Author Topic: Iran: crisis looming over nuclear plans (Read 1992 times)

Skydancer · « **Reply #30 on:** August 04, 2005, 05:37:32 AM »

Its a matter pf principle. Yeah it would be extremely difficult to enforce. But why in heavens name would any country listen to the US Britain and France for example when they wag their finger and say no you can't have them. I wouldn't listen. I'd do my damned hardest to acquire the same weapons then maybe I'd enter negotiations. I wouldn't just say "yeah ok you keep your 10,000 plus warheads and we'll get rid of all ours" Particularly when the sabres are rattling in the western world!!

Lead by example not by bullying or decree.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #31 on:** August 04, 2005, 09:06:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
"Taking care of business is what makes it stop and or controls it."

Not entirely sure that Policy has worked in Iraq!

Well yaknow I don`t see a lot of Iraqi troops in neighboring countries nowadays raping , pillaging and destroying.
Iraq itself is still in the early stages of development government wise at the moment. There is going to be trouble and lots of it for a long while yet. Things like this are not instant as some would wish. Anything worthwhile is worth fighting for.

Quote

Its ok Jackal1 know you wouldn't as its your avowed intent to disagree with everything emanating from my keyboard )

Well thanks for your OK on this. It means so much to me.

You are correct in most cases. The reason for this is 98% of what you post I disagree with and find most to be mindress drivel and some to the point of absurd.

Quote

I think a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons might be better.

I think that the world would be better off if I hit a multimillion dollar lottery. I wouldn`t hold my breath for either fairy tale wishs to happen.

Quote

I don't like the idea of an Islamic fundamentalist state having nukes but I can see why they wouldn't listen to us at the moment.

And you think the governments of places such as Iran and NK are reasonable and willing to listen?
It`s pretty well laid out what will become of this if they do not cease and desist. They know it, we know it. At the moment both are doing absolutely nothing but trying use the possiblity of nuclear capabilities for blackmail. We are not much into that sort of thing, so it is going to be their choice.
You can`t reason with those intent on the unreasonable.
Countries such as these, in these times love getting a reaction from people in our countries showing weakness such as "Stop the war",and Peaceniks, etc. As it stands that is the most they can hope for at the moment.

Skydancer · « **Reply #32 on:** August 04, 2005, 09:36:26 AM »

"At the moment both are doing absolutely nothing but trying use the possiblity of nuclear capabilities for blackmail. "

Urm couldn't it be said that is exactly what the western powers are doing? After all at the moment we are the ones with the nukes not they!

Hangtime · « **Reply #33 on:** August 04, 2005, 09:53:23 AM »

the 'they':

Pakistan
India
China
North Korea
Ukrane
Russia
& the Former Soviet 'Stans'.

I suggest we keep ours for a little while longer.

Just in case.

soda72 · « **Reply #34 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:14:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
the 'they':

Pakistan
India
China
North Korea
Ukrane
Russia
& the Former Soviet 'Stans'.

I suggest we keep ours for a little while longer.

Just in case.

Out of that list how many of those countries are stable? two maybe three at most....

Hangtime · « **Reply #35 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:30:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by soda72
Out of that list how many of those countries are stable? two maybe three at most....

Yup. and Iran wouldn't be any improvement.

As it stands now our conventional non-nuke military is reasonably capable of dealing with any non-nuclear nations agression, world wide.

However, if we were to scrap our nukes, what would be the deterrent for an agressor WITH nukes?

MAD (mutally assured destruction) lives on... and so do we. The 'sword of damocles' cuts both ways.

Toad · « **Reply #36 on:** August 04, 2005, 11:34:18 AM »

No, no, no.

Don't you SEE?

If WE get rid of OURS all the other countries will get rid of THEIRS.

It's the US having them that is the problem.

Sky will explain it to you again, I'm sure.

Just repeat this mantra: "The US is the problem."

No bad guys anywhere would want/have/buy/use nukes if only the US got rid of all of the US weapons.

Come to think of it, we really don't need any conventional forces either.

It's the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

Monk · « **Reply #37 on:** August 04, 2005, 12:47:48 PM »

Quote

It's the dawning of the Age of Aquarius.

Toad,

Ya got me thinkin.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #38 on:** August 04, 2005, 01:11:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer

Urm couldn't it be said that is exactly what the western powers are doing?

Well maybe you know something the rest of us mere mortals don`t, but on this side of the pond I don`t recall any instances of us using any nuclear threat to blackmail any other country out of aid, money, or assistance.

Quote

After all at the moment we are the ones with the nukes not they

You noticed that did ya? How very observant. You bet your sweet arse we do and it will stay that way.

I realize you sort of cruise through life in a daze beleiving in a "what if", peace for all, all for one, feed the children, heal the sick, share the wealth type pf nonexistent dream world. You have made that clear on many, many occasions.
I hate to be the one to break it to you and ruin your 3 wishs at the well, but there is a cold blooded, ruthless world out there full of little half baked radical leaders that at the very first sign of weakness or opportunity would walk over the rest of us like a cheap rug. It`s called reality, which you don`t seem to be too familiar with.
We will keep our miltary and technilogical advantage or go down trying. I don`t know about you, but for the most part , on this side of the pond , we don`t bend over too often to pick up the soap.

