New Zealand Herald:
WASHINGTON - The Pentagon has drawn up a new strategy, built on the 2002 "Bush doctrine" of pre-emptive military strikes, that would allow the US to make first use of nuclear weapons to thwart an a WMD attack against the country.
Under the scheme, developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff but yet to be ratified by Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, commanders would be able to request permission from the President to use nuclear weapons in a variety of scenarios.
According to the Washington Post, one possibility is an enemy that is using, or "is about to use" weapons of mass destruction against US military forces or civilian population.
Another is where nuclear weapons could be used against biological weapons that an enemy was close to using, and which could only be safely destroyed by nuclear weapons and their after-effects.
In practice, the strategy would update existing guidelines, drawn up in 1995 under the Clinton administration.
It would fit in with plans mooted by the Pentagon to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons, specifically designed to attack enemy bunkers of WMD, buried deep underground.
But Congress has thus far declined to provide funds for a study into the so-called "robust nuclear earth penetrator", not least because of criticism that such a move would make a mockery of US-led efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, and make it more, rather than less likely, that such weapons would be employed.
However the Pentagon document argues that proliferation has already made it more likely that nuclear weapons could be used.
It claims that some 30 nations have WMD programmes -- not to mention terrorists, or "non-state actors" as they are described, acting either independently or under the sponsorship of a state opposed to the US.
It also points out that even during the Cold War the US refused to commit itself to a "no first use" of nuclear weapons.
I wonder where we'd be if the Pentagon had decided to skip the whole "blowing up isolated chunks of Baghdad" plan, and instead opted for "levelling the entire city of Baghdad, vapourizing everyone within, and killing everyone who wasn't vapourized within five years with radiation poisoning" plan.
Why can I see only bad coming of this?
Oh, that's right. the whole "Blow them up before they attack us and if they weren't going to attack us anyway just say we liberated the people which we just vaporised" Philosophy of it.
I swear, Bush is going out of his way just to make sure that the next president has a HELL of a mess to clean up.
Quote:
I wonder where we'd be if the Pentagon had decided to skip the whole "blowing up isolated chunks of Baghdad" plan, and instead opted for "levelling the entire city of Baghdad, vapourizing everyone within, and killing everyone who wasn't vapourized within five years with radiation poisoning" plan.
I don't know. But be reasonable; do you honestly think the Donald Rumsfeld (or President Bush, for that matter) would implement or use such a policy that would result in such a tremendous backlash (more so than what's currently happened in the WoT, in any case)? After all, liberating countries would be a bit of a moot point if there were no civilians to actually liberate.
Quote:
Oh, that's right. the whole "Blow them up before they attack us and if they weren't going to attack us anyway just say we liberated the people which we just vaporised" Philosophy of it.
It hasn't been approved yet. And there's a bit of a difference between 'strategic bombing with a follow-up of ground forces' and nuclear weapons.
I don't know. But be reasonable; do you honestly think the Donald Rumsfeld (or President Bush, for that matter) would implement or use such a policy that would result in such a tremendous backlash (more so than what's currently happened in the WoT, in any case)? After all, liberating countries would be a bit of a moot point if there were no civilians to actually liberate.
If I'm not mistaken, the reason they were giving for attacking Iraq at the time was that it had WMDs and was ready to shoot them at the US at a moment's notice. It had nothing to do with liberation until everyone -- even the stupid people -- figured out that there weren't any. So yes, yes I do.
Still, there's a bit of a difference between a ground operation (complete with conventional bombing) and nuclear weapons.
And let's not forget that Bush was only acting on intelligence offered to him by not only American intelligence, but foriegn intelligence as well.
And let's not forget that the intelligence was heavily manipulated. But this is off-topic. Let's move on.
Off-topic: And the Downing Street Memo has since been proven to be more of a lamb in wolf's clothing, provided you actually look deep enough past all of the anti-Bush rhetoric. You have a PM.
On-topic: I personally believe that this measure won't be approved by Rumsfeld.
