BS: Nuclear Weapons

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 01:09 PM

Fifty Facts About Nukes. Interesting read.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:44 PM

Peace, Love, Dove.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:35 PM

The world 'supply' of nukes (as of 2002) was close to 20,000.

I agree: no nukes is good nukes.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:33 PM

It's a power struggle - a bid for dominance just as in some animal societies there is one alpha male. When you are the alpha male you get the best of the bestest and the most of the mostest. The alpha male has the primary influence on how things go, and usually you tend to favor those things that fortify and strengthen your authority. If someone challenges that you quell the uprising with extreme prejudice 1)to remove the threat and 2)to instill fear by demonstrating what will happen if someone else chooses to challenge you.

In that context, as alpha male you have no qualms about bombing a village, for example, in a sovereign country because intelligence reports indicate a certain terrorist leader is there having dinner. You are thankful it was only a dirt poor little village on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, and not somewhere "civilized," like Toronto or Stockholm. Otherwise there would have been major international condemnation of a unilateral airstrike and the subsequent deaths of citizens in a country with which the U.S. is not at war.

But what if al-Zawahri had been having dinner in Toronto or Stockholm?

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: gnu
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM

Walk softly and carry a big stick. Ya gotta hope that the guy with the big stick will walk softly, but, even moreso, ya gotta realize that the guy with the big stick ain't gonna let anyone else have a stick, if he can help it.

And, no, I am not sticking around for any further debate.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Once Famous
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:27 PM

What artbrooks wisely said and why the starter of this thread is pretty dense.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 12:24 PM

I've always wondered the same thing, Harold. ;-) But...SHHHH! Don't question the implicit assumptions of moral and cultural superiority upon which conquering empires are founded and maintained! For God's sake, man...

The best thing would be if nobody had nuclear weapons, but it's too late for that.

In a world where sheer pragmatism and strength rule the real decisions, the "haves" will always attempt to restrict the "have-nots" from joining the club in such destructive capabilities. Their desire for security is understandable. Their contempt for others' similar desire for security, however, is not laudable.

The oddest situation of all is Israel...the country that everyone knows HAS nukes, and yet it's not officially admitted. Bizarre, isn't it?

I understand why the USA and Israel don't want Iran to have nukes. I understand why the Iranians want nukes. What I don't understand is why all 3 of them can't see each other as members of the same family...in which case they don't need any nukes! Nobody needs those things.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:57 AM

I always felt that having nukes was much like having snowballs. There are few other things you can use them for other than the thing ya made them for.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:48 AM

Well, America (the United States, anyway), Britain, France, India, Pakistan, China and Israel. Did I miss anyone? Of the two nations that are trying hard to get the bomb, North Korea has a history of aggression and attempted forced unification of its southern neighbor and Iran has a leader who has expressly stated that one of its neighbors has no right to exist and should be wiped off the face of the earth. Protect themselves in the same way? I don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: Amos
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:42 AM

Well, we used to justify it on the grounds of our standards of decency and our commitment to humanity and freedom.

Not sure now, though.


A

Subject: BS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS
From: GUEST,Harold Dynes
Date: 21 Jan 06 - 11:39 AM

I am not being smart here, but would someone explain to me please why America and Britain feel it's okay for them to hold Nuclear weapons and if any other country decides they want to protect themselves in the same way there is an outcry and America are ready to send the troops in to disarm them. Also they allow Isreal to hold them and are against any other country in the area developing them. Honestly I do not understand this, simple to some of you as it may seem. I do understand the fact that there are crack pots leading some world countries, but if this is a point in question I would imagine George Bush fits in there to. Why does America feel they are the policeforce of the world and they are right and countries which have held their traditions and beliefs for hundreds of years seem the bad guys to the Americans.