North Korea says it will stage nuke test

[LordShiva]

Reading can be so taxing, after all.

[SlowwHand]

Reading bull**** is taxing.

[LordShiva]

I wish I had such a simplistic view of things; it must be so much easier to say "bull****" than to actually examine and unfamiliar argument

Originally posted by SlowwHand
A) Bull****

Originally posted by SlowwHand
More bull****.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Reading bull**** is taxing.

[thesilentone]

I'd just ask for UK to seperated from france there really, we were one of the front runners in the nuke program, france was the "me-too" nation.

But the political argument really only counts when a country is being pressured with the threat of military action. Nowadays we don't really say OUR WORDS ARE BACKED WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS, it's rude.

In the post ww2 / cold war period and the resulting paranoia, things really were unsettled, few had such a cozy view of the future as we do nowadays. Nuclear war was a real fear, and not having nukes, as silly as it sounds was deemed dangerous in the countries which could afford to develop nukes. The threat of nuclear war may have faded, but the defensive value, for weak isolated nations is still very strong.

[SlowwHand]

If you would say something that required more than that simple statement, I might be inclined.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
If you would say something that required more than that simple statement, I might be inclined.

(OK let me give this a shot) ""

[SlowwHand]

The USA dropped 2 bombs 60 years ago, and didn't even realize the devestation it would cause.
If we were so offensive-minded, we'd have used them more.

Per you, all countries besides India are to be suspected. I take that back, you do include Israel. That's just another amazing point, given the rest of your rationale.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
The USA dropped 2 bombs 60 years ago, and didn't even realize the devestation it would cause.
If we were so offensive-minded, we'd have used them more.

I'm talking about the rationale behind developing nuclear weapons, not on their use thereafter (or lack thereof). The U.S. bomb was developed not to prevent Japan or Germany from attacking the homeland, but in order to end the war once the fight had been taken over the Pacific. Maybe "offensive" is the wrong word; you're right that since they were the first to develop and use them, nobody really knew what to expect. Given that, the U.S. is not representative of nuclear weapons states.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Per you, all countries besides India are to be suspected. I take that back, you do include Israel. That's just another amazing point, given the rest of your rationale.

Huh? Suspected of what?

[SlowwHand]

Ask yourself. You're the one that said it.

[LordShiva]

This might be that "reading" thing again. I said India was like all the other countries, except Israel.

[snoopy369]

In the modern era, Nuclear Weapons are solely defensive weapons. No nation would use them offensively due to the international outcry and likely reprisals for doing so; and the acquisition of nuclear weapons ensures a nation's territorial security against all but the most insane opponent. Therefore, they have defensive value, and with no offensive value they are thus defensive weapons. QED.

[LordShiva]

Sweet. Nothing to worry about, then. Go ahead with your weapons programs, Kim, Mahmoud.

[snoopy369]

NK certainly has acquired them as a defensive weapon. They are concerned about the US or SK invading them, as well as giving them the ability to talk louder without being concerned about a military backlash.
India/Pakistan forced each other into doing so, also as a defensive weapon - if one and not the other had acquired them, the other would have inevitably lost the military conflict once the nuclear power possessed a conventional advantage.
Israel CERTAINLY acquired them as a defensive weapon. I can't imagine someone arguing with that one.
Iran acquired them (or is trying to acquire them) to ensure their ability to survive US aggression and potential Iraqi/Saudi hegemonical aggression.

Now, I'm not saying your list of 'diplomatic' reasons is incorrect. To a large extent, it's accurate. However, the diplomatic reasons and the military ones are tied together, and both exist in most cases. US, USSR, Britain, France acquired them in the premodern era, and China had defensive reasons that were secondary to the diplomatic reasons (and also were premodern acquisitors).

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva
Sweet. Nothing to worry about, then. Go ahead with your weapons programs, Kim, Mahmoud.

That doesn't mean the powers that be will allow that The acquisition of nukes by other powers lessens the power of the US/UK/etc., thus they don't usually react positively to that possibility

The process of acquiring nukes is the most dangerous time for war, as the opponent clearly has a huge incentive to attack the acquisitor while they are still not in possession of the nuclear weapon, as it marks a clear shift in the balance of power. The fact that a massive war did NOT break out in India/Pakistan pre-nukes is probably solely because both nations realized that they'd get nukes at around the same time; had India but not Pakistan acquired nukes (in a reasonable time frame), that would have nearly ensured a major conflict.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by PLATO
Louisiana purchase?

At the time the French only had a few isolated forts and trading posts throughout the territory; we were the ones who actually had to do all the dirty work.