The idea of having a nuclear weapon as a deterrent i.e. other countries attacking with nuclear weapons (kinda like the UK and USA goverments said Iraq could use... twice, both with a damn bush in office) ...is the most backwards thing ever.
Lets say russia (sorry, too much MW2 and BF2) fires a nuclear weapon at america, so america "retaliates" with a nuke of its own. Its pretty obvious noone wins in this situation.
I also looked up the dictionary spelling of "DETERRENT" and happend to see this as one of the defenitions.
3.military strength or an ability to defend a country or retaliate strongly enough to deter an enemy from attacking.
so even the dictionary says to deter means not to get an ass whoopin cos your guns are bigger "to deter a country from attacking"
Would a country really retaliate with a nuke if fired upon and is it right to do so?
After all... noone wins and mostly innocent people die. Because some fool made decisions for us.
I think nukes should be abolished, and anyone who thinks otherwise is welkomm to try and make a point.
How? Im struggling to understand how these countries would actually get past the defences. If they could they would also take out any chance of return fire, job done, so why has it not happened? Because they are not planning to do fire any nukes. They are scared that if war breaks out then america will once again use nukes as an excuse to "end" a war.
Our ports are wide-open to smuggling. I've already said this - pay attention. Also, neither of them have ready-to-use nukes yet, but they're both working on it.
No, they are crazy, hate us, I hate them, but they are NOT stupid.
You characterized any world leader who would use a nuke as a first strike as 'stupid.' Jong-Il and Ahmadenijad both may try to use a nuke against us. I used the word 'stupid' to kep in-context with what you were saying. Please consider my wording based on what I'm replying to.
I just dont see having nukes as a "deterrent"
The US has proven that it's cocky enough to use a nuke if deemed necessary by the president. World leaders don't *want* their countries glassed by a thermonuclear bomb, and it is quite possible for us to do that.
Why are we not in NK kikin their *** because of the apalling human rights record their goverment has?
We probably should be, but none of the presidents have tried to declare war yet.
Umm... actually nukes are EXTREMELY easy to make. It's just getting the proper material that is difficult.
I'd say acuiring the materials is part of making the nuke, and acquiring the materials is impossible unless you have hundreds of miles of land and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Sorry for the double post. Stupid tab keys, being all sneaky on my fast fingers.
We probably should be, but none of the presidents have tried to declare war yet.
Actually the US is technically still at war with North Korea. There was no peace treaty after the Korean War.
I'd say acuiring the materials is part of making the nuke, and acquiring the materials is impossible unless you have hundreds of miles of land and hundreds of billions of dollars.
Of course. However the context of my comment was in relation to the construction of a nuclear weapon. And yes, construction is very simple. Acquiring the processed nuclear material is what is difficult. Again, it's an argument in semantics. Getting all the materials = very difficult. Construction once said parts are acquired = very simple.
Which is why there has been so much controversy over their nuclear program. As of now the likelihood of them developing the properly processed material is very slim.
In the past 5 years there has been nothing put by he US or the UN that heavily affected their nuclear program.
Actually the US is technically still at war with North Korea. There was no peace treaty after the Korean War.
And Israel is still at war with Iran, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and a few other countries. Explain why the world leaders and the media were angry at us when we bombed nuclear facilities and dangerous people in those countries.
As for Jellyboy, what if he decides to get a nerd or two, spend some moolah, and carve out a niche as total dictator via nuclear weapons.
Yeah... good luck to him on that one. Im sure there is a ton of uranium just kicking around on the black market.
Think about it: You are a cop and there's a robber. The robber shoots you and you're nearly dead. What would you do? Go hug the robber and say 'I forgive you'?
STOP... think before speaking. A gun is NOT a nuke. Guns are personal. Nukes kill indescriminatly. There is a massive difference.
I think there is a great deterrent factor with the nuclear capabilities we have.
Its very hipocritical to say "we can have nukes but you cant" as if the western countries are older and more responsible?!?
Morals don't apply any more. You are entirely within your rights to nuke him back. That's the ethical aspect.
The ethical aspect. So its ethical to kill millions of innocent people because someone else did. Not saying I dont understand revenge but saying its ethical! Rethink what you are saying here.
If you really believe the western world has a moral high ground maybe you should go read up on the western worlds atrocius track record of death, slavery (previous and current), religious war, ignorant racisim, selling weapons (mostly to the countries we are bombing, past and current)... the list goes on.
How about we disarm all nukes we can, then slap anyone silly who tries to get em. We can also... right now... use renewable energy.
The thing that really holds back disarment is money. As usual iran says "we want refined uranium to make power stations".. fair enuf. We have em. All the rich countries have em. Why not them?
So if we get rid of nuclear capability i.e. weapons and power stations, then we could tell everyone they are not allowed nuclear capabilities and we can actually help them to use renewable energy.
As a bonus, anyone with uranium would stick out a mile and the rich nations would be justified using force on them.
So if we get rid of nuclear capability i.e. weapons and power stations
You should feel bad for saying this.
You can't just tell a country to give up their nukes
Are you being serious? Its such a strange statement that I cant take it seriously.
Me: Cmon guys, stop playing with your nukes... cmon, stop testing... cmon guys... America: Awwwww.... but I wanna play... France: Oui... We want to test mass destruction un genocide for ze future of generations on le earth America: Yeah... you should feel bad for telling us to stop playing with the one thing that could kill us all...
Oh wait... Your right. Im the bad guy
Ah well. May as well stop hoping for an ideal future and baaa! off back to my 5-9 job and not think about the world.
Go back to bed world... your goverment is in control.
Going back to the OP, I would think our satellite,(the CIA is watching your every move) and Navy bases, like Okinawa,(we can hear and break every code you can come up with), would be adequate deterrents for a possible nuke strike from another country.
Realistically, I don't see the US, post 9/11 disarming any WOMD until the world has been swept clean first. I also think the first strike will be, unfortunately, against Israel, not America. So, does the US look the other way when our UN brothers and sisters countries are being turned into moonscapes? If so, why be active in the United Nations? Where does that leave America if they pull out of the UN? BY THEMSELVES. No, as long as the US continues to receive viable threats to our ports and borders we must continue to warehouse the most and deadliest WOMD. Why, because of what this country stands for FREEDOM. This country has a constitution that even survived tyrannical President Lincoln who, #1 declared war on the south without consulting congress, #2 had politicians thrown in prison who disagreed with his AGENDA, #3 signed a warrant for a supreme court judge to be imprisoned, #4 had the congress so afraid for their own lives that they would not vote against Lincoln... *end of rant*
Other, non free countries such as Iran and N.Korea hate us because our constitution works. Women, people of color, and other minorities can finally stand shoulder to shoulder with white men. They hate us because they fear us.
