Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 60
  1.    #1  
    With all the coverage of the recent meeting this week in Egypt and Iran confirming that they would not retreat “even an iota” from its pursuit of nuclear technology, I saw a panel interview on one for major news networks (can't remember which one as it was a couple days ago on Sat Radio). One of the people was a self proclaimed liberal and stated that it is arrogant of the USA to deny Iran Nuke weapons technology just because we have it. I don't think (or at least hope) that this is not a common view among the majority of liberals.

    My question is it the inherent right of any nation, no matter political agendas and affiliations, the stability of the gov, or the claimed goals of it's leaders to develop and maintain a nuclear program as this person did in the interview?

    And if not, what can or do we need to do in order to prevent unstable countries from becoming a nuclear power (and this can be any other country not just Iran or NK, i.e. Syria, Sudan, etc...)?

    In this month's Discover magazine there is a sidebar article that I found very interesting, especially after seeing the view points of some in the interview mentioned above:

    Proliferation Give Ne Life To Old Fear: Nuclear Winter
    By Emily Saarman
    Discovery Magazine May 2007 pg 15

    India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons, and Iran and North Korea are catching up. What if some of those nations decided to go for all-out war? Studies from the 1980s predicted that smoke from a nuclear war would produce widespread famine and chaos. Now, using sophisticated climate simulations unavailable in the 1980s, two atmosphere scientists recently modeled detonation of 100 Hiroshima size bombs in a hypothetical war between India and Pakistan. That might seem like a lot of bombs, but it's a reasonable estimate of the nations' firepower. And it actually represents less than 1/100th of 1% of the world's nuclear arsenal.

    The explosions would kill as many as 21 million people directly, and smoke from such a conflagration would dim the sun for 10 years or more, reducing rainfall and cooling the entire globe more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit, according to Brian Toon of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Alan Robock of Rutgers University. "It would produce a climate change unknown in recorded history -- colder than the little ice age," Robock says, referring to the period between the 14th and 19th centuries when a 1.5 degree F drop below today's temperatures caused crop failures, famines, and political unrest in northern Europe. The gases released during a nuclear detonation would also eradicate so much ozone that it would create a worldwide hole of ultraviolet exposure. Wreaking such devastation, Toon points out, it is no longer only the option of just a few superpowers. "When you get 20 or 30 states with nuclear weapons, somebody's going to get made eventually," he says.
  2. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #2  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    My question is it the inherent right of any nation, no matter political agendas and affiliations, the stability of the gov, or the claimed goals of it's leaders to develop and maintain a nuclear program as this person did in the interview?
    Who approved and financed the still undeclared nuclear weapons of Israel?

    Who determines the standard for stability?

    Who determines if the standard for stability is retroactive, meaning that a nuclear development program and developed weapons (produced during 'approved' conditions) will be removed due to political unrest?
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    With all the coverage of the recent meeting this week in Egypt and Iran confirming that they would not retreat “even an iota” from its pursuit of nuclear technology, I saw a panel interview on one for major news networks (can't remember which one as it was a couple days ago on Sat Radio). One of the people was a self proclaimed liberal and stated that it is arrogant of the USA to deny Iran Nuke weapons technology just because we have it. I don't think (or at least hope) that this is not a common view among the majority of liberals.
    As you know this is something I have always argued. It is undeniable that the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger is America, the only country to be engaging in wars well outside its borders is America, and the only country who is always talking about bunker busters and battlefield nuclear weapons is America. America has also made it clear it will act not necessarily in the cause of justice but to defend its own interests. They are not the world's police men.

    If the most dangerous country in the world has nuclear weapons then the other countries in the wold have a right to counter their aggression.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 05/03/2007 at 01:32 AM.
  4. #4  
    All nations have a right to pursue any and every endeavor fancied. No nation has a right to inhibit the pursuits of any other nation. That is not to say that no nation has an interest in the pursuits of other nations.

