Pentagon Plans First-Strike Nuclear Policy.

[Pekka]

This is nothing new. This is just rhetorics from Rummie to the terrorists and people who are contemplating becoming one that it's not out of the question, do not give nukes to terrorists, they will be used.

I don't think they'll be used. It's just rhetorics.

I don't see US nuking for example say... some ME nation if there's strong evidence they gave nukes to some terrorist org. Basically killing the 4 guilty people and 300k not guilty? I don't think so. It' sjust rhetorics.

So I wouldn't be alarmed.

The only thing though, this doesn't exaclty help nations wanting to lower the number of nukes. Quite the opposite. See NK negotiatons fall down right about now.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by VJ
NZ has a left-wing press. They like Bush-bashing/anti-americanism since there's demand for it on their domestic market, just like in Finland (Finnish press bashes US all the time).

That's my guess, anyway. I don't really know much about NZ.

internet finns look quite right wing and pro usa to me.

[Atahualpa]

I don't think the terrorist nuke threat is that big. First, I don't believe they can get a real nuke on their hands and second, dirty bombs seem to be overrated. In one fictive example more damage was done by the panic that followed than what the bombs could do. Also I heard that radiation from dirty bombs are not that significant.

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride


internet finns look quite right wing and pro usa to me.

finns are evil, what do you expect?

[Pekka]

No, but we realize that sometimes you need to kill.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


You can;t argue that nukes are tactically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state.

Can I argue that nukes are strategically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state?

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Pekka
No, but we realize that sometimes you need to kill.

realize
As much as the psychopath next door realizes that sometimes he needs human flesh to eat.

[chequita guevara]

We've always had a first use policy. Just ask Japan. Hell, I'm honestly surprised we didn't use them after 9/11.

[Zkribbler]

We'll meet again,
Don't know where, don't know when,
But we'll meet again
Some summer's day.

--Or--

Boom goes London.
Boom Parie.
More room for you;
More room for me.

And every country, the whole world round
Will just be another All-American town

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Can I argue that nukes are strategically justifiable and then deny the right to have nukes to any soverign state?

no, which is why the non-proliferation regme is bound to fail in the long term as long as the established nuclear powers refuse banning nukes outright, like other WMD's.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap


no, which is why the non-proliferation regme is bound to fail in the long term as long as the established nuclear powers refuse banning nukes outright, like other WMD's.

Well that's silly - I can argue whatever I want to . I think nuclear weapons helped prevent war breaking out between superpowers in the 20th century, saving millions of lives.

I also think that a rogue regime, or one supporting terrorists, should not have access to nuclear weapons, just like a volent criminal shouldn't have access to guns. And I don't think there's anything wrong with that view.

I also don't think it's that hard to accomplish. There are only a small handful of countries seeking nuclear weapons that do not currently have them. Nuclear weapons are expensive to consutrct and expensive to maintain, and most countries find the expense in terms of money and diplomacy not worth it. And we should use the tools of diplomacy to try to ensure that we halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Time will only tell wether or not we'll be successful, but I don't think we should ignore the possibility of other countries getting nuclear weapons just as we shouldn't ignore the possibility of terrorist groups developing them either.