Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 50
  1. #1
    BigGreen's Avatar
    BigGreen is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    12,000 feet above it all
    Posts
    4,453

    BG Roundtable #1: The U.S. as nuclear paternalist

    Given the current climate in Iran and the reaction of the United States - something that has been mirrored throughout the world since the end of the cold war, we are forced to confront the reality of whether the U.S. has an inherent "right" to play the role of a paternalistic gatekeeper of the world's nuclear weapons allowance. In short, what gives the United States the moral authority to so openly influence which nations create and maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons? Does the U.S. even have such authority in the least?

    On the one hand, it can be argued that there is an insultingly hypocritical component to such a stance. How is it that the nation with not only the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, but the only entity to have actually demonstrated a willingness to use them has the audacity to scold other nations (and selectively so at that) for attempting to gain "equal footing"? There exists a convincing argument that the United States discourages nuclear proliferation not for the so-called 'safety of the globe', but merely to maintain its own supremacy and to subjugate other nations to its implicit nuclear rule. How is this any different from a band of castaways on an island that find themselves on fairly equal footing, save for one castaway who happens to have a compound bow and several arrows? Using the implied power that comes from his possession of this bow, this castaway not only reaps the benefits of this bow, but uses the destructive force of the technologically superior compound bow to prevent the others from even attemtping to fashion a crude bow from raw materials.

    On the other hand, virtually all global politics can legitimately be underscored by the notion that what is good for America is good for the world. Though a narrow and somewhat self-serving view, there is quite a bit of truth to it, at least in the short term. Furthermore, as the U.S. shoulders an incredible burden in the somewhat explicit role as global police officer (for better or for worse) the implicit relationship exchange at play is that the policing body is accorded an increased "voice" in exchange for that additional burden of risk. Viewed from that perspective, what right does the vast majority of the world, who relies on US dollars and military might in numerous instances for survival on various levels, have to deny the U.S. its right to exercise its might? And finally, we must allow for the fact that we do not live in a perfect world. Returning to the above analogy of the bow and arrow, if you're the only guy on the island with the bow, and the castaway who was a convicted felon serving three life sentences was attempting to fashion a bow, would you not attempt to stop him?

    In short, the questions become: does the U.S. have a 'be all-end all" right to act as nuclear father to the world, determining at its whim who is "allowed" to have nukes and who is not? If so, how do they draw the distinction? What are your personal opinions on this? For the vast majority of us who are US citizens, imagine that China was the world's nuclear superpower and tried to influence American nuclear ambitions.

    I'll be playing devil's advocate quite liberally in these. Have at it boys and girls.

  2. #2
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    It does and it doesn't. Before you think I'm pulling a John Kerry on you, let me explain. Iran and N.Korea are totalitarian countries, who aside from having their own leaders wanting to push other countries around once they have nuclear abilities, could potentially be a threat to the US. Its more the first reason than the second.

    Also, if Iran gets nuclear, that greatly increases the chances of terrorist groups getting their hands on nuclear explosives. They give other kinds of weapons to terrorists, so its unfortunatly not out of the scope of reality. They wouldn't have to even hit the US for the effects to be devastating, the chaos of a bomb going off and some group like Al-Queda taking credit for it would put the non-Islamic world on red alert. Potentially forever, and rightfully so.


    In short, the US is protecting itself, and anyone else who could fall victem to nuclear weapons in the wrong hands. And to say the US is somehow being hypocritical from THAT standpoint is impossible. The US has not arbitrarily threated other countries with nuclear threats(meaning the Cold War isn't what I'm talking about), nor has it used these bombs in a manner which could be argued was unneccesary or unjust.

  3. #3
    BigGreen's Avatar
    BigGreen is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    12,000 feet above it all
    Posts
    4,453
    Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate in these threads and be provoking (within reason) on purpose. I may or may not agree with you, but I'm largely going to act as if I don't simply to prod the discussion(s) along.

    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend
    It does and it doesn't. Before you think I'm pulling a John Kerry on you, let me explain. Iran and N.Korea are totalitarian countries, who aside from having their own leaders wanting to push other countries around once they have nuclear abilities, could potentially be a threat to the US. Its more the first reason than the second.
    So you would argue that the U.S. *does* in fact have a unilateral right to declare which countries represent a threat? What about this triumvirate: England, India, Iran. We can reasonably argue that England and Iran sit at opposite ends of the spectrum. But what of a country like India that is fairly unstable when compared to the U.S.? We can't definitively say they represent a threat when armed with nukes, but the idea of an armed India is justifiably a concern to many despite that. How do we treat this 'fringe' cases? Fair enough if we elect to treat them on a case by case basis, but then, WHERE does the US derive the right to be the sole determinant of those fringe cases?