    Any nation, though, that acts on such an interest should know that it will face the consequences of its actions. Surely America will suffer the consequences of its actions. Whether those consequences will be peace or destruction remains to be seen.

    While in principle one's ideal posture is that of defending self rather than preventing acts of others, there are times when such a posture represents a greater risk. For some some scenarios are more easily recovered from than others. Defending against armed invasion is much simpler than defending against missile attack. Defending against conventional missile is much simpler than defending against nuclear armament.
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim View Post
    While in principle one's ideal posture is that of defending self rather than preventing acts of others, there are times when such a posture represents a greater risk.............Defending against conventional missile is much simpler than defending against nuclear armament.
    Shop, so do you feel it is in the world's best interest or not to limit nuclear armament.....and if so, how?
  6. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Shop, so do you feel it is in the world's best interest or not to limit nuclear armament.....and if so, how?
    And by all means, share with us your credentials for offering a subjective opinion on what is 'in the world's best interest.' beyond their complete and immediate elimination.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    As you know this is something I have always argued. It is undeniable that the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger is America, the only country to be engaging in wars well outside its borders is America, and the only country who is always talking about bunker busters and battlefield nuclear weapons is America. America has also made it clear it will act not necessarily in the cause of justice but to defend its own interests. They are not the world's police men.
    Very deniable.

    America is the only country to have used nukes in war. I wouldn't say "in anger." The bombs ended a war, and some historians argue that it actually saved lives because otherwise, the US would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Japan.

    And America is not the only country engaged in wars well outside its borders. Not even close.

    Keep in mind that all the other major powers have a history of imperialism. Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, and Germany each have invaded many other nations to subjugate them. The US has the best record of them all.

    If the most dangerous country in the world has nuclear weapons then the other countries in the wold have a right to counter their aggression.
    If you believe that, then surely you must agree that the US has the right the counter the agression of other countries.

    No government has rights in the way that people have rights. Does a dictator have the "right" to rule his country? Does a dictator have the "right" to murder millions of his people?

    Do you think the Taliban had the right to rule Afghanistan? Do you think they had the right to develop nuclear weapons if they chose?
  8. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Very deniable.

    America is the only country to have used nukes in war. I wouldn't say "in anger." The bombs ended a war, and some historians argue that it actually saved lives because otherwise, the US would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Japan.
    Which it couldn't sustain militarily. Hense, the shortcut. Iraq-styled sanctions would've killed as many in Japan.

    And America is not the only country engaged in wars well outside its borders. Not even close.
    You disregard the characterization of 'well outside its borders' with such ease.

    Keep in mind that all the other major powers have a history of imperialism. Britain, France, Russia, China, Japan, and Germany each have invaded many other nations to subjugate them. The US has the best record of them all.
    The US is an infant nation. Is it now the US's turn at Project For The New American Century -scripted emperialism in (what should be) this point of wise, enlightened history?

    If you believe that, then surely you must agree that the US has the right the counter the agression of other countries.

    Does a dictator have the "right" to rule his country? Does a dictator have the "right" to murder millions of his people?
    "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." - Shrub/December 18, 2000

    Do you think the Taliban had the right to rule Afghanistan? Do you think they had the right to develop nuclear weapons if they chose?
    England had the right, in the sense of the term you use, to rule America.
    Last edited by backbeat; 05/03/2007 at 08:41 AM.
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Very deniable.

    America is the only country to have used nukes in war. I wouldn't say "in anger."
    In anger is an expression, meaning in practice rather than an an exercise. This means it is in fact not deniable.

    The bombs ended a war, and some historians argue that it actually saved lives because otherwise, the US would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Japan
    And how many countries are subject to the same logic. Nuking Iraq would have saved 3400 American lives. Nuking Iran will save at least as much. Don't even talk about North Korea.

    And America is not the only country engaged in wars well outside its borders. Not even close.
    Name a few which are engaging in wars with countries not bordering them.