So... welcome back the policies of Nixon, only without Soviet Russia to justify them.
Mad nuclear deterrance is no way to have people sleeping safe at night.
Well I always try to see the good side of everything. But there is no good side to this. Its going to be hard for the next president to do anything before he or she sorts all this out.
Cycle,
Once again you are showing us your excellent skills in molehill mountaineering...
The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
Sometimes killing the other guy before he can kill you is the only option, because the "other guy" has chosen to kill you or die trying. Sometimes it's a good day to let the other guy die for his country.
Jimro
The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."
At this point I do not trust the United States government -- under any administration -- to responsibly and correctly determine what is a threat and what is not. Besides which, defending oneself against a man with a gun is one thing, blowing up a city full of people is quite another.
And considering that the United States' primary external threat is terrorism (by virtue of the fact that any clearly-organized construct would be utterly retarded to try to start an armed military conflict with it), using nukes to defend it against them would be tantamount to swatting flies with a cannon.
Quote:
At this point I do not trust the United States government -- under any administration -- to responsibly and correctly determine what is a threat and what is not.
And who would you rather trust?
Quote:
And considering that the United States' primary external threat is terrorism (by virtue of the fact that any clearly-organized construct would be utterly retarded to try to start an armed military conflict with it), using nukes to defend it against them would be tantamount to swatting flies with a cannon.
Which is why I think the Secretary of Defense won't approve.
At this point I do not trust the United States government -- under any administration -- to responsibly and correctly determine what is a threat and what is not.
says the Canadian....
What do you want us to do, have the UN put sanctions against them, non-binding resolutions with no consequences?
Simply put, I don't trust anyone but the US to responsibly and correctly determine what is a threat to us, and what is not.
Nor would you want France determining what is and isn't a threat to Canada.
Jimro
Quote:
swatting flies with a cannon.
L O L , dude. XD I cracked up laughing.
What do you want us to do, have the UN put sanctions against them, non-binding resolutions with no consequences?
Who is "them", exactly? The WMD-toting dictators who don't actually have WMDs? The burgeoning threats to democracy that don't have the ballistic capability to attack anything more than two countries over? The horrible evil totalitarian regimes whose human-rights records make them look like the Lord Jesus Christ compared to Hu Jintao?
Yeah, actually, I would prefer they do that than bomb their cities, killing thousands of innocents.
Quote:
Who is "them", exactly? The WMD-toting dictators who don't actually have WMDs? The burgeoning threats to democracy that don't have the ballistic capability to attack anything more than two countries over? The horrible evil totalitarian regimes whose human-rights records make them look like the Lord Jesus Christ compared to Hu Jintao?
1) Why exactly was Saddam so uncooperative with U.N. weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide (he also kicked them out in 1998, by the way)? And let's not forget how he willingly disregarded, say, oh, I don't know...several UN Resolutions? Before 2003, the U.N had had 12 years to deal with Saddam's boastful flaunting of their numerous resolutions. As you know, they didn't do anything (and we know there was an ulterior motive for doing nothing as well; need I remind you of Oil for Food?).
2) So you're saying that Saddam shouldn't have been removed from power just because someone else has a worse human-rights record than he (and out of curiosity, are you referring to Hu's handling of the SARS incident?)? And let me point out something to you.
Mass graves. Amputations. Use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Imprisonment. Voting restricted to the Ba'ath Socialist part (which comprised 8% of Iraq's population). Separating children (many as young as 5) from familys so they would adulate Saddam and denounce their kin. Massacres against the Kurds and the Shia after the Gulf War. Violations of the Geneva Convention. Torture of those interviewed by the media. Numerous torture centers. Public beheadings.
Jesus Christ, you say. Pfft.
Why exactly was Saddam so uncooperative with U.N. weapons inspectors if he had nothing to hide (he also kicked them out in 1998, by the way)?
The same reason any leader would be uncooperative with someone who wants to take a gander at their operations -- especially a dictator. Let's inspect the USA, shall we? Show us your arsenals, your top-secret military installations! Give us unfettered access to your stealth jets and spy planes! Tell us of your plans and your military tactics so we can publish them in publicly-accessible reports! After all, you have nothing to hide, right? It's not like it'd be a national security issue or anything.
