Gregg

It is the weirdest thing. Young "peace" protestors in South Korea arguing that we should just let North Korea have their bomb. After all, they'd never use it on the south and risk the fallout, the protestors say.

And we should let Saddam have his bomb too. No sense risking a single drop of innocent blood to prevent these guys from laying hands on such destructive power, along with the ability to deliver it anywhere in the world. Oh, they'll never use it, the argument goes. They know they'd be vaporized immediately afterwards. The "peace" protestors have actually embraced the strategy of mutual assured destruction (MAD)!

I swear. Do these people have any CLUE how many times the world came within minutes of permanent midnight during the Cold War? And that was with adversaries who, despite the differences in their political and economic systems, had no real historical enmity or territorial disputes! You really think, when nations that have actual blood feuds with other nations get their fancy new toys, we'd continue to be that lucky?

Hell, there doesn't even need to be any actual aggression--a computer error, a bogey on the radar screen, an unannounced missile test--all sorts of things can trigger Armageddon.

Oh yeah, let's just let'em all have the bomb. We got it, why shouldn't they? It's not FAIR!

Gregg

Straight Hate

Do you seriously hold such a skewed perspective on the current anti-'war against Iraq' sentiment?

Putney Swope

Do you really think that nukes are anymore safe in our hands? After all, we are still the only nation to have used the bomb. Oh yeah, having Dubya's finger on the button makes me feel real safe. :banghead: :banghead:

Iamthebeerking

History proves they're safe in our hands. Next.
This really belongs in Political Discussions where it can get the attention it deserves.

I also thinks it's flat out bizarre that people say "if the US has 'em, then why not Saddam or NK? We can have them but they can't? That's hypocritical" How truly strange.

Maybe it's because I'm older that I remember well what the cold war was like. Then, I was for MAD because it worked. It worked because it was an end of the world type scenario, literally. The Soviets ran a gutter nation, but they weren't religious fanatics. Both them and the US were pretty predictable and there were certain lines that both never really crossed.
But a nuke in the hands of an ME dictator, holy man, or some insane goofball with a bad haircut is insanity.
It's self evident that the US has been responsible with it's nuclear program. Anyone who says otherwise has some kind of misguided little man's complex.
Oh Gawd, here come the Hiroshima and Nagasaki references. Before you post those, do a little reading first. At least make an attempt to understand the context of the times. If you insist on applying the standards of today to WWII, then forget it. I won't participate in that kind of boobery.

Shadowy Man

The real question is this:

Is there a way to prevent Iraq from having nuclear weapons without invading their country? I don't think anybody in the UN wants to see Saddam Hussein develop and employ nuclear weapons; however, most countries in the UN believe that there are other methods to ensuring he doesn't without going to war.

Optional

In point of actual fact, invading iraq is almost certainly going to have the effect of increasing nuclear plorif- proril- more nukes. The US is about to prove to the entire world that we are ready and willing to invade anybody we feel like for any reason we feel like, regardless of international or even domestic opinion.

I would say that every country in the world that thinks the US might EVER have ANY reason to be mad at them is right now busily and secretly spending as much money as they have to get their very own nukes BEFORE we happen to notice them, so that when we DO notice them, they'll get the 'North Korea' treatment rather than the 'Iraq' treatment.

Prediction: within five years, the number of countries in the 'nuclear club' will double, triple, quadruple... BECAUSE of what we are about to do.

Making the world safe... War is peace, love is hate, black is white...

Peace,

-me

Amen-Moses

Blair? Chirac? Bush? Putin? Nope can't decide which you are referring to here.

Amen-Moses

DarkBronzePlant

Until it proves that they're not. Remember Gregg's original post in this thread, which asked "Do these people have any CLUE how many times the world came within minutes of permanent midnight during the Cold War?" I have a clue. And I realize that nukes are not safe in anyone's hands.

Recall about a year ago that the current administration determined that it is now okay to use nuclear weapons in a first strike against another country. Yeah. Nukes are completely safe in our hands. Sorry if you think that gives me "some kind of misguided little man's complex" (which makes no fucking sense, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.)

Granted there are degrees. I think U.S. nukes are a bit safer than nukes in other countries. But yes, I think the U.S.'s stance is a bit hypocritcal. Do I think that means that we should let anyone have nukes? No. But I think it means that we should work to reduce everyone's nuclear capability. And if we're going to invade Iraq because there's a remote chance they might have nukes, what should we do about, say, Israel? Don't even try to tell me that nukes are safe in their hands!

Loren Pechtel

Probably NK agent provocateurs or their dupes.

Putney Swope

Right you are. And now they're discussing new smaller nukes.

I don't care what you say, Dubya scares me as much as Reagan did! And Reagan scared the shit out of me!!!