  4. #4
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by BigGreen

    Fair enough if we elect to treat them on a case by case basis, but then, WHERE does the US derive the right to be the sole determinant of those fringe cases?

    The US has a right to protect itself. And so do other countries. If a country seems like a threat, then it obviously shouldn't be given an opportunity to act in a dangerous manner towards the US. Even though Iraq is a piss poor example of the US acting with initiative, the concept is right. Had we acted more forcefully before 9-11 in dealing with terrorism, it would never have come about. The reason why we didn't was because the threat wasn't apparent.......but it is in this case. Someone who supports terrorism shouldn't have their hands on weapons of mass destruction. Someone who will use WMD's to bully other countries shouldn't have them. Communist Russia is an example of what can happen when too much power goes unchecks. Nazi Germany is an even stronger example.

    Besides, the countries that are devloping these things aren't doing it for peaceful intentions. Its to scare people into giving it foreign aid, and possibly use for violence on huge manitudes. The second being why the US has to act when these situations come up.

  5. #5
    BigGreen's Avatar
    BigGreen is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    12,000 feet above it all
    Posts
    4,453
    Quote Originally Posted by UrbanLegend

    Besides, the countries that are devloping these things aren't doing it for peaceful intentions. Its to scare people into giving it foreign aid, and possibly use for violence on huge manitudes. The second being why the US has to act when these situations come up.
    Very valid points, though I remain curious as to how you treat those 'fringe nations' I mention above - the countries that are neither clear threats nor clear allies. Is it within this grey area that the US should be forced to somewhat loosen its authority in this regard?

  6. #6
    UrbanLegend's Avatar
    UrbanLegend is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,709
    Quote Originally Posted by BigGreen
    Very valid points, though I remain curious as to how you treat those 'fringe nations' I mention above - the countries that are neither clear threats nor clear allies. Is it within this grey area that the US should be forced to somewhat loosen its authority in this regard?


    Yeah. The problem with your example (IMO) is that you used India. Whos also next to Pakistan. And Pakistan has nuclear weapons. And they happen to hate each other. A nuclear cloud that occurs from a war between them could destroy crops, poison water, etc, the aftermath will be devastating to the world.

    So, there is a reason to be worried in this type of 'grey area' matter. Because the use of a nuclear weapon can create enviornmental problems no matter how it is used. Plus the US is pretty stable, all things considered. Most other countries don't have a government as powerful and stable as this one, making it hard for "bad guys" to get their hands on this stuff.

    But as for peaceful, grey area countries like lets say......Mongolia (I think they are peaceful???) I don't think the US has mcuh authority if they were to get a nuclear weapons program going.

  7. #7
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    The US has been the ONLY country to use nuclear weapons......not only that, they were used against a civilian population. The world has a right to be scared of US and along with that right a development of a nuclear deterrent......unless of course there would be worldwide nuclear disarmament which is highly doubtful and unenforceable.
    Not only have we used atomic bombs, but have also attacked with depleted uranium and napalm like devices.

  8. #8
    Juggernaut's Avatar
    Juggernaut is offline AR Jester
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    FL
    Posts
    6,545
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    The US has been the ONLY country to use nuclear weapons......not only that, they were used against a civilian population. The world has a right to be scared of US and along with that right a development of a nuclear deterrent......unless of course there would be worldwide nuclear disarmament which is highly doubtful and unenforceable.
    Not only have we used atomic bombs, but have also attacked with depleted uranium and napalm like devices.
    How much longer do you think the war would have continued had America not used those two bombs? Whould the loss of life been greater or less?

    BigGreen my view would be totally biased...being an American I feel it best we maintain control, as best we can, over whom does and doesn't have nuclear capablities. It's highly unlikely that we would hand over any materials to terrorists or to use shuch devices without having exhausted all deplomatic avenues. The president can't just wake up on the wrong side of the bed and press a button.....but a country that doesn't have as many checks and balances as we do could do so. But above all, and to keep the grip of such power, America has no other choice than to oppose it's will on other countries in the name of safety for it's own peoples. We help out a lot of other countries.....if they want our assistance then it's a small price to pay. But honestly what does it benefit a country if they have such bombs when the monies could be used to fortify home land defences and well as helping out it's citizens?

