Jump to content


Photo

Additions to the nuclear club?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 08 August 2005 - 06:59 PM

Everyone knows about Iran and North Korea, but Brazil and Argentina?
http://edition.cnn.c...b.ap/index.html

If this is true, then this would be the first action by American countries other than the US to pursue nuclear weapons. Argentina did not sign the 1967 Tlatelolco Treaty preventing nuclear proliferation, but Brazil did and ratified it in 1968. If nuclear weapons are developed in South America, especially Argentina or Brazil, the rest of the world should be prepared for more nuclear states.

Does it seem like the Non-proliferation Treaty's just being ignored these days?
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#2 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 August 2005 - 07:24 PM

dont you want a war? im not sure why but i partly want a war

#3 chemical ali

chemical ali

    Pie! Be nice I'm staff and I can ban0rz j00!

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:building an empire of doom
  •  chief mischief maker

Posted 08 August 2005 - 08:01 PM

Argentina's nuclear programe was in the Militant leadership days, Im preaty sure that part of the World has a lot of uranium deposits. Brazil and Argentina well its a bit like the India-Pakistan situation or it was.

Iran is my fear, radical Muslims with nukes and missiles that say 'death to Israel and the West' not a good feeling. I would suspect the Israelis will do a strike like they did to Iraq in 1981, but as I've read Iran has surrounded its 'peaceful' and 'civillian' nuclear facilities with anti-air systems.

And to the guest, do you know what nuclear war is like? 60 years on Hiroshima, Nagasaki people live on with horific problems that will be around for the future due to radiation. And if we did have a nuclear war it would effect the whole world.

Non-proliferation Treaty is ignored, for a fact you can just refurbish old nukes like what the UK is doing at the moment, I belive nuclear weapons must be kept as we might need them one day.
Posted Image

Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56

#4 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 08 August 2005 - 08:06 PM

Does it matter?

Better that everyone has a gun to point at their neighbours' heads, that way it's less likely anyone will pull the trigger.

Nukes are the only reason the cold war didn't hot up. They're the only reason WW3 hasn't already broken out. Nobody wants that kind of devastation, or to be the one to wreak it.

USA has more than the rest of the world combined, so before the USA has any right to demand other nations to NOT have nukes, it should dismantle ALL of its own. Which it won't, and rightly so.

#5 Athena

Athena

    Embody the Truth

  • Undead
  • 6,946 posts
  •  Former Community Leader

Posted 08 August 2005 - 09:25 PM

USA has more than the rest of the world combined, so before the USA has any right to demand other nations to NOT have nukes, it should dismantle ALL of its own.

^ Agreed.
I say, everyone drop the nukes, that includes USA :)
This is bound to go wrong someday.

#6 Silent_Killa

Silent_Killa

    Village Idiot

  • Project Team
  • 790 posts

Posted 08 August 2005 - 09:53 PM

And we would use what for deterrence?

These other countries can't have nukes because they signed a treaty that said they wouldn't. We haven't signed a treaty that says we have to get rid of all of ours. The problem is that if the US continues to allow countries to ignore treaties it makes the US look weak, and unwilling/unable to enforce the treaties. When the US looks weak, then more countries ignore the treaties, and we're in really bad shape.

As far as Brazil and Argentina, they didn't sign the treaty until after their little arms race was over. Plus, they're no longer persuing nuclear weapons (as far as we know) so it doesn't really matter. North Korea, however, needs to be delt with if you ask me. We've been giving in inch by inch to them, and now they have nukes, which they originally claimed that they weren't building. So, now they say they won't use them first... yeah, trust the psychopath, it worked with Germany :)
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell

#7 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 09 August 2005 - 10:34 AM

But what gives:

A) The USA the right to police the fucking world?
B) The USA the right to have nukes, while other nations may not?

Those other nations will use what for deterrent?


I don't trust the US government any more than I do the Argentine government or even the North Korean government. There's nothing to stop ol' Bushy pushing the red button either.

Chances are, Argentina and Brazil were more or less forced to sign the treaty. Then again, every other country will have been too. What do you suggest, Silent Killa? The USA invade every little bloody country that decides, 'why should we be made to not have nukes when the USA does have them? How is that fair?' ? Why dont' you just go on a quest for world domination? Oops, sorry, one of those quests is already going on, isn't it? :)

Seriously, every country should keep out of every other country's bloody business and look after its own unless asked for help. It's unfair to impose one's will upon another's independent nation. ZOMG THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC!!
So the fuck what? If they're that bothered, they'll perform a coup d'etat or a revolution. Russia managed it. The USA managed it. Hell, even England and France managed it. If the people of a nation aren't disillusioned enough to start one, it is not our place to conduct it for them. That's called force-feeding one's own ways.