    If you believe that, then surely you must agree that the US has the right the counter the agression of other countries.
    Remind me when Iraq attacked USA.

    No government has rights in the way that people have rights.
    This is true. In international politics its all about might making right. In the same way no-one has the right to say they cant develop weapons either.

    Surur
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    And how many countries are subject to the same logic. Nuking Iraq would have saved 3400 American lives. Nuking Iran will save at least as much. Don't even talk about North Korea.
    Nuking Iraq would have killed more people than it saved. Not sure about Iran and North Korea.

    Name a few which are engaging in wars with countries not bordering them.
    Iran in Lebanon and Palestine.

    The following countries in Afghanistan:
    Belgium
    Bulgaria
    Canada
    Czech Republic
    Denmark
    Estonia
    France
    Germany
    Greece
    Hungary
    Iceland
    Italy
    Latvia
    Lithuania
    Luxemburg
    Netherlands
    Norway
    Poland
    Portugal
    Romania
    Slovakia
    Slovenia
    Spain
    Turkey
    United Kingdom
    Albania
    Austria
    Azerbaijan
    Croatia
    Finland
    former Yougoslov Republic of Macedonia
    Ireland
    Sweden
    Switzerland
    New Zealand

    Remind me when Iraq attacked USA.
    Never said they did.

    This is true. In international politics its all about might making right. In the same way no-one has the right to say they cant develop weapons either.

    Surur
    Stopping countries from developing nuclear weapons is not justified based on "rights." It's based on self-preservation.

    You didn't answer my questions. I'd really like to know what you think. Do you think a dictator has the right to rule his country?
  11. #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    Shop, so do you feel it is in the world's best interest or not to limit nuclear armament.....and if so, how?
    It's difficult to specify what is in the world's "best interest." As with all technology, though, the greater concern is the user, not the tool.

    Obviously, the absence of any such weapons would greatly reduce the number of people that could be killed at one time ("natural disaster" and/or "acts of god" notwithstanding). However, that would not necessarily curb the desire of any party to kill as many people as possible. It would just limit the pace at which such an objective could be achieved.

    Unless and until such desires are eliminated, having equal or superior capability increases likelihood of survival.

    In other words, there is a degree of reason in the mutually assured destruction school of thought....provided, you're dealing with people who wish to continue existing.

    The concern in our age is that there are prevalent ideologies that have a high value on no longer existing. For such, the threat of mutual destruction is ineffective. Outside of a philosophical shift, Neutralization or pre-emption are alternatives worthy of consideration.

    Again: This is why I say that a party must be prepared to experience the consequences of its actions. Pre-emption opens the door to retaliation.
  12. #12  
    Iran in Lebanon and Palestine.
    I missed the part where Iran invaded Lebanon and Palestine. When did this happen again? I am also not impressed by your "coalition of the willing" in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    Do you think a dictator has the right to rule his country?
    About as much right as a king has to rule his country. A better question would be who has a right to depose of said ruler? Certainly not people who are not under his rule.

    Stopping countries from developing nuclear weapons is not justified based on "rights." It's based on self-preservation.
    Its based on maintaining the status quo. America is not interested in a more equal power balance. Nuclear weapons has assured peace for the last 60 years, and if Iraq had them there would be no Gulf war II, and if Iran has them there will be no Gulf War III.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 05/03/2007 at 09:50 AM.
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I am not impressed by your "coalition of the willing" in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    I never said anything about Iraq.

    About as much right as a king has to rule his country. A better question would be who has a right to depose of said ruler? Certainly not people who are not under his rule.
    You still managed to avoid answering the question. Yes or no?

    Its based on maintaining the status quo. America is not interested in a more equal power balance. Nuclear weapons has assured peace for the last 60 years, and if Iraq had them there would be no Gulf war II, and if Iran has them there will be no Gulf War III.

    Surur
    Nuclear weapons have ensured peace because of the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Now that nations engage in wars through third parties by supplying funding and weapons, we can no longer rely on MAD to keep us safe. If a nuclear bomb is detonated in London or New York, there may not be someone against whom we can retaliate. If nuclear weapons continue to proliferate, our own destruction in inevitable.

