|Re: Tehran Threatens to use Nuclear weapons on itself...|
- Wednesday, November 16 2011, 17:27:41 (UTC)|
from *** - *** Commercial - Windows XP - Mozilla
>>...let's look at reality: the countries which have them don;t fight each other.
>- And so does many countries that don't have them so we can't give all the credit to nuclear bombs. But maybe they do act as deterrents in the short term, but will they in distant future?
...what does it really matter? As far as Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan are concerned they've already been bombed into a stone age....are we just worried about our precious selves? What about the planet? I don't see such a rosy future even if we get rid of every nuclear bomb...we're slowly killing ourselves anyway.
>Consider two scenarios: A world in which only 2 out of 20 countries have nukes and another in which each of the 20 have them. Which one is more likely to have a nuclear warfare sometime in the future (100, 200... years)?
...Nuclear weapons stopped Euros from centuries-long wars...they kept the Soviets, China and Us from going to war....they keep North Korea safe....these nations with nuclear weapons are using everything BUT nuclear weapons on smaller countries, but not on each other...why? because they have nuclear weapons....it figures that in this modern world of ours the best way to have peace is to give every country enough nuclear bombs to destroy half their region...
>>> if Saddam had nuclear weapons they never would have attacked...never.
>>>Why not? The US can strike down a plane as soon as it takes off! And what would prevent it from turning Baghdad into another Hiroshima?
....the fall-out. As it is Japan is spinning the news about how bad things really are...no one wants more of this stuff...besides, if you recall, the United States did not try to drop its atom bombs on military targets...they went for civilians instead...by what justification do we drop nuclear bombs on women and children...are they our enemies? Nuclear bombs kill everything and then the dust travels around the world....it's overkill...of everybody.
>>...because the bomb used against Hiroshima was a nothing dud compared to what they have now...
>- What I meant to say is that if Saddam had a bomb, then using it would have been to the detriment of only the Iraqi people. The Americans would have taken extreme preemptive measures to ensure that he doesn't use it, and if he tried to used it, they would have certainly retaliated by obliterating most of Iraq. So instead of being a deterrent, those weapons would have invited extremely harsh assaults.
...you don;t win a war by obliterating a country or two...or by murdering millions of innocent civilians...nuclear weapons are useless in every way.
>>...yes. The only way you can make peace when faced with a warmongering US on the rampage...you have to have something to make America think twice, like North Korea has.
>- The US is intimidated by North Korea because it has a bomb? Can they bomb DC if they wanted?
...North Korea does as it pleases, and on top of that we've been feeding them for over 20 years...because we don;t this "enemy" to disappear...it was bad enough when the Soviets collapsed.
>>> And no one makes a "limited" bomb
>>>Why not? They customize one according to the target.
...no such thing. The whole point is to scare the shit out of entire populations...what's the point of a nuclear bomb that only destroys one city....they already many ways of doing that without nuclear weapons.
>>...no one has them...and there's no such thing as a small nuclear weapon....
>- I don't get. If they wanted to build a small one they can't? How come? Is it unfeasible to do so with modern technology? Hiroshima is a small city and if we assume that the entire city was affected then such a bomb would destroy only 4% of Israel.
...it's not a military weapon...who do you drop it on...a column of soldiers....parked tanks....a military base? Why? Cluster bombs, fire bombs tons and tons of conventional weapons will do that better...why build a machine gun and then only fire one bullet from it?
>Sure modern bombs are much more more potent nowadays but I don't think they have that Armageddon impact you are suggesting. No matter how strong the nuke is, and even if we assume that the Middle East is a flat land, its effect won't reach Tehran... it won't even reach Iraq.
...we're not talking about the actual blast but about the atomic waste released into the atmosphere...the survivors will die a long, lingering death...the water and air will be contaminated...the dust clouds will block out the sun...I don't think you realize just what 1000 times bigger than Hiroshima means.
>> no one wants to die unless they see no future.
>- What if the mullahs and imams in Iran decided one day that the only meaningful future there is is to fulfill the will of Allah by liberating Palestine, fighting the Zionists, or whatever... even if most would die in the process?
...that's white man propaganda...our Christian mullahs with their Rapture and Armageddon are far more likely to do such a thing if they get into power.
>>>I don't think North Korea is a high priority for the west, neither would the west behave any differently towards it if it didn't have nuclear weapons... I don't know.
...the West needs enemies...even if it's one sad communist state left...they need the North "threatening" the South, at the very minimum.
>>...of course it would. We're never going to attack North Korea, especially now...
>- Why attack North Korea? Surely there are people who profit from wars but wars are not made solely for this purpose. Iraq has oil, it is thorn to Israel and it is a strategic interest to the US. What does North Korea have?
...we won;t attack them even if we want to some day...Americans would be too afraid of the consequences for themselves.
>> but we want them there so we can scare the American people....no Christian wants to kill the Devil....we need Devils in order to be "moral".
>- Maybe. If the US cared about North Korea, then it wouldn't have allowed it to develop nuclear weapons in the first place. So this means that nuclear weapons are not actually deterring the US because it doesn't care in the first place.
...it cares. North Korea has China backing it...the day will come anyway when China will be the sole superpower, with our help.
>>> No...the only ones insane enough to use those things against women and children were Christians...no Muslim nation would dream of such a thing.
>>>So those “Christians” you are referring to have the intelligence to invent sophisticated weaponry
>while it is the Muslims who have the required wisdom to handle them safely?
>>...to handle them safely, yes....I worry about spent fuel rods and leaks from concrete bunkers and leaks into oceans and leaks because nuclear plants need tons of water...but worry that someone is going drop one or set it off deliberately...no.
>- You mean the Muslims are better at solving the problem of leaks?
...we'll have to wait and see...judging by our own track record I'd say no one can promise anything...but if we're going to base our fears of Muslims on their past record, supposedly...then we have more to fear from our own past behavior than theirs. They never started a World War...we had two.
>And does the following sentence make sense: “Although the west has the brains to invent complex weapons and technology, those weapons and technology would be safer in the hands of Muslims"?
..they aren't safe in anyone's hands...but it's safer for Muslims to have them than not to have them...safer for them, which is what they care about...just as we care only about what is safe for us.
The full topic:|