Obama and Nuclear Weapons

[Betty Boop]

Obama is calling for a World without nuclear weapons, considering the US is the only country that has ever used them, I wonder if they will get rid of their's first? :rolleyes:

[Woody1985]

Obama is calling for a World without nuclear weapons, considering the US is the only country that has ever used them, I wonder if they will get rid of their's first? :rolleyes:

Do you think if America got rid of their nukes that it would make the world a safer or more dangerous place?

[hibsbollah]

Obama is calling for a World without nuclear weapons, considering the US is the only country that has ever used them, I wonder if they will get rid of their's first? :rolleyes:

:agree: He should start by making a dent in his own stockpile first.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/index.cfm?fa=map&id=19238&prog=zgp&proj=znpp

[Woody1985]

:agree: He should start by making a dent in his own stockpile first.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/npp/index.cfm?fa=map&id=19238&prog=zgp&proj=znpp

I appreciate that they could but would it make the world a safer or more dangerous place?

IMO America would be putting themselves and the rest of the world at risk by doing so. Americans might be a bunch of bell ends from time to time but I certainly don't think we're going to see them letting off nukes willy nilly.

IMO nukes are simply a bargaining tool against other nations with nukes. No one is going to nuke you if you're going to do the same back. Unless they don't care about life which a lot of America's enimies don't.

[Killiehibbie]

You only had to read last week about the Japanese guy who survived both nuclear bombs to see how terrible these things are. I think without them there would've been a 3rd World War so they are a necessary evil.

[hibsbollah]

You only had to read last week about the Japanese guy who survived both nuclear bombs to see how terrible these things are. I think without them there would've been a 3rd World War so they are a necessary evil.

So you think North Korea and Iran should be encouraged to have 'em then?

[Woody1985]

So you think North Korea and Iran should be encouraged to have 'em then?

I think North Korea and Iran would use them regardless of the cost to human life, the impact on the planet as well as the retaliation that would occur.

When America used them there was no one else capable of launching a retaliation and therefore ended a war. Now, if NK or Iran launch one of these we are all ****ed regardless of race, religion, thoughts on war, weapons etc etc. That's why they shouldn't be allowed to have them IMHO.

[Killiehibbie]

So you think North Korea and Iran should be encouraged to have 'em then?

I was talking in the past tense Cold War era. The leaders of N Korea and Iran should not be in charge of a yoyo never mind Nuclear weapons.

[hibsbollah]

I was talking in the past tense Cold War era. The leaders of N Korea and Iran should not be in charge of a yoyo never mind Nuclear weapons.

You also said 'You only had to read last week about the Japanese guy who survived both nuclear bombs to see how terrible these things are'. I'm not getting the logic:confused:

[Woody1985]

You also said 'You only had to read last week about the Japanese guy who survived both nuclear bombs to see how terrible these things are'. I'm not getting the logic:confused:

He said they're a necessary evil to help prevent other nuclear attacks and the same happening to other people.

So do you think the world would be a safer or more dangerous place if America had no nukes?

[Killiehibbie]

You also said 'You only had to read last week about the Japanese guy who survived both nuclear bombs to see how terrible these things are'. I'm not getting the logic:confused:
If it was possible to destroy every nuclear weapon the world would be a better place but they exist. Would the Americans and Russians have went to war in the 50's or 60's if one of them thought they could win? With the nuclear deterrent a lot of lives have been saved since the end of WW2.

[hibsbollah]

If it was possible to destroy every nuclear weapon the world would be a better place but they exist. Would the Americans and Russians have went to war in the 50's or 60's if one of them thought they could win? With the nuclear deterrent a lot of lives have been saved since the end of WW2.

I understand your argument, I think its called mutually assured destruction. The problem is, its the same argument that North Korea is employing; 'Nuclear weapons keep me safe, therefore i'll get 'em too'.