  9. #9
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    The less people that have them the better. The more sane people (less extremeist) that have them the better. Are we the most qualified on the planet? I honestly in my heart believe yes. We used them once (twice) in one war. Never since that shows responsibilty and restraint. Now Badger be nice.............

  10. #10
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    The less people that have them the better. The more sane people (less extremeist) that have them the better. Are we the most qualified on the planet? I honestly in my heart believe yes. We used them once (twice) in one war. Never since that shows responsibilty and restraint. Now Badger be nice.............
    Almost again in the Cuban missle crises.

    What gets me is the US does things first and THEN after decides it's wrong for everyone else to do what we did...
    for example.....
    American Indians.......land grab and ethnic cleansing
    mirrored by the Japanese incursions into China.......result
    US embargos Japan and war results.

    America.........slavery and racist system.
    mirrored by South Africa........result
    US interferes in South Africas affairs toppling apartheid

    US meddles in Central and South America.......contras, Noriega, Pinochet, etc etc...........
    Iran meddles in Iraq........and we freak.

    US drops TWO nuclear weapons on a civilian population........massive civilian casualties..........
    Iraq AND Iran use chemical weapons supplied by US and other world powers against each other and Kurds.......civilian casualties(minor compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki)........
    US freaks and invades this "evil empire"........and uses depleted uranium and napalm........with large civilian "collateral damage"

    US develops huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, nerve gas, biologics.......
    mirrored by a myriad of other coutries including Israel.......
    Islamic nations try to develop same capabilities........all of a sudden it is a huge problem

    It goes on and on.

  11. #11
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    well I agree we have stepped on our own pricks on much of our foreign policy. America wasn't the only country involved in slavery, the American Indians were a warring tribal people anyway, not tree huggers like they are portrayed.

    Cause and effect......we are trying to keep our independence and making some mistakes in the process. However we have managed to creat the greatest nation on this planet. And able to enjoy things that you and I take for granted everyday.

  12. #12
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    well I agree we have stepped on our own pricks on much of our foreign policy. America wasn't the only country involved in slavery, the American Indians were a warring tribal people anyway, not tree huggers like they are portrayed.

    Cause and effect......we are trying to keep our independence and making some mistakes in the process. However we have managed to creat the greatest nation on this planet. And able to enjoy things that you and I take for granted everyday.
    THANK YOU........a man who admits we make mistakes........NOW if GW would just own up to it too......then we can make progress.......

    The warring tribal people comment is interesting.......kind of applies to the current situation in the mideast doesn't it??

  13. #13
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    yes it does, frankly I didn't realize the extent of the American Indians warring ways until I saw a documentary many of them joine dthe US Arrmy as scouts to help the US kill their rival tribes

  14. #14
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    American Indians.......land grab and ethnic cleansing
    mirrored by the Japanese incursions into China.......result
    US embargos Japan and war results.
    Are you saying that the US is responsible for Japan attacking Pearl Harbor?


    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    US drops TWO nuclear weapons on a civilian population........massive civilian casualties..........
    And saves thousands of American soldier’s lives. You left off that part.



    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Iraq AND Iran use chemical weapons supplied by US and other world powers against each other and Kurds.......civilian casualties(minor compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki)........
    When they used them against Civilian populations for no reason other than genocide, yes the US freaks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    US freaks and invades this "evil empire"........and uses depleted uranium and napalm........with large civilian "collateral damage"
    Please provide proof of the US using “depleted uranium and napalm” against civilians.


    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    US develops huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons, nerve gas, biologics.......
    mirrored by a myriad of other coutries including Israel.......
    Islamic nations try to develop same capabilities........all of a sudden it is a huge problem
    Can you see the difference between nations that do not sponsor Terrorism having WMD’s and nations that sponsor Terrorism having WMD’s.

  15. #15
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    yes it does, frankly I didn't realize the extent of the American Indians warring ways until I saw a documentary many of them joine dthe US Arrmy as scouts to help the US kill their rival tribes
    People are the same........and always will be until the end........war is just the manifestation of the "problem" inside man's head. It is just naive to think that somehow the US people don't have this "problem" but everybody else does.