So yes. All nations may have nukes, or all nations may not. That's fair. If nobody has nukes, nobody has anything to deter another nation against. And we can all be happy.

#8 MSpencer

MSpencer

    Think Tank... Legend?

  • Hosted
  • 4,120 posts
  • Location:Montreal, QC
  • Projects:Admin @ Meaaov Gaming, university studies, ugh... research. GNP's Flagship of the Left.
  •  Angry, angry bastard.

Posted 09 August 2005 - 04:18 PM

The US has not built nukes since the 1980s. Most of the nukes from the cold war are slated for decommissioning over the coming years.
Russia is building a new generation of SLBMs and SSBNs, which are designed for the sole purpose of penetrating missile shields.

Excuse me if I don't want a country that held Americans hostage to have nuclear weapons, but Iran really, really should not be building the bomb.
Posted Image
My Favorite Website.My UniversityAnd... Mein Kampf?
C. elegans for President

#9 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:01 PM

So, it's OK for the USA to point a gun to Iran's head, but not vice versa.

#10 ComradeJ

ComradeJ

    Comrade Jamgee

  • Project Team
  • 2,067 posts
  • Location:Close to Daeda!
  • Projects:Red Alert: ReGeneration

Posted 09 August 2005 - 05:58 PM

I heard an interesting thing on the news today. Some d00d (I believe he was from Pakistan) was spying a Dutch company that works with Uranium, and he told his information to North-Korea, Pakistan and Iran, to help them build a nuclear weapon. The government wanted to arrest him, but wasn't allowed to... You can guess three times who forbid the capture of this man. . .

The CIA!
You cannot compare pissing to thinking
- SoulReaver

#11 Silent_Killa

Silent_Killa

    Village Idiot

  • Project Team
  • 790 posts

Posted 09 August 2005 - 07:04 PM

A) The USA the right to police the fucking world?

TREATIES
http://dictionary.re...search?q=treaty

It's a legal document, you can't just ignore it because you get your panties in a bunch.

B) The USA the right to have nukes, while other nations may not?

What Spencer said, we're getting rid of our nukes, slowly yes, but it's more than most other countries can say.

Those other nations will use what for deterrent?

Big brother USA, in most of these treaties the US has to save their ass if they get themselves into trouble.

Chances are, Argentina and Brazil were more or less forced to sign the treaty. Then again, every other country will have been too. What do you suggest, Silent Killa? The USA invade every little bloody country that decides, 'why should we be made to not have nukes when the USA does have them? How is that fair?' ? Why dont' you just go on a quest for world domination? Oops, sorry, one of those quests is already going on, isn't it? rolleyes.gif

Treaties. This isn't a matter of them having nukes. Those half assed excuses for X-Ray machines strapped to bottle rockets most likely wouldn't make it half way to the US, or before the US airstriked them all. It would be like if you could just ignore a contract.

Seriously, every country should keep out of every other country's bloody business and look after its own unless asked for help. It's unfair to impose one's will upon another's independent nation. ZOMG THEY ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC!!
So the fuck what? If they're that bothered, they'll perform a coup d'etat or a revolution. Russia managed it. The USA managed it. Hell, even England and France managed it. If the people of a nation aren't disillusioned enough to start one, it is not our place to conduct it for them. That's called force-feeding one's own ways.

Or it's just speeding along a process that was already in the works. Sure, eventually a revolution in Iraq could have eventually occured, but you think the conflict now is bloody? Add a few more zeros to the current statistics and see what you think.

So yes. All nations may have nukes, or all nations may not. That's fair. If nobody has nukes, nobody has anything to deter another nation against. And we can all be happy.

Even when that nation is ruled by a psychopath who's favorite phrase is: "Death to the capitalist pigs!" or "Death to the infidels!"?

So, it's OK for the USA to point a gun to Iran's head, but not vice versa.

It's ok for a cop to point a gun to a murderers head, but not vice versa.

I heard an interesting thing on the news today. Some d00d (I believe he was from Pakistan) was spying a Dutch company that works with Uranium, and he told his information to North-Korea, Pakistan and Iran, to help them build a nuclear weapon. The government wanted to arrest him, but wasn't allowed to... You can guess three times who forbid the capture of this man. . .

