A rule for one and a rule for Another .. when it comes to Nuclear weapons /Power ..

[timetraveller]

Do you feel it is of Proper Behaviour to tell another Country they can't have Nuclear Weapons / .. When those Countries Has them .. Also !!

Where do you draw the line , If you were that Leader how would feel .. ?


Am not taking sides by Any means , For the Western World to continually preach about democracy By saying were giving it to A-stan and Iraq And all the rest ... of the talk that comes with it
When we Are just as Guilty .

What Happens in 10 years time and the Afghani Goverment decides build a Nuclear Reactor .. What will be the West's reaction then




Discuss

[LRPV]

Political stability. Secular thought. Robust, reliable controls on devices.

I sleep at night with the British and Americans nuclear armed. The Indians and Pakistanis have Kashmir as a friction point, yet no party has resorted to WMD. The examples go on...

However would I sleep comfortably with any country having 'the bomb'? No.




NB: Not all reactors are suitable for creating 'bomb' grade by-products.

[RxOnco]

I think we, meaning the United States, have been the world's police force for quite some time now. We've also been the world's primary go-to guy when a major disaster happens. With this, I think there are times when we have to look out for not only ourselves, but our allies. When you have a country's hard-line leader making statements like these:

...President Ahmadinejad, elected in June, was addressing a conference in Teheran entitled "The World Without Zionism", attended by about 3,000 conservative students, who chanted: "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!"
"The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," he said. "As the Imam [the late Ayatollah Khomeini] said, 'Israel must be wiped off the map'… The Islamic world will not let its historic enemy live in its heartland."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/10/27/wiran27.xml

...we have to rein in an aggressor. You'll notice that the world in general doesn't seem to have any problem with an establishment of a nuclear program as long as the country in question maintains a good ******* with its neighbors. Iran and North Korea have long refused to play nice with the rest of the world when it comes to transparency with thier nuclear ambitions. There's a reason that most on the world stage has a problem with Iran possessing nuclear capability. The only one who doesn't might be Russia and that's only attributed to their financial ties to said program.

[seraosha]

Hey man, I agree...Iran should in fact have nuclear weapons.

Starting with air burst munitions to throw up a wall of EMP, then a few choice bunkerbusters, low yield of course. And we ought to deliver them soon.

[RxOnco]

...What Happens in 10 years time and the Afghani Goverment decides build a Nuclear Reactor .. What will be the West's reaction then ...

Assuming they're not being run by the Taliban, I wouldn't think the West would have much problem with it.

[dangerclose]

Am not taking sides by Any means



That's the problem.

[Calanen]

Perhaps not only nations should have nuclear weapons - but, pretty well everyone. Money should be invested in a DIY Home Depot build yourself a nuke kit, available for all members of the general public. Why should anyone miss out.

[Dr_ColoSSus]

there are enough nuclear powers. The world does not need more, having said that, some governments/countries could be trusted with nukes. Most cant.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

That's the problem.

Very good point.

It seems that we've created such and insulated, idyllic world, that the very worst thing that we can imagine is creating a perceived inequity.

But despite our social indoctrination, there's nothing wrong with discrimination - so long as it's based on sound criteria.

Our jails are full of people who we discriminate against - and we won't allow them to even own a gun, never mind a nuclear weapon.

[Tokamak]

The use or development of nuclear weapons should be avoided as much as possible. The countries that currently have it, have shown to be wise enough by not using them. However I don't think a country like Iran with a president so crazy should be allowed to have it. Unstable countries shouldn't have any weapon of mass destruction.

[euro-officer]

in general can i state that the idea of the US having to step up to the plate for its allies is slightly annoying. im not saying they havnt but can some US citizens please just admit that everything theyr country does is fundamentally driven by their own well being. im not condemning them for that but id like people to call a spade a spade. and also who is the only nation to operationally use a nuclear weapon, and who are the most widesparead users of depleted uranium munitions. i know they are not full tactical nukes but we have to stop kidding ourselves in the west about how cut throat we are.

[pgm]

who are the most widesparead users of depleted uranium munitions. i know they are not full tactical nukes but we have to stop kidding ourselves in the west about how cut throat we are.

When people talk about Depleted Uranium implying that it's "something like" tactical nukes just to demonstrate how wicked Westerners are, I can usually be sure that:

1) They don't know what they are talking about;
2) They don't care at all to know what they are talking about because they prefer to resort to some kind of ideology (pacifism, religion, politics, etc.);
3) It's no use trying to discuss with them about anything.

