Nuclear program in Iran tied to Pakistan
- Thread starter Natoma
- Start date
Its a scary prospect, but imo pretty inevitable that one day some of these unsavory governments will come into possession of nukes. Whether NK, and Iran actually have them now is debatable, but I dont think the international community can delay things forever.
The physics of nuclear weapons is old news, the concepts well understood. Even the detailed planning, the infrastructure and what not are now mostly public knowledge. It certainly wouldnt be hard for a European country like say Sweden to develop an Abomb, on the level of what hit Hiroshima assuming they had a few years and the desire to do so.
Deterence will have to hold true in the next century. Detterence against foes that are potentially non rational and openly hostile towards the west.
Policing the world will also probably come to an end. We wouldn't have been able to intervene in the Balkans, or Somalia (etc etc) had they been in possession of Nuclear weapons.
The physics of nuclear weapons is old news, the concepts well understood. Even the detailed planning, the infrastructure and what not are now mostly public knowledge. It certainly wouldnt be hard for a European country like say Sweden to develop an Abomb, on the level of what hit Hiroshima assuming they had a few years and the desire to do so.
Deterence will have to hold true in the next century. Detterence against foes that are potentially non rational and openly hostile towards the west.
Policing the world will also probably come to an end. We wouldn't have been able to intervene in the Balkans, or Somalia (etc etc) had they been in possession of Nuclear weapons.
Fred said:
And this is bad because...
Also, maybe if Milosevic would have had a massive deterent he could have put an end to Islamic extremism in his country like he was going to do before the US government, hater of Eastern Orthodoxy almost on a par with the Ancyra regime, fucked everything up in Yugoslavia bigtime. Thanks Bill!
Silent_One
Newcomer
AlphaWolf wrote:
I disagree. That type of policy is based upon the idea that the country building the Bomb is a direct threat. Also the builder usually is doing so in secret. Those countries that are going to build the Bomb are going to do so regardless of any policy. If anything the policy would reinforce the idea of don't get caught before it's too late for anyone to do anything about it!
And it would also mean that the US would have to let the UN inspectors in and be told to get rid of WMD... Which, funny enough, will never happen.
Funny because they just bombed the fuck out of a country because of the same reason...
Paradox hey... :|
Funny because they just bombed the fuck out of a country because of the same reason...
Paradox hey... :|
Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, United States, North Korea all are confirmed with Nuclear Weapons.
Isreal is heavily rumoured (Im sure they do have them)
former USSR break away republics are sure to have some warheads....
takes a hell of a lot more than just one country to give up WMDs. Its a pretty effective deterrent.
besides, more effective killing methods are being worked on every day. It would take EVERY individual in the world to give up WMDs and to stop thinking about new ones.
Isreal is heavily rumoured (Im sure they do have them)
former USSR break away republics are sure to have some warheads....
takes a hell of a lot more than just one country to give up WMDs. Its a pretty effective deterrent.
besides, more effective killing methods are being worked on every day. It would take EVERY individual in the world to give up WMDs and to stop thinking about new ones.
jandar said:
Yeah, well WMD are "what is says on the tin"... whatever way to "mass destruction" is a Weapon of Mass Destruction...
How about the countries that try oh so hard to look like the "good saviour of freedom" try and set the example? That might work, nothing else worked so far, how about that? It's a serious question, not sarcastic, and i'd love to see what people here think. What would happen if the US, UK and all the western super-powers decided to "set the example" and completely abandon WMD projects? And now that we're here, what would happen if they (we) approached foreign countries issues with un-biased eyes, unspoiled by economy and profit-maximisation mentalities?
I know what the answer would be... Never going to happen, and that's why until that happens, peace will not exist on this planet.
A rogue state could attack any of these countries with their clandestine weapons of mass destruction and not face similar reprisal.
Getting rid of the weapons themselves from responsible countries is pointless. We never intend to use them.
Getting rid of the weapons from unstable countries prevents them from becoming uncontrolled.
Both of these still leaves the problem of the genie out of the bottle.
RussSchultz said:
Ah that's where i wanted to get to.
Is it really true that countries without WMD are somewhat more vulnerable than countries without WMD?
In the end, if one country wants to use WMD on another, it will.
I'm not sure the attacking country would just go "oh well, they havent got any WMD, they won't respond, we can attack them!". See my point?
I'm not sure that getting rid of WMD makes the country more vulnerable. In the end, long-range missiles can be targetted and destroyed before they reach the "victim-country". Also, should a single country decide to use WMD on another, then the whole world would subsequently turn into the attacking country anyway, with or without WMD.
See what i mean?
Do we REALLY need WMD at all?
I think if you plug names into your countries, it definately changes the question.
Is Israel safer with nuclear deterrance than it would be without? I think they're definately safer.
Is Israel safer with nuclear deterrance than it would be without? I think they're definately safer.
Actually no.
If we don't have WMD, we don't have a deterence threat. Without a deterence threat, a country like NKorea could invade SKorea in a convential strike without fear of reprisal from the West. A country like Iraq could invade Kuwait without fear of reprisal. A country like Afghanistan, which was full of religious maniacs, could unleash armagedon on the west and end the western world and set humanity back to the stone ages.
Military supremacy IS important for the west to have, being the more responsible set of countries currently available Our sensibility to human rights, and democracy make it imperative that we have some leverage against rogue states. When Nuclear weapons are concerned, then its obvious that an equal threat would need to be matched.
If we don't have WMD, we don't have a deterence threat. Without a deterence threat, a country like NKorea could invade SKorea in a convential strike without fear of reprisal from the West. A country like Iraq could invade Kuwait without fear of reprisal. A country like Afghanistan, which was full of religious maniacs, could unleash armagedon on the west and end the western world and set humanity back to the stone ages.
Military supremacy IS important for the west to have, being the more responsible set of countries currently available
Our sensibility to human rights, and democracy make it imperative that we have some leverage against rogue states. When Nuclear weapons are concerned, then its obvious that an equal threat would need to be matched.Willmeister
Newcomer
The West will never, ever, give up WMD and will always take steps to maintain their monopoly on state violence. That's why Israel struck Iraq's programme in the early 1980s so as to ensure their monopoly on violence is maintained. What would happen suddenly if Israel was no longer the only power in the region with nukes? Suddenly, they're going to have to stop invading, siezing and otherwise stop being the regional bully.
Willmeister said:
Exactly. There would be fewer conflicts because countries would stop playing "my dick is bigger than yours" and try to help each other.
It will NEVER happen, but it's nice to dream about it.
Really, WMD are only good at one thing: playing "my dick is bigger than yours".
Are WMD ever going to be used in a conflict? Very unlikely (one would hope at least). So why have them at all? I think it's all a psychological game between the different goverments. A bit like Gold in the MiddleAge. The country with the most gold would be a superpower. Today it's about Nuclear Bombs. How sad is that.
I still do not think that a country without WMD is somewhat more vulnerable than those with them.