[Woody1985]

I understand your argument, I think its called mutually assured destruction. The problem is, its the same argument that North Korea is employing; 'Nuclear weapons keep me safe, therefore i'll get 'em too'.

Yes, but the guy is obviously a loose canon so to speak and more likely to use nukes IMO.

The guy who runs the country is an ********. He wouldn't allow foreign food into his country until recent times. Millions of his people are starving and he tries, and fails, to launch a long range missile.

[Sir David Gray]

Do you think if America got rid of their nukes that it would make the world a safer or more dangerous place?

I totally agree that the whole world should get rid of their nuclear weapons and, in an ideal world, the leaders of every country that possesses them, would agree tomorrow to remove them.

But that won't happen.

In terms of answering your question, which I assume is open for anyone to answer, I don't believe the world would become safer if the USA got rid of their nuclear weapons.

Iran may not have nuclear weapons at the moment, but I believe that they are actively seeking to develop them, despite what they might say publicly. I don't think they will suddenly drop that plan, just because the USA get rid of theirs.

There are quite a few rival nations that possess nuclear weapons, on top of the USA, such as India/Pakistan, Israel/Iran and North Korea and China are hardly what you would call stable, responsible nations.

The USA is only a part, albeit quite a big part, of the nuclear weapons problem.

Obama's efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons are noble, but I do not believe they will be productive.

[Woody1985]

I totally agree that the whole world should get rid of their nuclear weapons and, in an ideal world, the leaders of every country that possesses them, would agree tomorrow to remove them.

But that won't happen.

In terms of answering your question, which I assume is open for anyone to answer, I don't believe the world would become safer if the USA got rid of their nuclear weapons.

Iran may not have nuclear weapons at the moment, but I believe that they are actively seeking to develop them, despite what they might say publicly. I don't think they will suddenly drop that plan, just because the USA get rid of theirs.

There are quite a few rival nations that possess nuclear weapons, on top of the USA, such as India/Pakistan, Israel/Iran and North Korea and China are hardly what you would call stable, responsible nations.

The USA is only a part, albeit quite a big part, of the nuclear weapons problem.

Obama's efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons are noble, but I do not believe they will be productive.

Very well put. I agree with everything you have said.

[Betty Boop]

Do you think if America got rid of their nukes that it would make the world a safer or more dangerous place? I don't think any country should have weapons of mass destruction, but I think it is a bit rich of countries that do have them to decide who should and should not. For example Israel is sitting on a stockpile, as Mordechai Vanunu revealed when he blew the whistle, in 1986.

[Woody1985]

I don't think any country should have weapons of mass destruction, but I think it is a bit rich of countries that do have them to decide who should and should not. For example Israel is sitting on a stockpile, as Mordechai Vanunu revealed when he blew the whistle, in 1986.

I understand where you're coming from but it's a matter of global security IMO. I also understand a lot of people hate America or even just dislike them but there's not many more countries in the world I would prefer trying to keep things secure(ish). I'm talking specifically on nukes here and not other wars / fights in case we digress.

[Betty Boop]

US hypocrisy on North Korea http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22357.htm

[JimBHibees]

Maybe if America and others complied with International Law and didnt totally undermine the UN the world would be a safer place.

[Woody1985]

US hypocrisy on North Korea http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22357.htm

There's one or two good points in there but I wish people would stop bleating on about America being the only country to use a nuclear weapon. The fact that they did has prevented others from using it and ended a world war FFS.

[NYHibby]

If it was possible to destroy every nuclear weapon the world would be a better place but they exist. Would the Americans and Russians have went to war in the 50's or 60's if one of them thought they could win? With the nuclear deterrent a lot of lives have been saved since the end of WW2.

Yes, we would have. There were several prominent US military leaders calling for us to take out the soviets before they could catch up in the race. Look up LeMay for the type. If we could have nuked the USSR back to the stone age without the loss of American life, they would have been a chance that it would have happened. Same thing goes for China.

