Nuclear Weapons?

HamaticBabylon · May 10, 2005

Should the U.S or the U.N dictate to other if they can or cant have nuclear weapons, what about if a nation gets the technology from say Russia? What if the Russians give it to the highest bidder? So its pretty useless trying to stop nuclear proliferation! :crazyeye:

Perfection · May 10, 2005

Maybe the U.S. should help Russia secure those nukes...

HamaticBabylon · May 10, 2005

Would Russia agree? Does Russia like the U.S? Will Russia allow sensitive Nuclear sites to be Viewed by the Americans? Will Russia declare war!

CruddyLeper · May 10, 2005

Nobody should. At all.

What is this, some God given right to determine which country is weak and which is strong?

Perfection · May 10, 2005

HamaticBabylon said:
Would Russia agree? Does Russia like the U.S? Will Russia allow sensitive Nuclear sites to be Viewed by the Americans? Will Russia declare war!

I bet, if we gave them a few billion dollars all those little worries would vanish

CruddyLeper · May 10, 2005

Uh, no. You'd just be poorer by a few billion dollars.

SeleucusNicator · May 10, 2005

Nuclear proliferation is not a question of the sovereignty of foreign lands, it is a question of national security for the United States. We must not allow other nations to gain the sort of leverage over us that nuclear weapons provide, especially not minor powers such as Iran or North Korea.

That said, I think that, ultimately, stopping nuclear proliferation is a noble but untenable goal; nations will do what is in their best interest, and it is very, very much in the best interest of Iran to build nukes, and likewise it is in the interest of certain great powers that Iran have nukes. These are forces that cannot be restrained; it is like trying to stop the advacement of technology.

Certainly, attempts to stop the spread of nukes should be made, but they are no substitute to developing a first-strike capability against all other nuclear powers and developing a missile shield.

SeleucusNicator · May 10, 2005

CruddyLeper said:
Uh, no. You'd just be poorer by a few billion dollars.

You think that Russia wants a nuclear-armed Iran on its southern border?

The problem for Russia is monetary: it needs hard currency, and, as such, is selling weapons to anyone who will provide it.

CruddyLeper · May 10, 2005

SeleucusNicator said:
You think that Russia wants a nuclear-armed Iran on its southern border?

Seeing as they are supplying the reactors, the fuel and a lot of the support technology, I'd say it's a safe bet they're not that fussed.

kronic · May 10, 2005

SeleucusNicator said:
Nuclear proliferation is not a question of the sovereignty of foreign lands, it is a question of national security for the United States.

I love this neorealistic BS.

SeleucusNicator · May 10, 2005

kronic said:
I love this neorealistic BS.

The rest of my post was far, far more neorealistic than what you quoted. :confused:

Colonel · May 10, 2005

SeleucusNicator said:
You think that Russia wants a nuclear-armed Iran on its southern border?

The problem for Russia is monetary: it needs hard currency, and, as such, is selling weapons to anyone who will provide it.

Yes, if it is a Russian ally, which Iran will be if the Russians supply the tech and fuel and what not. All countries need allys which is what Russia is trying to gain by supplying Iran. Just as China is supporting NK, they are the only country who can stop NK short of the US invadeing.

Nuclear proliferation is problem for the world, and as such should be handled by the only internationial organization capable of doing so. With the backing of all of the major powers. So what needs to happen is to put all the nukes under the control of the UN and have them eventually get rid of most of the them, keeping only a few to launch at smaller countries such as Iran or NK in case of a launch. The cold war is long over so there is no real need for the major powers of the world to be able to annilate eachother numerous times over.

But of course the above paragraph is just idealism, no way do any of the major powers do this. As it stands America is trying to stop proliferation which is effectively turning us into hypocrites as we are the only country to use nukes

GenMarshall · May 10, 2005

The US should. Why? Cause we discovered how to make the thing work

.

CruddyLeper · May 10, 2005

CivGeneral said:
The US should. Why? Cause we discovered how to make the thing work .

On that basis;-

China should have decide who has guns and rockets;

The UK should decide who has aircraft carriers and tanks;

Russia should decide who has infantry fighting vehicles and satellites.

Methinks you're logic is warped. :scan:

wit>trope · May 10, 2005

SeleucusNicator said:
You think that Russia wants a nuclear-armed Iran on its southern border?

I think Russia is trying to make peace with the Muslim world. Islam is one of the officially approved religions in Russia.

Ayatollah So · May 10, 2005

I vote for option D: everyone. Everyone should do their damnedest to stop nuke proliferation, both "horizontal" (more countries) and "vertical" (more nukes per country). They should lie, cheat, steal, and twist arms if applicable - which might be ugly but not as ugly as death by radiation burns. Perfection has a great idea about where to start, by the way.

Elrohir · May 10, 2005

What kinda of question is that? America runs this planet, we'll decide things, get used to it guys.

(I'm joking

.... 99% anyway)

Warman17 · May 10, 2005

I only voted America because the UN would do little to nothing to stop it.

GenMarshall · May 10, 2005

Warman17 said:
I only voted America because the UN would do little to nothing to stop it.

That is what was going behind my mind when I voted that the US should control the prolifiation of Nukes (Other than they were the first). Though I disagree with having conventional weapons/tatics/technologies being exclusive to the nations that first built them

(If that were the case the Egyptians would be the only ones building Pyrimids and we would not have the Trans-American Tower, the glass pyrimid in the front of the Louvre, and the Luxor casino)

CruddyLeper said:
Methinks you're logic is warped.

Methinks my logic is not warped :borg:

Yom · May 10, 2005

If I must choose between those three, then without a doubt the UN. After all tyranny by the many is preferable to tyranny by the few, right?

Nuclear Weapons?

Who should control Nuclear proliferation?

United Nations (The Atomic Department)

United States Of America

European Union

Deity

The Great Head.

Deity

Unworshipped Deity

The Great Head.

Unworshipped Deity

Diadoch

Diadoch

Unworshipped Deity

Deity

Diadoch

Pax Nostra est Professionis

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Unworshipped Deity

Deity

the spoof'll set you free

RELATIONAL VALORIZATION

NES Grandpa

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Re-ese Mekwanint

Similar threads