When Bush hatred makes you a moron...

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Of course not. I'm worried about North Korea invading South Korea and threatening to nuke American or Japanese cities if we intervine to help our ally. currently the North wouldn't think of doing that because it would mean their total destruction.

It would mean their total destruction even if the USA has disarmed their nuclear arseneal. If a country nukes another country, it has commited political suicide. A nuclear retaliation is not even neccisary.

They'd fire off their one or two and we'd return fire with 10,000.

Well, that would be incredibly reckless. you'd probably end up iradiating that part of the world and killing millions of people who aren't even korean, let alone practical genocide of the north koreans, but regardless...

Not even Kim is that stupid. Let's say we unilateraly disarm like Kid has said then how do we stand up to a nuclear armed dictator when his forces are invading south Korea. How would we stand up to a nuclear armed Iran when if they decided to grab the huge Kuwait oil fields like they tried to do in 1985 (because they were helping Saddam finance the war plus the mullahs wanted the oil)? Back then they were stopped by Saddam's Army using poison gas for the first time. That won't help next time.

First of all, it's arguable (well, i only say that to be polite) whether the USA should be able to unilaterally dictate and police everyone else in the first place, but you would stand up to them the same way it's always been done... through diplomacy or war.

You cannot reason with the Hitlers and want to be Hitlers of the World.

Which is why no one seriously expects the USA to disarm.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
[Pakistan has] had them since the 1970's just like India.

Not exactly. India built and tested a weapon in the 1970s, but dicontinued its program at that time. Since then, Pakistan was trying to build a weapon to even the playing field, and in the late 80s, announced they had the technology to build a bomb, and then claimed they were putting it on a shelf, since India did not have an active program.

Then the BJP came to power in India in the mid '90s, and began building bombs. Approximately one year later, Pakistan announced it had built its first bomb. That was 1996-7.

lauentius, we allowed neither India nor Pakistan to have nuclear weapons. As soon as both countries renewed their weapons programs, we slapped sanctions on them. The only country we allow to have nukes is Israel, by officially pretending they don't have them. We are, by law, required to sanction any country with nukes who built them after the signing of the non-proliferation treaty.

After 9/11, we removed sanctions from both Pakistan and India, due to the fact we needed their help in the War on Terror.

[Kidlicious]

We can't police everyone. We have to be selective. Iran will have nukes. There's nothing we can do about it. The current strategy on nonproliferation is a failure.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

As soon as both countries renewed their weapons programs, we slapped sanctions on them.

But che, don't forget that it's been an article of faith, at least since the time of Blessed Ron the Redeemer, that sanctions are effective only when employed against evil empires, or the ungodly Communists or Eye Rainians.

Against all others, such as the Righteous Rhodesians, or Solidly With Us Apartheid South Africans, sanctions are just plain wrong, and get in the way of, whatever the nauseating pabulum phrase was, um, 'constructive engagement'....

[laurentius]

Originally posted by Sikander


Your posts are ample proof of that.

I've made your life hell?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Eye Rainians

Most people in the US pronounce it that way. I can't even remember how it was pronounced before Reagan. I sort of think Carter pronounced it correctly, but I was too young.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Most people in the US pronounce it that way. I can't even remember how it was pronounced before Reagan. I sort of think Carter pronounced it correctly, but I was too young.

I suspect they would have confused the Persians with the Prooshians, and by extension the Heshuns, so, as not to overexcite the antediluvian Repug.s, they changed the nomenclature to Eye Rainians, in the hope perhaps they might take them for great green B.E.M.s from a William Castle Fifties s.f. b-movie....

[Jaakko]

The problem as I see it is the ridiculous fear mongering regarding Iran. No, their leaders aren't insane. No, they will not launch nukes at Israel and US at the first opportunity.

They're a nation just like everyone else, and a damn sight more democratic than most Middle-Eastern nations.

[Odin]

I agree with Sava on the POS DU has become. It's because of all the idiots and conspiracy theorists like the guys on DU that drive the average americans to the right. Even most of the few liberal talk radio are raving idiots (Ed Schultz being the major exception). I am sick of all these Neo-hippies turing the Left into the laughing stock it has become.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Odin
I agree with Sava on the POS DU has become. It's because of all the idiots and conspiracy theorists like the guys on DU that drive the average americans to the right. Even most of the few liberal talk radio are raving idiots (Ed Schultz being the major exception). I am sick of all these Neo-hippies turing the Left into the laughing stock it has become.

Interestingly, similar wingnut babble from the right does NOT drive people away from them, but lures in even greater masses.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by GePap
The US has the legal right to seek to end any illicit weapons program because Iran signed the NPT, which forbids it from aquiring nuclear weapons. Iran has not yet stated they are planning to leave the NPT, so legally they do NOT have the right to nukes. That said, they do have the option of leaving the NPT at any time they wish.

The problem is the Bush adm,in. and the Europeans aqre demanding Iran undertake no Uranium enrichment, the problem being Iran has every right under the NPT to enrich uranium.

That said, whether Iran gets nukes or not is a function of whether the Iraninasn want them or not too badly- the US has no diplomatic nor military options right now that would stop the Iranians. Personally, I think even a democratic Iranian government has reasons to seek nukes, thought US objections to Iranian nukes would probably melt away if a pro-US regime took control.

or atleast a Regime that wasn't the very first state sponsor of terrorism,didn't threaten to use said weapons at the first oppurtunity, refrained from calling us the great satan and calling for our destruction in every other speech,etc.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Agathon
I can see why the Iranians would want nuclear weapons. The worlds only superpower hates them and they are surrounded by other hostile regimes

there might be some cause effect relationships here to be explored.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Exactly. Notice how the enemies of the US always get desperate for nukes. That shouldn't suprise anyone. If the US really wants to stop the spread of nukes they should stop creating enemies.

So we could have peace in our time if we just appease them then?

Originally posted by General Ludd


That wouldn't weaken your position. You having nukes doesn't make you less succeptable to being nuked, it just means you can nuke someone else. In that sense, geting rid of the capability to nuek another country doesn't weaken you (unless you do intend to nuke somoene else) and can actually strengthen your position because you are saying that you don't intend to use nuclear weapons, and in the eyes of the world you now gain a sort of moral high groundand by extension a basic immunity to nuclear strikes anyways - how would the world react to a country nuking another after agreeing to disarm their nuclear weapons? That would be more MAD than any interaction between two nuclear powers could ever be.

And remember, you can dstroy nuclear weapons but you can never destroy the potential to build more of them...

they'd sit there and shake their ineffectual fists, then go back to jacking off, unless the target was America, then they'd cheer.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Whoha


So we could have peace in our time if we just appease them then?

You are going off the assumption that the US is always in the right - that we do no harm to the world.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Once again realpolitick. If you do this I will hurt you very badly; If you do that I will help you. Brute force and bribery since we have no moral grounds to deny others things which we won't deny ourselves.

Also since the invention has been made and people know how to build nukes we can't just disarm because other people would then have an advantage over us. This genie is out and all we can do cajole people into slowing it's spread.

Spare us the BS, everyone always makes moral arguments about anything, and even moreso the so-called relativists. If you can't make a moral argument, how would you debate anything in the first place?