Its scary how close we came to blowing up the planet during the Cuban missile crisis. One rogue commander launching a nuke or two towards Miami and we would have a very short war to end all wars.

[NYHibby]

That said, Obama unilaterally getting rid of our nuclear weapons would be incredibly stupid.

[Hannah_hfc]

Along with others i believe no country should have nuclear weapons as they are unneccesary, if a governement has a problem with another country it should be a debate between governments and not between civillians...one can only wish.

However if America got rid of theirs nuclear bombs, i believe the weatern world would be at the mercy of eastern countrys such as korea or iran (do you see them ditching theirs?). As much as America appear like idiots at times, they're the only country i would "trust" (i use that term lightly!!) not to use them willy nilly.

saying that, maybe im being extremely naive with the states being alibies and all?:pray::hmmm:

[Betty Boop]

Along with others i believe no country should have nuclear weapons as they are unneccesary, if a governement has a problem with another country it should be a debate between governments and not between civillians...one can only wish.

However if America got rid of theirs nuclear bombs, i believe the weatern world would be at the mercy of eastern countrys such as korea or iran (do you see them ditching theirs?). As much as America appear like idiots at times, they're the only country i would "trust" (i use that term lightly!!) not to use them willy nilly.

saying that, maybe im being extremely naive with the states being alibies and all?:pray::hmmm: Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=Woody1985;1994895]I think North Korea and Iran would use them regardless of the cost to human life, the impact on the planet as well as the retaliation that would occur.quote]

Is the cost to human life not the entire point of nuclear weapons?

Also the war was over before they used them on Japan. It was nothing but a test under the guise of war.

[Killiehibbie]

[quote=Woody1985;1994895]I think North Korea and Iran would use them regardless of the cost to human life, the impact on the planet as well as the retaliation that would occur.quote]

Is the cost to human life not the entire point of nuclear weapons?

Also the war was over before they used them on Japan. It was nothing but a test under the guise of war.

The Hiroshima bomb certainly finished what was left of the war but the Nagasaki bomb was like a thug jumping on a victims head when he's on the deck.

[steakbake]

I think the presence of nuclear weapons has actually prevented a major, multi-location war happening since 1945 because of the theory of mutually assured destruction.

However, why Britain has nuclear weapons, I'll never understand. It's not like we go about deciding our own foreign policy now is it?

[Woody1985]

Yes, not sure how to convey my point but what I'm trying to say is countries that are seen as rougue countries / threat to the west don't really care about their own lives enough that it would make them fear the consequences.


[quote=BravestHibs;1997683]

The Hiroshima bomb certainly finished what was left of the war but the Nagasaki bomb was like a thug jumping on a victims head when he's on the deck.

I would agree that it was needless as the war was coming to an end anyway but it did have a big part to play in stopping it sooner. I agree with what Blacksaltire said about it preventing wars since then.

It has probably saved a lot of lives through wars that weren't fought due to the threat of the nuke.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=Woody1985;1997873]Yes, not sure how to convey my point but what I'm trying to say is countries that are seen as rougue countries / threat to the west don't really care about their own lives enough that it would make them fear the consequences.

I'm going to refer you to something you said to me last week in a different thread.

"I've not read this full thread but you seem to be talking some pish. :LOL:"

I can only asume that this is a reference to suicide bombers? I can only assume that you don't mean that people from Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Pakistan somehow value their own lives less than we do?

What you just said at the top of this post has to be one of the most obtuse statements I have ever heard. Seriously.

[Killiehibbie]

Will rogue states use nukes regardless of the consequences? There is a big difference between sending millions of young soldiers to their death and getting yourself and your whole country levelled.

[Woody1985]

[quote=Woody1985;1997873]Yes, not sure how to convey my point but what I'm trying to say is countries that are seen as rougue countries / threat to the west don't really care about their own lives enough that it would make them fear the consequences.