And let's not forget how he willingly disregarded, say, oh, I don't know...several UN Resolutions?
Since when have you ever cared about UN resolutions?
So you're saying that Saddam shouldn't have been removed from power just because someone else has a worse human-rights record than he?
No, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy in accusing other leaders of things that are clearly not true and using these false accusations to justify military operations that kill thousands, and then turning around and shaking hands with guys like Hu Jintao, and the Saudi royal family. Nevermind the thousands of protestors -- just keep them as far away from our honoured guests as possible. God forbid they be reminded that they're not in their comfy little dictatorships anymore. The sheer fact that the US still has a trade embargo against Cuba simply because it's communist is blatant and unforgivable hypocritical douchabaggery.
and out of curiosity, are you referring to Hu's handling of the SARS incident?
HAHAHAHAHA no.
Mass graves. Amputations. Use of chemical weapons against the Kurds. Imprisonment. Voting restricted to the Ba'ath Socialist part (which comprised 8% of Iraq's population). Separating children (many as young as 5) from familys so they would adulate Saddam and denounce their kin. Massacres against the Kurds and the Shia after the Gulf War. Violations of the Geneva Convention. Torture of those interviewed by the media. Numerous torture centers. Public beheadings.
Censorship. Suppression of free thought. Tian An Men. Imprisonment and execution for practicing religion. No voting at all. Authoritarian communist regime. Suppression of education. Jailing and torture of political opponents, separatists and journalits. Secret executions. Complete control over the media. Refusal to relinquish control of Tibet. As many as three million dead for practicing Falun Gong.
At least under Saddam, Iraqis were still allowed to practice religion. The Chinese Communist Party has absolute control over all political aspects of Chinese society, and constantly seeks to eradicate threats to its rule. If the US government really gave a sh-t about spreading human rights, freedom and democracy around the world, they'd have arrested Hu Jintao the second he arrived in Washington.
Again we are off-topic.
Let's assume that Rummy approves the thing. What if the CIA makes another booboo and Bush goes all Rambo on... oh, say, Turkmenistan. And then some loose cannon in the army comes whining to Bush about how he doesn't want another Vietnam and convinces him to let him use the nukes, and Bush being the puppet he is says okay. Boom. They level Ashgabat. What if it turns out once again that Turkmenistan had no nukes either? What political ramifications could follow? Who would be to blame? What would happen to those responsible?
The WMD-toting dictators who don't actually have WMDs?
As hippies love to say when defending alternative medicine, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD's because he was afraid of Iran.
When you tell the world that you have WMD's and the world can't find them, the world wonders why you are hiding them, and who you are giving them to...
Yes we went to war over it. Canada doesn't have a problem sending Canadian soldiers to fight for human rights in Afganistan, Bosnia, Croatia, etc. Why would they not fight to seperate a ruthless dictator from the WMD's that he wants the world to think he has?
How many times did Iraq shoot at fighters patrolling the No Fly Zones? How many UN member nations sold Iraq weapons in direct violation of UN resolutions? How many times would those same UN countries watch the Iraqi people suffer under Oil for Food?
One definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results. Sanctions only hurt Iraqi civilians, they did not stop Saddam from obtaining weapons.
Would I nuke a small city to stop a nuke from leveling a large city? Yup. Would I prefer to use any other method? Yup. Do I think American lives are worth saving? Heck yeah.
Having this as an option is just having this as an option, just like Israel has the "Samson Option". Start thinking with your head instead of that great big bleeding liberal heart.
Jimro
It should probably be noted that the mere possession of WMDs is not sufficient justification for war. Otherwise I'm sure we'd be bombing India by now. The invasion of Iraq was not justified because there was no clear indication beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that Saddam was a threat to anyone. Given the benefit of the doubt, even if Saddam had possessed WMDs there was no reason whatsoever to believe that he was plotting to attack the US or its allies, nor that he was capable of doing so. My head, not my heart, believes that the principle of "beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt" must be applied in all such situations. Reasonable doubt in the Iraq situation was plentiful, but Bush and Blair ignored it, and thousands died.