    In The Washington Times, June 22, 1989, p. F4, Dr. Richard M. Restak, a neurologist and neuropsychiatrist, an author of "The Brain" and "The Mind," reviewed a book by Ronald Markman and Dominick Bosco, Alone with the Devil: Famous Cases of a Courtroom Psychiatrist, and in the review he writes:

    * "Most crimes - even grisly murders - are not committed by mentally ill people, but by people just like you and me." He quotes with approval a statement by Linda Kasabian, a member of the Charles Manson "family," found guilty of the Sharon Tate-LaBianca murders: "I believe that we all have a part of the Devil within us - it's just a matter of bringing it out." Dr. Markman admits, "We all do have a willingness - even an appetite - to kill within us. All it takes is the right combination of factors to raise it to the surface."

  16. #16
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Bigen.......Japan didn't attack us just for fun did they??

    So it is ok to kill civilians to save soldiers???.......that is Saddam reasoning right there buddy

    Anybody would know that civilians got hit in Iraq and Viet Nam with napalm.

    Central American death squads are not terrorists??......no telling what we have sponsored directly or indirectly.

  17. #17
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    The weird thingis last nite Tombstone was on (movie with Kurt Russel) and I said to my wife if I had been born in those days or before I think I would have been a very bad, evil person, I believe we are all capable. That is why God is so important to me, he gives me my humanity IMO. (just my o2 on me)

  18. #18
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    The weird thingis last nite Tombstone was on (movie with Kurt Russel) and I said to my wife if I had been born in those days or before I think I would have been a very bad, evil person, I believe we are all capable. That is why God is so important to me, he gives me my humanity IMO. (just my o2 on me)

    Tombstone is like my all time favorite movie.....kinda bloody......

    "I know.....let's have a spelling contest"

    Doc Holliday was awesome

  19. #19
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Bigen.......Japan didn't attack us just for fun did they?? .

    No, the attacked because they knew the war was inevitable and chose a preemptive strike. They believed that America was weak and if they destroyed our forces on Pearl Harbor, that America would back down.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    So it is ok to kill civilians to save soldiers???.......that is Saddam reasoning right there buddy.
    On outlying Japanese islands. As Allied invasion forces began landing, the Japanese army urged inhabitants to commit suicide. At the June 19, 1944 invasion of Saipan, the overwhelming majority of the 18,000 Japanese civilians on the island jumped off cliffs into the sea.

    The mass Japanese civilian suicides that occurred at each inhabited island convinced the Truman administration that Japan would never surrender and that the use of atomic weapons would actually save Japanese and American lives.


    Here is what President Harry S. Truman told Congress on June 1, 1945.
    "The Japanese still have more than four million troops under arms--a force larger than the Germans were ever able to put against us on the Western Front. To back up this Army, they have several million additional men of military age who have not yet been called to the colors. We have not yet come up against the main strength of this Japanese military force. In the future we shall have to expect more damage rather than less." .

    The President spoke of sending an armada of more than 300 B-29 Superfortresses to bomb Tokyo and how the resulting fires killed 100,000 civilians in one night. He pleaded:
    "What has already happened to Tokyo will happen to every Japanese city whose industries feed the Japanese war machine. I urge Japanese civilians to leave those cities if they wish to save their lives."


    The US didn’t start the war, we warned Japan to surrender or we would drop one of the bombs, they didn’t surrender.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Anybody would know that civilians got hit in Iraq and Viet Nam with napalm.
    I have seen no evidence that the US has killed civilians with Napalm in Iraq.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Central American death squads are not terrorists??......no telling what we have sponsored directly or indirectly.
    Unfortunately the US has acted rashly in some instances, but your constant attitude, that the US can do no right, earns you the right to wear that American Traitor banner.

  20. #20
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Tombstone is like my all time favorite movie.....kinda bloody......

    "I know.....let's have a spelling contest"

    Doc Holliday was awesome
    One of my favorite movies also,

    Val Kilmer, with out a doubt, stole the show.

    Doc Holliday: It appears my hypocrisy knows no bounds.

    Doc Holliday: Why Kate, You're not wearing a bustle. How lewd.

  21. #21
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    So Bigen........you ADMIT that the US has sponsored terrorism through Central American death squads??

  22. #22
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Bigen......what about this little plan???

    Can't believe stuff like this isn't STILL going on??