The CIA!

"d00d" currently has a tracking device shoved up his ass, and a brick of plastic explosives strapped to his spine. He's no longer doing any harm.
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell

#12 F-G

F-G

    This poster may randomly disappear for long periods.

  • Members
  • 100 posts
  • Location:... who cares?
  •  ¿?

Posted 10 August 2005 - 07:07 PM

So, it's OK for the USA to point a gun to Iran's head, but not vice versa.

It's ok for a cop to point a gun to a murderers head, but not vice versa.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


But USA isn't a cop.

Edited by F-G, 10 August 2005 - 07:07 PM.


#13 Athena

Athena

    Embody the Truth

  • Undead
  • 6,946 posts
  •  Former Community Leader

Posted 10 August 2005 - 07:32 PM

You're right, they are not, but they act like one, a hypocritical one.

#14 Silent_Killa

Silent_Killa

    Village Idiot

  • Project Team
  • 790 posts

Posted 11 August 2005 - 04:28 AM

The rest of the world has forced us into the position. Of course, we're only the world police when you're in trouble, right?
My political compass
Economic Left/Right: 6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


"Most people do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility." -Sigmund Freud
"Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government." -Pierre Joseph Proudhon
"You sleep safe in your beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do you harm." -George Orwell

#15 ComradeJ

ComradeJ

    Comrade Jamgee

  • Project Team
  • 2,067 posts
  • Location:Close to Daeda!
  • Projects:Red Alert: ReGeneration

Posted 11 August 2005 - 09:57 AM

"d00d" currently has a tracking device shoved up his ass, and a brick of plastic explosives strapped to his spine. He's no longer doing any harm.


10 years after selling nuclear secrets, but hey. It's not as if the US can do anything wrong.

The rest of the world has forced us into the position. Of course, we're only the world police when you're in trouble, right?


No, only if you give money to keep us capitalist again. Just going to war without the UN isn't cool. Stop policing, you're only 200 years old, kid!
You cannot compare pissing to thinking
- SoulReaver

#16 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 11 August 2005 - 10:30 AM

The rest of the world has forced us into the position.  Of course, we're only the world police when you're in trouble, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most countries dont even have time to call the US in case of any trouble on their part, if any of the US interests are threatened (even if they dont belong to the US legally)

You just come and poke your noses into matters that dont involve you, end up killing a whole damn lot of innocent people, because you had "economic interests" in the area. What about the balkans? Sure, bombing everything to hell will help a whole damn lot.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#17 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 11 August 2005 - 03:51 PM

TREATIES
http://dictionary.re...search?q=treaty

It's a legal document, you can't just ignore it because you get your panties in a bunch.

But you can choose to renounce one. Remember a certain Austrian who took power in Germany and broke a certain restrictive and UNFAIR treaty? :blush:

You see, that particular event is what happens when people try to shove their noses and/or dicks in other countries' affairs. You get resentment. You get hatred. You get more war.

What Spencer said, we're getting rid of our nukes, slowly yes, but it's more than most other countries can say.

You still have more than everybody else put together.

Big brother USA, in most of these treaties the US has to save their ass if they get themselves into trouble.

Why should they have to rely on USA? Let's be right, they haven't been to hasty to jump into Zimbabwe or Libya, who could actually use a helping hand. (Don't mention the UN, they're not worth the leather on the seats they sit at :lol: ) Why should US forces be forced to risk their lives for other fucks?

Treaties.  This isn't a matter of them having nukes.  Those half assed excuses for X-Ray machines strapped to bottle rockets most likely wouldn't make it half way to the US, or before the US airstriked them all.  It would be like if you could just ignore a contract.

Ok. So what do you suggest? The USA is ALLOWED to nuke whoever the fuck it wants without fear of reprisal. I'm guessing the USA hasn't signed this treaty you keep referring to. Now I wonder why that might be. :p What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Or it's just speeding along a process that was already in the works.  Sure, eventually a revolution in Iraq could have eventually occured, but you think the conflict now is bloody?  Add a few more zeros to the current statistics and see what you think.

Not my country, so I shouldn't really care. Same goes for ol' Bushy. Saddam's regime declares war on the USA, then fair enough, go at him with all guns blazing. Last I heard the war declarations were made by somebody who lives a fair few miles from Iraqi borders.