I'm going to refer you to something you said to me last week in a different thread.

"I've not read this full thread but you seem to be talking some pish. :LOL:"

I can only asume that this is a reference to suicide bombers? I can only assume that you don't mean that people from Iraq/Afghanistan/Iran/Pakistan somehow value their own lives less than we do?

What you just said at the top of this post has to be one of the most obtuse statements I have ever heard. Seriously.

I was thinking more of their administrations rather than the people in the country. It seems like their top agenda is to get the better of America above all else. E.g Korea, proverty stricken yet spend millions / billions on building a rocket.

Oh, and you were. That's why I said it. I think about 8 other people agreed that you were slavering somewhat. I can't remember exactly what it was but I'll go back and have a look for a wee laugh to cheer me up.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=Woody1985;1997953][quote=BravestHibs;1997945]

I was thinking more of their administrations rather than the people in the country. It seems like their top agenda is to get the better of America above all else. E.g Korea, proverty stricken yet spend millions / billions on building a rocket.

At the third time of trying. Are you going to stick with this as what you meant to say or do you think you might change your mind again?

Oh, and you were. That's why I said it. I think about 8 other people agreed that you were slavering somewhat. I can't remember exactly what it was but I'll go back and have a look for a wee laugh to cheer me up.

8 other sycophantic admirers of those with over 1000 posts you mean.
I stand by what I said. When I write something down I actually know what what words to employ in order to convey my meaning. xx

[Woody1985]

:faf:

It was on the G20 protest thread.

Someone said that they found the French arrogant and you called him a racist. :faf:

[Woody1985]

[quote=Woody1985;1997953][quote=BravestHibs;1997945]

I was thinking more of their administrations rather than the people in the country. It seems like their top agenda is to get the better of America above all else. E.g Korea, proverty stricken yet spend millions / billions on building a rocket.

At the third time of trying. Are you going to stick with this as what you meant to say or do you think you might change your mind again?

Oh, and you were. That's why I said it. I think about 8 other people agreed that you were slavering somewhat. I can't remember exactly what it was but I'll go back and have a look for a wee laugh to cheer me up.

8 other sycophantic admirers of those with over 1000 posts you mean.
I stand by what I said. When I write something down I actually know what what words to employ in order to convey my meaning. xx

:LOL: Very good. So when someone says they find French people arrogant that makes them racist. Are you really sure you know what you mean?

Personally I don't look at post counts and hadn't realised I was over 1000 but if you want to get a semi over that type of thing it's up to you.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=BravestHibs;1997956][quote=Woody1985;1997953]

:LOL: Very good. So when someone says they find French people arrogant that makes them racist. Are you really sure you know what you mean?

Personally I don't look at post counts and hadn't realised I was over 1000 but if you want to get a semi over that type of thing it's up to you.

I think that it is casual racism yes. The kind of racism that people use because they don't have the stones to convey their true feelings about different cultures. The kind of racism the sun and the other rags that you clearly subscribe to, peddle on a daily basis.

You don't know what the word sychophant means do you?

[Hibs Giant]

[quote=BravestHibs;1997956][quote=Woody1985;1997953]

:LOL: Very good. So when someone says they find French people arrogant that makes them racist. Are you really sure you know what you mean?


Yes. It does.

How about if I said that I find Pakistani people smell like curry? Is that racist? It is after all only an opinion.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=Woody1985;1997958][quote=BravestHibs;1997956]

Yes. It does.

How about if I said that I find Pakistani people smell like curry? Is that racist? It is after all only an opinion.

This is the bottom line Woody. You, my friend, are a selective racist. And you don't even seem to realise it.

I'm not even sure whether that makes you better or worse.

[BravestHibs]

[quote=BravestHibs;1997956][quote=Woody1985;1997953]

:LOL: Very good. So when someone says they find French people arrogant that makes them racist. Are you really sure you know what you mean?