    In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights* a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS.* This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods.* Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba.* These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.* Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”


    Here's the link for the whole document

    http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
    Last edited by Badgerman; 12-02-2004 at 12:44 PM.

  23. #23
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    So Bigen........you ADMIT that the US has sponsored terrorism through Central American death squads??
    No, I admit that I do not know enough about that subject to speak intelligently on it.

  24. #24
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Bigen......what about this little plan???

    Can't believe stuff like this isn't STILL going on??
    Do you think that every war, attack or incident that has ever happened to the US or the US has performed, was begun under the same context as the article that you sited?

  25. #25
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    No.......but you ridicule anybody who believes some of the conflicts could have happened in the same fashion. Obviously there are those in OUR government who would be willing to use terrorism as a tool to achieve certain goals. But yet we go nutzoid over other countries having terrorists........So now terrorism is ok if we do it?
    And I am certain there are those same kinds of people in every government........
    but should we be engaging in the same kinds of acts we so abhor??

  26. #26
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Obviously there are those in OUR government who would be willing to use terrorism as a tool to achieve certain goals.
    I believe that if you look at any organization there are fringe elements, within the organizations, which are willing to go to any means to achieve their desired goals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    But yet we go nutzoid over other countries having terrorists........So now terrorism is ok if we do it?
    No it isn’t.

    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    And I am certain there are those same kinds of people in every government........
    but should we be engaging in the same kinds of acts we so abhor??
    No we shouldn’t.

    I don’t doubt that with in our history, fringe elements with in the US have put forth false information, or twisted the facts to achieve their goals. However I believe that is the exception rather than the rule.

  27. #27
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigen12
    I believe that if you look at any organization there are fringe elements, within the organizations, which are willing to go to any means to achieve their desired goals.

    I don’t doubt that with in our history, fringe elements with in the US have put forth false information, or twisted the facts to achieve their goals. However I believe that is the exception rather than the rule.


    What you say is indeed hopeful......I mean calling these entities "fringe elements"........however in the case of "Operation Northwoods".......it was prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....and delivered to Robert McNamara.......would you consider those people fringe??.....or pretty much the group running America??.......mainstream government wouldn't you say??

  28. #28
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    What you say is indeed hopeful......I mean calling these entities "fringe elements"........however in the case of "Operation Northwoods".......it was prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.....and delivered to Robert McNamara.......would you consider those people fringe??.....or pretty much the group running America??.......mainstream government wouldn't you say??

    In that example no, I would not call them fringe elements. However it was a plan that apparently was never implemented.

    Without recent examples, I can't say for certain whether or not this type of thing has happened since.

  29. #29
    Swellin Guest
    Well, this one got way off base! Anybody care to stop pissing and moaning and go back to the discussion at hand...I was pretty interested in it.

    As for my answer...my wife just came in and told me to get my ass off the computer as we are heading to see her parents...she just threatened atomic warfare, so I am surrendering with the speed of lightening!

  30. #30
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Okay back to topic if not us then who would you charge with this responsibility? Who can be trusted to take on this task? Nuke will never go away. They will always need a steward.

  31. #31
    Bigen12's Avatar
    Bigen12 is offline AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    4,301
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    Okay back to topic if not us then who would you charge with this responsibility? Who can be trusted to take on this task? Nuke will never go away. They will always need a steward.
    Agreed, one could argue that the UN would be the best organization for this task; however I can't ever see the US, for one, giving control of our Nukes to anyone.

  32. #32
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Swellin
    Well, this one got way off base! Anybody care to stop pissing and moaning and go back to the discussion at hand...I was pretty interested in it.

    As for my answer...my wife just came in and told me to get my ass off the computer as we are heading to see her parents...she just threatened atomic warfare, so I am surrendering with the speed of lightening!
    Actually it goes to the root of the issue......is the US govt any more trustworthy and moral than any other govt.

  33. #33
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Badger, this is not nationalism or blind faith , I say yes America is the best suited.

  34. #34
    Swellin Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Badgerman
    Actually it goes to the root of the issue......is the US govt any more trustworthy and moral than any other govt.
    While it is tangentially connected to the root, it took a severe left turn from the discussion about nules. It turned into "me vs. you" about America being a big sack of **** or a great place.....nothing to do SPECIFICALLY with the nuke question, even though it started that way.