Contra negantes principia non est disputandum

(P.S. By the way: DU has nothing to do with nukes, tactical or not)

[Kilgor]

in general can i state that the idea of the US having to step up to the plate for its allies is slightly annoying. im not saying they havnt but can some US citizens please just admit that everything theyr country does is fundamentally driven by their own well being. im not condemning them for that but id like people to call a spade a spade. and also who is the only nation to operationally use a nuclear weapon, and who are the most widesparead users of depleted uranium munitions. i know they are not full tactical nukes but we have to stop kidding ourselves in the west about how cut throat we are.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, for example, reported in 2003 that, "based on credible scientific evidence, there is no proven link between DU exposure and increases in human cancers or other significant health or environmental impacts," although "Like other heavy metals, DU is potentially poisonous

[sparkFan]

US army kill Iraqi civilian every day, and how can we punish it? Yesterday they killed 24 Iraqi civilian. Well, reported 24 civilian were killed, and how many not be reported yesterday?

So, some said ' I sleep at night with the British and Americans nuclear armed. ', and ' However would I sleep comfortably with any country having 'the bomb'? No.'

If we do evil, we should be punished.

It is very difficult to avoid the danger that one day New York ruined by Nuclear weapons, if U.S not stop killing immediately.


PS: Can some one tell me why American have right to kill Iraqi civilian in Iraq, but Iraqi should not kill U.S civilian in North American?

[LRPV]

sparkfan,
Are you seriously comparing a war-zone with a first-world country not on a martial footing?

You probably mean well in your idealistic setting, however you might read up on the topic before casting your pearls of wisdom....p-)

[Chulo]

PS: Can some one tell me why American have right to kill Iraqi civilian in Iraq, but Iraqi should not kill U.S civilian in North American?

humm.. because one is a war zone and the other is not?
because one does not have a stable government and full law and order control, and one does?

[0rphie]

humm.. because one is a war zone and the other is not?
because one does not have a stable government and full law and order control, and one does?
did you read what you wrote before clicking "submit" button? should we understand you as invadors have rights to kill as many civilians as they please?

[dangerclose]

US army kill Iraqi civilian every day, and how can we punish it? Yesterday they killed 24 Iraqi civilian. Well, reported 24 civilian were killed, and how many not be reported yesterday?

So, some said ' I sleep at night with the British and Americans nuclear armed. ', and ' However would I sleep comfortably with any country having 'the bomb'? No.'

If we do evil, we should be punished.

It is very difficult to avoid the danger that one day New York ruined by Nuclear weapons, if U.S not stop killing immediately.


PS: Can some one tell me why American have right to kill Iraqi civilian in Iraq, but Iraqi should not kill U.S civilian in North American?


John Murtha is that you?

[euro-officer]

ok pgm in general the effects of nuclear fallout or agents in a CBRN environment will be more prevelent in the subsequent generations after initial exposure. (thats secondary school science). secondly certain departments of defence played down the side effects caused by DU (as you call them), that occured in troops deployed to Kosovo after they were deployed first. becasue they were exposed to the environmental effects caused by the DU rounds used by NATO, not any other type of bloody heavy metals. dont give me the "you dont know what your talking about" crap its childish, its the type of stuff bill o'reilly from fox comes out with. and i can tell you i am no pacifist and the religious remark made me laugh. anyway the point is about nuclear weapons, and all i can say is stop lying to yourselves by thinking: west good- east bad. we can have all the big toys because we are the responsible ones. BULL***T. you will develop a modicum of maturity when you objectively asses your own sides actions as much as your opponents. oh and by the way im from the west where do you think i got "euro" from Mecca? nice one.

[RxOnco]

did you read what you wrote before clicking "submit" button? should we understand you as invadors have rights to kill as many civilians as they please?

Did you?
These "civilian deaths" that were spoken of is called collateral damage. It happens during war time. Open up a book or google it. For you to suggest that the US is "killing civilians as they please" says that you have your own left wing agenda and everything thing else is just the typical anti-West rhetoric.
Truth is, this war would probably be over by now had we not been so careful about collateral damage. From the start, we've done nothing but be careful about civilian casualties. When our forces begin to engage with enemy insurgents only to have them flee into a "civilian" neighborhood, well, there's going to be a few casualties that did not have to happen. One thing I get tired of is how those like yourself will see something like this happen and the first thought from your mind is about how the United States takes down more civies...not how here's some more deaths that can be attributed to the insurgency. If they weren't out planting bombs nobody would've been killed in this situation. If they hadn't have run into a house full of "women and children", the only ones who would have died would have been the insurgents.

[annihilation]

I don't think we should help anyone get the tech to build nukes. But if they want to achieve it on their own so be it. Every nation has the right. Also any nation that has it should also know they will be responsible to control and safe guard there stuff. Should they get stolen and be used, regardless of their wish, they would still be held responsible and punished with a nuclear volley back at them.

[RxOnco]

..Also any nation that has it should also know they will be responsible to control and safe guard there stuff...

I think if the nations in question were thought to be responsible, this wouldn't even be up for discussion.