Having this as an option is just having this as an option, just like Israel has the "Samson Option".
I'll be blunt: the use of nuclear weapons should not even be entered into the equation when planning a pre-emptive strike on anyone. It should not be considered at any time. My reasons are self-evident.
I've already said all I can say concerning the main topic, so all that's left is for me to respond to your words.
Quote:
The same reason any leader would be uncooperative with someone who wants to take a gander at their operations -- especially a dictator. Let's inspect the USA, shall we? Show us your arsenals, your top-secret military installations! Give us unfettered access to your stealth jets and spy planes! Tell us of your plans and your military tactics so we can publish them in publicly-accessible reports! After all, you have nothing to hide, right? It's not like it'd be a national security issue or anything.
Clinton did with China. Carter did with North Korea. It's what you would call 'bungling'. Oh, and can I accuse Geraldo Rivera, as well (seeing as how he drew out a US battle plan on LIVE TV)?
Here's what I think.
American military secrecy? Yes.
British military secrecy? Yes.
Canadian military secrecy? Yes.
Iraqi military secrecy? Under the reign of Saddam Hussein, no. Why? The reasons are self-evident.
Quote:
Since when have you ever cared about UN resolutions?
It's not a matter of caring or not caring. It's a matter of logic.
Let's just think about the logic here: U.N. sets up resolutions. Saddam continuously disregards them. Logical result = action against Saddam. As we all know, the U.N. did not. If an organization wants to be taken seriously (especially the U.N.), it should be willing and able to follow up on its own resolutions.
Quote:
At least under Saddam, Iraqis were still allowed to practice religion. The Chinese Communist Party has absolute control over all political aspects of Chinese society, and constantly seeks to eradicate threats to its rule. If the US government really gave a sh-t about spreading human rights, freedom and democracy around the world, they'd have arrested Hu Jintao the second he arrived in Washington.
China also has nuclear weapons (technology given away by Clinton and his administration), an army of 2.5-million (largest in the world), and an ever-increasing navy (PLAN, which is building eleven new, modern classes of major combatant vessels and will be launching them simultaneously). Prior to the Clinton administration, Chinese military power was practically nothing compared to that of the US. BUT, due to the open-door policy of Clinton, China was able to modernize its military and missiles (and let's not forget the defense contractors who did business with them). Beforehand, their missiles could barely reach North America. Now, they can hit any city in the USA with pinpoint accuracy. That kind of limits options against them.
Arresting Hu Jintao, regardless of the fact that he and the Chinese government is a horrible welt on the world, would be akin to commiting suicide. In essence, the situation with China is akin to the Cold War scenario with the Soviet Union. The ability to take action against China is unavailable...for the moment.
[cynical sarcasm]And if you're going to accuse the US for not arresting Hu Jintao when he comes on our soil, can I accuse Canada for not arresting him when he visited your country on September 9th? It's only fair.[/cynical sarcasm]
Quote:
The invasion of Iraq was not justified because there was no clear indication beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt that Saddam was a threat to anyone.
If I weren't so stupified by that statement, I'd laugh.
Clinton did with China. Carter did with North Korea. It's what you would call 'bungling'. Oh, and can I accuse Geraldo Rivera, as well (seeing as how he drew out a US battle plan on LIVE TV)?
Here's what I think. American military secrecy? Yes. British military secrecy? Yes. Canadian military secrecy? Yes. Iraqi military secrecy? Under the reign of Saddam Hussein, no. Why? The reasons are self-evident.
That doesn't stop you from being a hypocrite.
It's not a matter of caring or not caring. It's a matter of logic. Let's just think about the logic here: U.N. sets up resolutions. Saddam continuously disregards them. Logical result = action against Saddam. As we all know, the U.N. did not. If an organization wants to be taken seriously (especially the U.N.), it should be willing and able to follow up on its own resolutions.