Even when that nation is ruled by a psychopath who's favorite phrase is: "Death to the capitalist pigs!" or "Death to the infidels!"?

If they USE their bombs in anger, the USA could turn the entire nation to glass without a second thought.
What if the USA ends up ruled by a psychopath whose favourite phrase is "Death to the Arabs!" Oh. Wait. It is. Sorry.

It's ok for a cop to point a gun to a murderers head, but not vice versa.

1) The USA isn't a cop. 2) How can one classify an entire nation as a 'murderer'? Who did Brazil declare war on last? :lol:

The rest of the world has forced us into the position.  Of course, we're only the world police when you're in trouble, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Most countries dont even have time to call the US in case of any trouble on their part, if any of the US interests are threatened (even if they dont belong to the US legally)

You just come and poke your noses into matters that dont involve you, end up killing a whole damn lot of innocent people, because you had "economic interests" in the area. What about the balkans? Sure, bombing everything to hell will help a whole damn lot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


*Claps*

Who did you last help properly and legitimately?
Iraq? Nope. They were going fine, and given everything that happened after the war, they don't particularly want US help. Afghanistan? You levelled an entire country for terrorist camps. There was no need to bomb it flat. A few tactical insertions (by insertions I mean covert soldiers...not bunker busters up the ass) would have done the job.
Kosovo? Yeah. Bang-up job you did there...
Vietnam? *ahem*
Libya/Zimbabwe? Nope. They're still suffering under their leaders. Along with the bigger part of Africa who are in, or on the brink of, civil bloody war and ethnic cleansing a la Rwanda. Where were the UN there? No, they were only interested in the tourists who were around at the time. Once they were out, the UN fucked off and left them to it.

Still further back..oh! There we go! World War 2 was the last proper, legitimate help given by the USA. And guess what weren't invented during the lion's share of that particular conflict?

Sort of shows US hypocrisy a bit.

#18 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 11 August 2005 - 07:29 PM

No one cares about political influence in Africa, the middle east however is one of THE oil deposits of the earth. Why let everyone else have it when you can get it first and shift the price in your favour? >_>

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#19 Mastermind

Mastermind

    Server Technician

  • Undead
  • 7,014 posts
  • Location:Cambridge, MA
  • Projects:MasterNews 3
  •  The Man Behind the Curtain

Posted 11 August 2005 - 09:25 PM

Who did you last help properly and legitimately?
Iraq? Nope. They were going fine, and given everything that happened after the war, they don't particularly want US help. Afghanistan? You levelled an entire country for terrorist camps. There was no need to bomb it flat. A few tactical insertions (by insertions I mean covert soldiers...not bunker busters up the ass) would have done the job.
Kosovo? Yeah. Bang-up job you did there...
Vietnam? *ahem*
Libya/Zimbabwe? Nope. They're still suffering under their leaders. Along with the bigger part of Africa who are in, or on the brink of, civil bloody war and ethnic cleansing a la Rwanda. Where were the UN there? No, they were only interested in the tourists who were around at the time. Once they were out, the UN fucked off and left them to it.

Still further back..oh! There we go! World War 2 was the last proper, legitimate help given by the USA. And guess what weren't invented during the lion's share of that particular conflict?

Sort of shows US hypocrisy a bit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hmm, you forgot a few in there.
Haiti
Grenada
Panama
Kuwait
But thank you for a nice biased version of history. I always love those. And we didn't just bomb Afghanistan flat for the terror camps. We also helped rebel groups oust the ruling regime and replaced it with a democracy. But that doesn't sound as good as "Bombed flat for some terror camps" now does it?
Posted Image

Well, when it comes to writing an expository essay about counter-insurgent tactics, I'm of the old school. First you tell them how you're going to kill them. Then you kill them. Then you tell them how you just killed them.

Too cute! | Server Status: If you can read this, it's up |

#20 chemical ali

chemical ali

    Pie! Be nice I'm staff and I can ban0rz j00!

  • Members
  • 4,739 posts
  • Location:United Kingdom
  • Projects:building an empire of doom
  •  chief mischief maker

Posted 11 August 2005 - 09:56 PM

The only reason was why Panama was invaded was because of the decision to block the canal, this could have brought diar consequences for the West, that canal is vital for world trade.
Posted Image

Quotes
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”

"In a man-to-man fight, the winner is he who has one more round in his magazine." -Erwin Rommel

Economic Left/Right: 10.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.56




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users