BTW, have you ever looked up in top right of the text box and noticed that little button entitled "Quote"?

Toad · « **Reply #39 on:** August 04, 2005, 01:33:54 PM »

There's new lyrics to that now Monk.

Quote

Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

US is Evil lord, kumbaya
US is Evil lord, kumbaya
US is Evil lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbayah

Smite the Yankees, lord, kumbaya
Smite the Yankees, lord, kumbaya
Smite the Yankees, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Give their nukes to us, lord, kumbaya
Give their nukes to us, lord, kumbaya
Give their nukes to us, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

They’re so Evil, lord, kumbaya
They’re so Evil, lord, kumbaya
They’re so Evil, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Wipe them out, lord, kumbaya
Wipe them out, lord, kumbaya
Wipe them out, lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya
Oh lord, kumbaya

Clifra Jones · « **Reply #40 on:** August 04, 2005, 01:47:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
I think if we got rid of our nuclear weapons / facilities we might have more of a leg to stand on when we tell others they can't have em. If not we as atomic nations are mere hypocrytes.

To be honest never liked em or wanted em particularly when as a kid in Suffolk I knew there were rather more of em than I wanted on my doorstep and based far too close for comfort.

Never wanted a PWR like the one at 3mile Island built at Sizewell B either but the govt did it anyhow!

Just two of the things I supported back then when my hair was longer!

Hears another suggestion, let's get rid of all the doctors and medicine and we will no longer have to worry about diseases. Sound stupid? No more than the unilateral disarmement ideas.

You cannot prevent a war by disarming you only incourage and hasten its arrival.

A civilized sane society that wants nuclear weapons to protect itself is fine by me. Problem is Iran and N. Korea are far from that. They are both openly hostile to the west and lack the culturtal maturity to posess such technology.

Without nuclear weapons all out global war would have erupted within 20 years of the end of WWII.

Raider179 · « **Reply #41 on:** August 04, 2005, 03:25:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
Just because a reporter or journalist tells you it's a "blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" does not make it so. You'll notice the IAEA actually declined to comment. I've read the text of the NPT myself. There is nothing in the text pertaining to enriching uranium. The only illegal act is actually developing a weapon. Enriched uranium is also used as reactor fuel for compact reactors (nuke subs etc.)

NK is in "blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty" by their own admission so that's a no-brainer. Bombs away.

If you read it then how did you miss this part.

Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

See that part at the end? NOT TO SEEK or receive any assistance....

Where did that centrifuge come from again? Oh yeah Pakistan's Khan.

You gonna claim it's a legitamate trade huh? If its legit then why did they hide it? You only hide something because you are doing something you don't want people to see.

Skydancer · « **Reply #42 on:** August 04, 2005, 04:34:18 PM »

"It's the US having them that is the problem."

Actualy Toad you are peddling the same old Sky hates the US rubbish without reading properly.

I included Britain and France in that equation. It wasn't a knock at the US but at the double standards the "we'll keep ours give up yours" message peddled by all those nations mine included.

Did it ever occur to you guys that though Mr Hussain wasn't exactly mr nice guy he was helping keep the madmen in Iran at bay. Rather a lot of Iraqis were killed fighting Iran!

Perhaps we should have kept the regime in Iraq in place? The US and Britain have supported other dodgy regimes to preserve what we saw at the time as the balance of power. Its not pretty or nice but it might've been a lot better than the mess we're in now!

Yes Jackal1 I see the button but it didn't seem to work on my computer unless I was just being technophobic.

Cheers for the homo reference/insult buried in the text by the way.
Just for info I think us Brits are the least likely to bend over in the shower and history tells us we're the first to get in the metaphorical shower while you guys are making up your mind if it might be too wet in there or which shower to get in!

( joke just incase you get all ornery again )

Oh and yes Clifra your doctors diseases analogy does sound a bit daft! Its totaly off the track. What I'm talking about here is the hypocracy of telling someone to do something that your not prepared to do yourself!

Gh0stFT · « **Reply #43 on:** August 04, 2005, 05:01:13 PM »

in the whole thread replace the words "nuclear weapons" with "chocolate bar"
and see it from a different perspective.

Raider179 · « **Reply #44 on:** August 04, 2005, 05:10:24 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skydancer
"It's the US having them that is the problem."

I included Britain and France in that equation. It wasn't a knock at the US but at the double standards the "we'll keep ours give up yours" message peddled by all those nations mine included.

See here is where your argument is gonna fall apart. The US has had them for 60 years and havent used them for the last 59 of those years. That is what is known as a "proven track record". See what that means is we have shown that we won't have some crazy fundamentalist uprising that seizes control of the military and government and starts shooting nukes off everywhere. Or giving them to countries or people that will use them. (want proof of that? How many nukes have been used in violence since hiroshima/nagasaki? Exactly ZERO) No other country has ever used a nuke in war. So the very idea that More countries should have them for protection because of our nukes is flawed the start.