How many international resolutions has the US disobeyed? Last I checked, they were still putting illegal tariffs on Canadian lumber and Mexican concrete.
Arresting Hu Jintao, regardless of the fact that he and the Chinese government is a horrible welt on the world, would be akin to commiting suicide. In essence, the situation with China is akin to the Cold War scenario with the Soviet Union. The ability to take action against China is unavailable...for the moment.
As if the US and Canadian governments were at all interested in taking them on. If they were they'd have at least tried a more peaceful solution, like trade embargos. As long as consumers keep buying goods made by low-paid Chinese labourers, thus lining the pockets of the west's leading political parties' primary contributors, nobody has any interest in raising a finger against China.
[cynical sarcasm]And if you're going to accuse the US for not arresting Hu Jintao when he comes on our soil, can I accuse Canada for not arresting him when he visited your country on September 9th? It's only fair.[/cynical sarcasm]
I figured it went without saying that I am highly disappointed with my own government for getting cosy with Hu Jintao. At this point, the Liberals could turn water to wine and I still wouldn't vote for them.
Quote:
That doesn't stop you from being a hypocrite.
Really.
There's a principal called 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Iran was more problematic to the US than Iraq was during the 80s. As such, America supported Iraq (as did West Germany, France, and the Soviet Union, ironically enough), giving them intelligence and economic aid whilst shunning Iran (not counting the arms delivered to Iran; this was done for the purpose of obtaining POWs in exchange for weapons). However, now he is (or was, I should say) the enemy. Political situations shift constantly; it's not surprising that Iraq switched from ally to enemy status within the span of fifteen years.
Alas, this is why politics are such a headache. Black and white in the world of politicians is a rarity. Allies one minute, enemies the next...
Quote:
Last I checked, they were still putting illegal tariffs on Canadian lumber and Mexican concrete.
And I agree that the tarrifs should be put to rest. What does that have to do with the fact that the U.N. is not following up on its own resolutions?
My reasons are self-evident.
Your reasons are clearly NOT self-evident, otherwise I would be agreeing with you. For the record, I am not agreeing with you and think that you need a reality check.
A pre-emptive nuclear strike option is just another option in a very big bag of tools.
Just like a black ops option. Just like a diplomatic option. Just like assassination, sanctions, trade embargos, conventional war, unconventional war, etc.
Deal with it.
Jimro
If the USA wants to bomb countries that are a threat to peaceful countries everywhere, it should aim them at itself. After all, it invaded Iraq, and is still occupying the land, despite the fact that there were no WMD, Saddam is out and there is a new government.
It's also got 1,200 nukes in stock - or is it 12,000? Doesn't matter - either number could destroy all life on the planet.
Quote:
If the USA wants to bomb countries that are a threat to peaceful countries everywhere, it should aim them at itself.
If the USA wants to bomb countries that are a threat to peaceful countries everywhere, it should aim them at itself.
You have made me shoot mountain dew out of my nose.
After all, it invaded Iraq, and is still occupying the land, despite the fact that there were no WMD, Saddam is out and there is a new government.
Do you even watch the news? The "new government" is a bunch of people, no constitution to speak of, and no established police force. You want another Taliban-era Afghanistan? You want another era of 9/11 pilots?
It's also got 1,200 nukes in stock - or is it 12,000? Doesn't matter - either number could destroy all life on the planet. How many of those are in nuclear disarmrament bunkers. And not that we'd use them all just to kill a few terrorists.
I support this. I trust the U.S. Government not to use nukes to take out a few badguys. I seriousl don't think that this would be used on any city, anywhere, for any reason, and at any time. Maybe a known WMD lab. Maybe. This won't mean some nuke-happy American general will nuke a problematic country. If Bush was that insane this would have happened a long time ago.
Quote:
Do you even watch the news? The "new government" is a bunch of people, no constitution to speak of, and no established police force. You want another Taliban-era Afghanistan? You want another era of 9/11 pilots?
