Chinahand Posted May 29, 2009 Share Posted May 29, 2009 Is that really true? I think all the Nuclear weapon states have made significant reductions in recent years - the US and Russia are discussing more at the moment. I agree with you though it is very unlikely that such reductions will ever be sufficient to threaten their deterent policies, but then again I think the nuclear umbrellas do provide a genuine deterence which has helped maintain peace. The issue for me is command and control of those weapons - there is no way whatsoever you want unstable nations without comprehensive command and control to own nukes. The current near universal treaty stopping proliferation is a good thing and in my view you'd be mad to scrap it cos its unfair! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Is that really true? I think all the Nuclear weapon states have made significant reductions in recent years - the US and Russia are discussing more at the moment. I agree with you though it is very unlikely that such reductions will ever be sufficient to threaten their deterent policies, but then again I think the nuclear umbrellas do provide a genuine deterence which has helped maintain peace. The issue for me is command and control of those weapons - there is no way whatsoever you want unstable nations without comprehensive command and control to own nukes. The current near universal treaty stopping proliferation is a good thing and in my view you'd be mad to scrap it cos its unfair! Both the US and Russia are scrapping their weapons because they are largely redundant for the purposes of deterrence in the current international climate. However, these countries are not making efforts to disarm, they are simply reducing stocks. And Britain is currently updating its deterrent. No, you don't want unstable nations getting hold of these. Unfortunately, because of the hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states it has to be asked why these countries have the right to determine who has them and who does not. In my view, Iran has every right to go ahead and develop them and intervention from the United States is just preventing Iran from effecting the balance (or imbalance) of power in that region. The same is true of North Korea. And then look at Israel, it is known that it possesses nuclear weapons but the United States must support this given its lack of intervention. The current treaty needs changing or the nuclear weapon states need to disarm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Is that really true? I think all the Nuclear weapon states have made significant reductions in recent years - the US and Russia are discussing more at the moment. I agree with you though it is very unlikely that such reductions will ever be sufficient to threaten their deterent policies, but then again I think the nuclear umbrellas do provide a genuine deterence which has helped maintain peace. The issue for me is command and control of those weapons - there is no way whatsoever you want unstable nations without comprehensive command and control to own nukes. The current near universal treaty stopping proliferation is a good thing and in my view you'd be mad to scrap it cos its unfair! Both the US and Russia are scrapping their weapons because they are largely redundant for the purposes of deterrence in the current international climate. However, these countries are not making efforts to disarm, they are simply reducing stocks. And Britain is currently updating its deterrent. No, you don't want unstable nations getting hold of these. Unfortunately, because of the hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons states it has to be asked why these countries have the right to determine who has them and who does not. In my view, Iran has every right to go ahead and develop them and intervention from the United States is just preventing Iran from effecting the balance (or imbalance) of power in that region. The same is true of North Korea. And then look at Israel, it is known that it possesses nuclear weapons but the United States must support this given its lack of intervention. The current treaty needs changing or the nuclear weapon states need to disarm. Morally, you are correct. But might is right. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...il-1699609.html Journalists arrested and given a 12 year sentence. Bargaining chips to used with the USA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 Is that really true? I think all the Nuclear weapon states have made significant reductions in recent years - the US and Russia are discussing more at the moment. I agree with you though it is very unlikely that such reductions will ever be sufficient to threaten their deterent policies, but then again I think the nuclear umbrellas do provide a genuine deterence which has helped maintain peace. The issue for me is command and control of those weapons - there is no way whatsoever you want unstable nations without comprehensive command and control to own nukes. The current near universal treaty stopping proliferation is a good thing and in my view you'd be mad to scrap it cos its unfair! maintained peace you say china .. well if peace has been maintained then it should be easy for you too pick a month between 1939 and june 2009 that there has not been atleast one war in progress on this planet.. go ahead and try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 maintained peace you say china .. well if peace has been maintained then it should be easy for you too pick a month between 1939 and june 2009 that there has not been atleast one war in progress on this planet.. go ahead and try. I do not know for certain but I'd assume that Chinahand was referring to total war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 8, 2009 Share Posted June 8, 2009 ldv i remember one christmas years ago .. there was this amazing facts thingy i either read or watched .. i may not be sure when it was but the figure is crystal clear as i played alot of snooker at the time .. and that particular christmas there were 147 wars in progress at that time .. ireland was one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...ve-1700590.html "North Korea would use weapons in a merciless offensive" - I doubt that somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 i dont ldv .. they are certified nutters .. however i doubt the reporter that cannot spell neighbours. Seoul's Yonhap news agency reported today that South Korea had doubled the number of naval ships around the disputed sea border with the North amid concern the communist neighbor could provoke an armed clash there — Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 The North Korean leadership actually seem rather shrewd, if crude, in their diplomacy. I don't think they are irrational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 no offense meant ldv but your thinking is a bit outta the box most of the time son... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 no offense meant ldv but your thinking is a bit outta the box most of the time son... Look at how well this socialist state has done for itself in terms of staving off what it considers malign influences. And look also at how it uses nuclear weapons and hostages as convenient bargaining chips to extract food and supplies from the international community. The Korean leaders would not jeopardise their control over the country - why do something stupid like launch a nuke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman2 Posted June 9, 2009 Share Posted June 9, 2009 they aint got nukes yet.. perhaps the yanks should donate them a couple pointy bit first. {yall have a nice day now } Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Here are some real nut cases. People from 'the West' who go to North Korea because the praise the regime. It seems they are too in love with the idea of a system that demonstratably doesn't work and is causing people to suffer more than in capitalist countries. They don't know enough about it. That spanish guy is a complete mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted June 14, 2009 Share Posted June 14, 2009 Here are some real nut cases. People from 'the West' who go to North Korea because the praise the regime. It does demonstrate people who have understandable criticisms of capitalists. But it seems you are too in love with the idea of a system that demonstratably doesn't work and is causing people to suffer more than in capitalist countries. That spanish guy is a complete mental. nukes?nukes? arent they old?hmmm them bloody flip flop's are abit slow in the mellon?"helium-4"! is the way ahead!where 2 blow up first. the sun if your going to do it do it right. (Yat-sen RIP) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.