    As for the status quo, it's quite the opposite. America wants regime change in a number of countries, and those countries want nuclear weapons to defend against change.
  14. #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I missed the part where Iran invaded Lebanon and Palestine. When did this happen again?
    I never said anything about invasion.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by surur
    About as much right as a king has to rule his country. A better question would be who has a right to depose of said ruler? Certainly not people who are not under his rule.
    You still managed to avoid answering the question. Yes or no?
    I think I answered it adequately. There are many present and historical models of civil rule, and a dictatorship is just one of them. If the people accept it (like Cuba for example) it has as much devine right as any other system.

    Surur
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    I think I answered it adequately. There are many present and historical models of civil rule, and a dictatorship is just one of them. If the people accept it (like Cuba for example) it has as much devine right as any other system.

    Surur
    That's a Yes then. This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe one man, or a group of men, has the right to rule against the will of the people. An oppressive regime doesn't have the right to exist, and so, it doesn't have the right to develop weapons that perpetuate its existence.
  17. #17  
    In Reference to your sig...

    "When the People fear their government, there is Tyranny; when the government fears the People, there is Liberty." -- Thomas Jefferson

    Could I extrapolate that you would be in favor of the people being at least as well-armed as their government, so that the government can fear them, with liberty as the result? Thus it would be o.k. for the people to be well-armed? Yeah the 2nd Amendment! (This may include nukes and other WMD's)

    From that, a takeover of a leader/dictator/government from within is o.k., but not from the outside? What if an outside government helps those inside revolt? What if those inside the country are so out-gunned they have no opportunity to lead a revolt without help? The days of peasants picking off the Redcoats with pea-shooters and Boston tea-parties is past. Now governments have so much tech at their disposal to quash any enemy, the people are at a great disadvantage.

    As to country vs. country...
    I think MAD only worked in this situation if there were identifiable countries involved, and ones who were not MAD (in the insane way) themselves. Those who are promised tons of virgins in nirvanna for blowing themselves up are not likely to sit down and quietly negotiate.

    Today's 3rd-party wars-by-proxy make it hard or impossible to immediately retaliate. Sometimes taking out the launch complexes or other infrastructure is the only way. War (and terrorism) is hell. Isn't it kill or be killed? That is... kill them BEFORE they can kill you? Afterwards is too late.
    "Everybody Palm!"

    Palm III/IIIC, Palm Vx, Verizon: Treo 650, Centro, Pre+.
    Leo killed my future Pre 3 & Opal, dagnabitt!
    Should I buy a Handspring Visor instead?
    Got a Pre2! "It eats iPhones for Breakfast"!
  18. #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    That's a Yes then. This is where we fundamentally disagree. I don't believe one man, or a group of men, has the right to rule against the will of the people. An oppressive regime doesn't have the right to exist, and so, it doesn't have the right to develop weapons that perpetuate its existence.
    When is America being liberated then?

    Samkin, you need to embrace relativism. You black and white world view will eventually cause you to blow up something.

    Surur
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by surur View Post
    When is America being liberated then?
    Because the US government is oppressing its people?

    Samkin, you need to embrace relativism. You black and white world view will eventually cause you to blow up something.

    Surur
    First, peaceful coexistence is a losing strategy with certain enemies.

    Second, I don't think we should ignore other people's problems.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Because the US government is oppressing its people?
    Which country has the highest per capita prison population in the world? Which country has the largest prison population in the world? Which country has passed obnoxious laws like the patriot act? Which country has set up prisons outside its own jurisdiction just so it wont be tied by its own laws. Which country was misled into a war which killed thousands of its residents? Which country can legally disappear people without right to trial or review, on the president's say so?

    Maybe Canada will come and save you.

    Surur
    Last edited by surur; 05/03/2007 at 01:23 PM.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions