Nuclear stuff.

[Brian_B]

Do the current nations with nuclear weapons have any moral right or justification to stop other nations from developing them?

It's more pragmatic than anything else. "We know we won't blow up the world but we aren't so sure about these other guys." Also pragmatic from the sense that we can't dictate the nuclear progress of larger countries like China and Russia as someone else noted. The world isn't a perfect place and there are no hard and fast rules to international politics.

 

[CaptainF]

Irrational nations like Russia and China you mean? Seriously, does Putin or Hu seem like any less of a psycho than those wackos in the middle east? Cut from teh same mould if you ask me.

Even countries like the USA, UK or France could end up with enough of a nutter to fire one off.

Hu and Putin, as authoritarian as they may be, are nothing like the psycho types that would use a nuke to further their goals.

 

[sysyphus]

Give 'em half an excuse and they will.

 

[CaptainF]

Give 'em half an excuse and they will.

Why would Hu Jintao want to use a nuke for anything right now? The country he is in charge of is exploding in every direction: militarily, economically, scientifically, etc.

A nuke would wreck that.

Putin using a nuke would bring devastation to Russia.

They are rational individuals. The know what would happen if they act stupid.

 

[amadeus]

Considering that Pyongyang will sell them to anybody with five dollars or that Tehran would otherwise just give them away, there doesn't need to be a moral reason to stop them. The point is to stop them.

 

[garric]

I think you can trust the U.S.A. more than you can trust a country like Iran or North Korea. I don't know about you but I value my life.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I distrust any small country with nukes, as they are the ones most likely to need to use them...

 

[HawkeyeGS]

On one hand you have Iran that could give/sell nukes to terrorists (in 10 years when they get one) and on the other you have the US who have proven they don't need the middleman on the way to destruction. As soon as they got a nuke the US used 2. Then MAD came along but it has gone away now and left us with just AD. How long do you think it will take before they do it again?

 

[Virote_Considon]

The answer to that question is a large, overseas war that would claim the lives of way too many Americans. But the war would have to be a neccisary(SP?) victory. Otherwise the Americans would just pull out.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

The Americans have no right to stopping Iran from having nukes. They are like my teachers who drink coke when we would get in trouble for it.

 

[sysyphus]

You'll note that the major nuclear powers are also the permanent members of the UN security council (and also notably the same ones who cry like babies when the UN doesn't decide in their favour) adn their precious vetos.

These countries basically have their own little exclusive club bent on running the world their way. That's the real reason they don't want any other country developing nukes.

No country develops nukes for defence, only for power. That's why countries with nuclear weapons, democratic or not, should never be trusted.

 

[bhsup]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If you signed it, adhere to it.

 

[warpus]

I distrust any small country with nukes, as they are the ones most likely to need to use them...

Nuclear weapons have only been used against an enemy twice - and both times it wasn't by a small nation.

 

[sysyphus]

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If you signed it, adhere to it.

Same goes for NAFTA.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

i think that only the countries that do NOT have Nukes, should be allowed to decide if a nation can have nukes or not.
notice i said "have", not "develop"
so if all the non nuclear nations tell the US, Russia, Britain, France and so on that they're breaking international law by having nukes, then that's what they're doing.

Our answer: Try and stop us.

The only reason we used it was to save thousands of Allied lives. You saw how viciously the Japanese fought on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Everyone on the islands would have been effectively conscripted to fight. We also made a show of force that we are ready willing and able to use almost any means necessary to win a war, this was really for scaring or deterring the Soviets from pressing on through Europe. Also to repay the favor of Pearl Harbor. One atrocity begets another, and payback's a b!tch.

 

[sysyphus]

I can accept the use at Hiroshima as being acceptable to save more lives than the bomb would cost, but as reparations for Pearl Harbour that is absolutely ridiculous. The attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack on a military target (with admittedly some coloateral victims), but the bombing of Hiroshima was an indsicriminate attack on civilians. Apples to oranges.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Same goes for NAFTA.

Don't put a halo around your head as it might slip and strangle you. The Canadians broke the treaty too.

 

[sysyphus]

Don't put a halo around your head as it might slip and strangle you. The Canadians broke the treaty too.

And we accepted the rulings and followed as such.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

The attack on Pearl Harbour was an attack on a military target (with admittedly some coloateral victims), but the bombing of Hiroshima was an indsicriminate attack on civilians. Apples to oranges.

Again, with regard to the civilian population, everyone would have been a potential threat as they were die-hard followers of the Emperor. Had the Emperor ordered all civilians to fight to the death, I believe they would have done so willingly. The dropping of the bomb was to convince the Japanese to surrender, and most demands for surrender need to be followed by a show of force. And simply stating "we will wipe out your cities" would not be enough to convince them to surrender. I would also have called their bluff. But certain horrific acts (as the annihilation of an entire city) are enough to make people question whether or not to continue a fight. They are very good at swinging public support, which is obviously a very powerful tool in warfare, if the people don't want to fight, you have a hell of a time waging a successful war.

And we accepted the rulings and followed as such.

But having broken it, you have opened the door for other members to break it also.

 

[sysyphus]

Again, with regard to the civilian population, everyone would have been a potential threat as they were die-hard followers of the Emperor. Had the Emperor ordered all civilians to fight to the death, I believe they would have done so willingly. The dropping of the bomb was to convince the Japanese to surrender, and most demands for surrender need to be followed by a show of force. And simply stating "we will wipe out your cities" would not be enough to convince them to surrender. I would also have called their bluff. But certain horrific acts (as the annihilation of an entire city) are enough to make people question whether or not to continue a fight. They are very good at swinging public support, which is obviously a very powerful tool in warfare, if the people don't want to fight, you have a hell of a time waging a successful war.

You only reinforce the point that the bombings were required to bring a net savings of life in order to end the war quickly, which I have already stated I agree with. You provide no logic here to justify it a reparations for Pearl Hrbour.

But having broken it, you have opened the door for other members to break it also.

But we did not open the door to ignoring rulings.