  35. #35
    RockSolid's Avatar
    RockSolid is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    New Jerzey, USA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    Badger, this is not nationalism or blind faith , I say yes America is the best suited.
    first I would like to say very good thread biggreen.

    1victor, who are we to tell other nations that they cannot have nuclear weapons when we are the only nation that has used the nuclear weapons, and have the largest stockpiles of any nation on earth. that is very unfair.

    why is it that other nations cant advance in a military sense, when we keep developing new kinds of nukes?

    a nation that doesnt have any nukes of any kind, can tell another nation not to possess them. that is fair and just.

    it is like a drunk telling a person that drinks for recreation, dont drink, its bad for you.

  36. #36
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    Rock , because it is something that should have never been developed to begin with and the US was not the only one in the race to get it. That analogy of drunks in this discussion is dumb. Let's see a beer vs nuke warhead, they don't belong in the same sentence.

    It seems almost childish to say "it's not fair" when we are talking of something so destructive. Buddy let me tell you if we wanted to we could have overrun this entire planet by now but we haven't and would'nt. It goes back to stability tell me of any country that is more stable than ours , that would show as much restraint?

    Russia was able to do it. But these other militant, fanatical countries don't qualify. This discussion is almost absurd. Rock I ask you.....what country do you want to have control over nukes other than the USA? Which one gives you that warm fuzzy feeling inside that you will not be vaporized?

  37. #37
    RockSolid's Avatar
    RockSolid is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    New Jerzey, USA
    Posts
    570
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    Rock , because it is something that should have never been developed to begin with and the US was not the only one in the race to get it. That analogy of drunks in this discussion is dumb. Let's see a beer vs nuke warhead, they don't belong in the same sentence.

    It seems almost childish to say "it's not fair" when we are talking of something so destructive. Buddy let me tell you if we wanted to we could have overrun this entire planet by now but we haven't and would'nt. It goes back to stability tell me of any country that is more stable than ours , that would show as much restraint?

    Russia was able to do it. But these other militant, fanatical countries don't qualify. This discussion is almost absurd. Rock I ask you.....what country do you want to have control over nukes other than the USA? Which one gives you that warm fuzzy feeling inside that you will not be vaporized?
    We'll it isnt fair, we cannot tell other nations not to possess nuclear weapons when we are the nation that has the most nukes and has nukes before this is very hypocritical. No "we" cant overrun the entire planet we cant even overrun Iraq if the entire population rebelled against us, that is an absurd statement.

    militant and fanatic? has a country like Iran attacked any nation? how about north korea? both are no. has the US attacked other nations? yes. The US goes to war more than any other nation? other nations think, actually most nations think the US of A is the most militant and fanactic nation in the world.

    i think no one can stop nuclear proliferation, its a done deal, especially countries like iran and nk, they will get nukes eventually, its juts a matter of when. unless there is a move to destroy all nuclear weapons, which will never happen

  38. #38
    Pale Horse's Avatar
    Pale Horse is offline F.I.L.F.
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    ACLU headquarters
    Posts
    6,425
    by overrun I mean nuke. Those other countries haven't been more agressive because they aren't powerful enough. We go to war to help to keep the peace. It's an oxymoron but true IMO. We disagree , no hard feelings.

  39. #39
    Badgerman's Avatar
    Badgerman is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    A mile High
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by 1victor
    by overrun I mean nuke. Those other countries haven't been more agressive because they aren't powerful enough. We go to war to help to keep the peace. It's an oxymoron but true IMO. We disagree , no hard feelings.
    We selectively go to war to keep peace where our interests are served.
    Our moral crusades revolve around economics more than righteousness.
    We are by FAR the most aggressive nation in the world......with military bases in every corner of the globe. No wonder everybody is scared and wants a nuclear deterrent. If I were a nation I'd be scrambling for a deterrent......otherwise it is bow to US wants in every arena.
    Our country is very much like the Romans......people got sick of those overbearing morons.......just like they will be sick of US.

  40. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    2,393
    Perhaps part of the thinking is that since these countries (Iran, N.Korea, etc...) contributed nothing to the developments of this technology, they don't deserve to have it. In other words, they weren't intellegent or clever enough to develop the technology, so they shouldn't have it.

    That reasoning, if applied across the board, would be unfortunate for most of the middle east, since they as a group have developed almost nothing in the way of medicine, vaccines, technology (cars, phones, computers, etc..)....or basically anything of societal value at all, really. Ever.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •