandering around attacking other states without reason or justification, less wealthy/powerful states such as Iran and North Korea must do everything they can to protect themselves.

good one Sandler

 

[Adam]

Hey, I'm quite serious.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Could we get them mad at each other?

Good thinking SelfAdjoint, internecine is the right approach. We sit back and watch the slaughter. But how do we get them mad at each other. I guess Kim Jong-il could invite all the Iranian leaders over for a kosher chicken dinner and then have our mole in North Korea switch the chicken for pork chops.

 

[Pyrovus]

Well, this situation is a good demonstration of the brilliant success that this Iraq war has had on discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Well, this situation is a good demonstration of the brilliant success that this Iraq war has had on discouraging the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

 

[faust9]

Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Ergo Hoc Proctor Hoc I guess.

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/indyk/20040309.htm

Non Placet! Martin Indyk is a Leftist working for a Left-Wing think tank. If I provided you with a Heritage Foundation Op-Ed, would you accept it as fact?

 

[Pyrovus]

Libya has agreed to disclose and dismantle their WMD program.

So one country attempting the appeasement route by giving up their WMD and two countries deciding to increase their WMD stocks in order to have something to deter a US attack with adds up to less WMD?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

So one country attempting the appeasement route by giving up their WMD and two countries deciding to increase their WMD stocks in order to have something to deter a US attack with adds up to less WMD?

Would you prefer having three countries increasing their WMD stock?

 

[Pyrovus]

I'd much rather have one country with real WMD (Libya) and one with fictitious WMD (Iraq) than have two countries churning out WMD as a result of an attempt to eliminate fictitious WMD. Let's face it, the whole idea of "if we invade Iraq because of WMD it will intimidate other nations into giving up WMD" lost all credibility when the US invaded without bothering to prove that there actually were any there. What message does that send to states fearing a US invasion? Something along the lines of "if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless of whether or not you have WMD". Is it surprising that states like North Korea and Iran have decided that they have nothing to lose by developing more WMD, so that they might be able to deter the US from attacking, rather than disarming and simply relying on America's goodwill to not invade them? Let's face it, the real reason why the US wants "rogue states" (i.e. countries it doesn't like) to disarm is so that if it does decide to invade them, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. The US might think twice about invading somebody if it means sacrificing New York City and Washington, which is a real hinderance to the flexing of the imperialist muscle. The US doesn't like WMD because they behave as something of an equalizer - they allow a small state to do considerable damage to even a superpower like America should a war take place. The US would much rather be able to fight wars without having to think about the consequences.

 

[studentx]

I'd much rather have one country with real WMD (Libya) and one with fictitious WMD (Iraq) than have two countries churning out WMD as a result of an attempt to eliminate fictitious WMD. Let's face it, the whole idea of "if we invade Iraq because of WMD it will intimidate other nations into giving up WMD" lost all credibility when the US invaded without bothering to prove that there actually were any there. What message does that send to states fearing a US invasion? Something along the lines of "if we want to attack you, we'll do so regardless of whether or not you have WMD". Is it surprising that states like North Korea and Iran have decided that they have nothing to lose by developing more WMD, so that they might be able to deter the US from attacking, rather than disarming and simply relying on America's goodwill to not invade them? Let's face it, the real reason why the US wants "rogue states" (i.e. countries it doesn't like) to disarm is so that if it does decide to invade them, they won't be able to put up much of a fight. The US might think twice about invading somebody if it means sacrificing New York City and Washington, which is a real hinderance to the flexing of the imperialist muscle. The US doesn't like WMD because they behave as something of an equalizer - they allow a small state to do considerable damage to even a superpower like America should a war take place. The US would much rather be able to fight wars without having to think about the consequences.

So do you want these countries to get WMD or not? Thats what it boils down to. I don't care how much youre pissed off at this war in Iraq, snap out of it.

 

[Adam]

If one country has nukes, then I think all should. The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic. Especially when the major source of the push to disarm other nations is the only nation to actually nuke cities. On the other hand, it would be even better if that dangerous nation would totally disarm, which would allow the others to disarm safely.

 

[russ_watters]

The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic.

Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?

 

[studentx]

If one country has nukes, then I think all should.

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

 

[member 5645]

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

I agree, I want a nuke too!

 

[kat]

Me too! Me too! and then one day...when my PMS is particularly unmanageable and I just want to send the whole lot of you ta hell...BHAHAHAHAHA KABOOOM~! CYA!

 

[Adam]

Just for clarity, are you saying you believe all countries are equally trustworthy?

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.

 

[Adam]

I think every person on the planet should have a nuke to defend himself. Imagine the love and respect you get from evrybody, global peace which will last for decades and a complete absence of crime and poverty as we feed the starving children of Africa (they might blow us up if we dont!).

Indeed. Let's all get nukes. Everyone will be too scared to say or do anything at all. We will have peace at last. It's just like owning a gun, the exact same sort of society, but on a larger scale. Arm everyone.

 

[studentx]

what if i get 2 nukes?

 

[Adam]

Even better.

 

[Njorl]

It's not like anyone ever blew himself up on purpose now, right?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Waiter, I'd like to have two neutron bombs with a side order of mustard gas. Oh yah, give me some of that delightful serin gas too. Could you put that in one of those 32 oz. Big Glup canisters for me? Thank You.
This brought back memories of Dr. Strangelove. As a sidebar, one of the roles Peter Sellers played in the movie was United States President Merkin Muffley. If you want a good laugh, look up the word 'merkin' in the dictionary.

 

[member 5645]

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.

So the crux of you argument is that since the first, only, and last nukes ever used were by us then we should arm countries with dictators? One man with a nuke, in essence?

Do you honestly think that if we hadn't used them, no one else would have? The same thing would have happened. It would have been detonated once somewhere, and the world would think "oh crap, this is awful" and revert to the same thing we have now - a stabilzed stalemate.

 

[Adam]

So the crux of you argument is that since the first, only, and last nukes ever used were by us then we should arm countries with dictators? One man with a nuke, in essence?

No.

I'm saying precisely what I have already said. Every nation on Earth (not merely dictatorships, but EVERYONE) is more trustworthy than the USA, when it comes to nukes. History is the reason. The USA has nuked cities full of people. Nobody else has.

Do you honestly think that if we hadn't used them, no one else would have? The same thing would have happened. It would have been detonated once somewhere, and the world would think "oh crap, this is awful" and revert to the same thing we have now - a stabilzed stalemate.

I really don't care how you justify it to yourself.

 

[loseyourname]

The delusion "But OUR government is the only trustworthy one" is worse than pathetic.

Since when did Australia have nukes?

 

[Robert Zaleski]

I don't believe the Australians have nuclear weapons. Why would they need them. The British would come to the aid of Australia if it was in deep peril. The United States is also obligated to defend Australia as part of the ANZUS Treaty. I assume the defense of Australia would include the use of nuclear weapons if conditions warranted their use.

 

[Adam]

Since when did Australia have nukes?

I never said Australia has nukes.

 

[studentx]

No.

I'm saying precisely what I have already said. Every nation on Earth (not merely dictatorships, but EVERYONE) is more trustworthy than the USA, when it comes to nukes. History is the reason. The USA has nuked cities full of people. Nobody else has.

They don't use that type of atomic bomb anymore these days Adam. Theyve become much much more powerful, so your argument is defeated:
America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.

 

[phreak]

America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.

Yes, but how many years has America had to use them? Not many, so the point is lost.

 

[studentx]

If I am not mistaken America has had hydrogen bombs and neutron bombs for many decades, never used em!

Besides that this isn't an issue of trust. Its an issue of intelligence and responsibility. I mean you probably trust your pet dog more than Bush

 

[Adam]

They don't use that type of atomic bomb anymore these days Adam. Theyve become much much more powerful, so your argument is defeated:
America never used the powerful nukes it has today, on ANYONE.

Ah... That's not even close to being rational.

Slap your parents for me.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm saying that every country which hasn't nuked cities is more trustworthy with nukes than every country which has nuked cities.

Interesting. So you honestly believe that North Korea (for example) would be more trustworthy with nukes than the US?

Do you think that many of the members of the UN would agree with you on this?

Do you think historical context is at all relevant here?