Personally I don't look at post counts and hadn't realised I was over 1000 but if you want to get a semi over that type of thing it's up to you.


Clamped.

[Woody1985]

I think that it is casual racism yes. The kind of racism that people use because they don't have the stones to convey their true feelings about different cultures. The kind of racism the sun and the other rags that you clearly subscribe to, peddle on a daily basis.

You don't know what the word sychophant means do you?

It's not racists. Is it only racist if it is a bad thing / comparison. How about if I say that all Jamaican's are happy go lucky and always smiling. Does that make me racist?

The person was obviously using a stereotype and/or speaking from experience. Doesn't make him racist.




Yes. It does.

How about if I said that I find Pakistani people smell like curry? Is that racist? It is after all only an opinion.

This is the bottom line Woody. You, my friend, are a selective racist. And you don't even seem to realise it.

I'm not even sure whether that makes you better or worse.

That wasn't me who said that in your quote. Anyhoo, for the person who did see my above response.



Clamped.

What age are you? :faf:

I had left work and therefore couldn't reply.

Clamped. :wtf: I've no heard that since I was about 10.

[Sir David Gray]

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

They maybe don't have them right this very minute but, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they do.

If people think North Korea being in possession of nuclear weapons is a worrying development, it will be nothing compared to what it will be like if/when Iran eventually obtains them.

[hibsdaft]

They maybe don't have them right this very minute but, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they do.

rubbish. iran will be stopped just before they reach completion of their nukes project (assuming they are trying to get them). their project will be bombed if they ever look like getting them. in the meantime Obama is making every effort to talk to them and stop them reaching that stage with diplomacy. he's spot on there imo.

got to say, its total hypocrisy for any country with nukes to tell the iranians or anyone else that somehow they're not allowed them, but on this one i am glad to be a hypocrite i am afraid to say, as the thought frightens me as much as the next person.

[Hibs Giant]

It's not racists.

Incorrect


How about if I say that all Jamaican's are happy go lucky and always smiling. Does that make me racist? .

Yes. You are making generalisations based on race.

You are a racist.

[Betty Boop]

They maybe don't have them right this very minute but, in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before they do.

If people think North Korea being in possession of nuclear weapons is a worrying development, it will be nothing compared to what it will be like if/when Iran eventually obtains them. The UN Nuclear Agency said that Iran does not have nuclear weapons or the capability to produce them and the US National Intelligence Estimate agree. Is this not the same crap pretext that we entered into the illegal war in Iraq?

[Woody1985]

Incorrect



Yes. You are making generalisations based on race.

You are a racist.

Okay then.

Those pesky Jamaicans always having fun and smiling. Someone phone the police. :bitchy:

[Sir David Gray]

rubbish. iran will be stopped just before they reach completion of their nukes project (assuming they are trying to get them). their project will be bombed if they ever look like getting them. in the meantime Obama is making every effort to talk to them and stop them reaching that stage with diplomacy. he's spot on there imo.

got to say, its total hypocrisy for any country with nukes to tell the iranians or anyone else that somehow they're not allowed them, but on this one i am glad to be a hypocrite i am afraid to say, as the thought frightens me as much as the next person.

I've already said that no-one should have nuclear weapons in an ideal world. However, I agree with Woody's take on things in that there are some countries that I would trust with them and some that I wouldn't. Iran falls into the latter category.

I've also said that Obama's efforts to rid the World of nuclear weapons by talking to other nations, is commendable, but it will not prove to be successful. Iran's not interested in diplomacy.


The UN Nuclear Agency said that Iran does not have nuclear weapons or the capability to produce them and the US National Intelligence Estimate agree. Is this not the same crap pretext that we entered into the illegal war in Iraq?

I believe that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Islamic regime in Tehran, is much more of a threat to the international community than Saddam Hussein ever was.

Within the next five years (ten years max.), I fully expect Iran's nuclear programme to be fully operational.