I'm not even going to try to argue with you, SX, since you obviously think that there's a Muslim suicide bomber on every plane, and also that the only reason they refrain from crashing those planes into buildings is because US troops are occupying Iraq.
Do you even realise that the longer US troops stay in Iraq, the more terrorists will join up. Because, quite simply, they want the US army out of their country while they try to rebuild it.
I'm not condoning what they do. I'm simply saying that is why they do it. They are becoming heroes in Iraq. That's not a good thing.
Oh, yes... and has it ever occoured to you that the only difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is who's side you're looking at them from?
Quote:
Iran was more problematic to the US than Iraq was during the 80s.
Because the US horribly, horribly messed up putting CIA agents into Iran a decade or two earlier when the Shah was deposed. Before then, Iran was a staunch US ally.
I'm not necessarily joining in this argument, as the "US government sucks" "no it doesn't" teams are already going at it hammer and tongs. Again. I just felt the historical point should be illuminated.
However, there's one thing I want to say.
I don't trust anyone to have access to nuclear weapons. Anyone. Not the US government, not the UK goverment, not the government of Timbuctoo, not the Dalai Llama and not even me. No-one should, in my view, have them, be able to use them, build them, market them, or try to support them. I veiw all countries nuclear stockpiles as wholly unnecessary, and think they should be dismantled as soon as humanly possible.
The cold war is over. The main reason now that countries like Iran and North Korea are going/considering going nuclear is because of the countries that already have them, like the US, the UK and most of Western civilisiation.
Never mind what I think of US foreign policy or attitudes to terrorism. Even if I worshipped everything else George Bush has ever said it wouldn't change this one opinion.
More nuclear weapons is unequivocally a bad thing.
End of rant.
Quote:
More nuclear weapons is unequivocally a bad thing.
If everybody thought that, the world would be a happier, less fearful place. As it is, a country now thinks it HAS to have a handy stockpile of WMD in case it has to defend itself against someone else who decides to doom the planet.
Every day, the horrible feeling rises in me that I'm going to either live through, or die in World War 4. Neither prospect pleases.
Quote:
Do you even realise that the longer US troops stay in Iraq, the more terrorists will join up. Because, quite simply, they want the US army out of their country while they try to rebuild it.
Did you know that terrorist activity in Iraq is actually decreasing? No lie.
For the record, in case you're thinking that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are Iraqis, that's a blatant misconception. Although most of the terrorists are Sunni Arabs, foriegn insurgents have unleashed more suicide bombers than the Sunnis have. Syria (second largest hub of terrorism in the world next to Iran) is in the hotspot now due to terrorists crossing the Iraq-Syria border repeatedly (as well as flying in through the Damascus airport). Most, if not all, the aforementioned foriegn insurgents are coming in from Syria. Thankfully, Iraq has closed its side of the border, so decreasing terrorist activity is not unexpected.
Secondly, the citizens of Iraq are becoming increasingly optimistic and anti-terrorist. Plus, the war itself is progressing smoothly. Let's take a look, shall we?
For instance, in the latest battle at Tal Afar, 200 terrorists were killed and 315 were captured. US casualties: 0. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
150 residents of Tal Afar, meanwhile, held an anti-terror rally, saying that "What we want from the Iraqi government is to kill those terrorists."
Plus, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani says that Iraqi troops number 190,000 (compared to the 140,000 of the US). 60,000 of those Iraqi troops are 'well-trained', in Talabani's own words. By the end of this year, that number will reach 100,000. As Iraqis become more capable of defending themselves, US troops will gradually start coming home. Although Talabani has said that about 50,000 US troops could return home by the end of the year, President Bush and American military commanders say that a timeline has not been established, and a great deal depends on how the voting for the new constitution goes in December.
However, things are going quite well. Sunni mosques & political leaders are calling on their followers to get out and register to vote. They tell their followers that it is their religious duty and their duty as loyal Iraqis to register and vote. This is a far cry from what these same mosques told Sunnis to do for the January election. Then they discouraged them from voting and called voting unislamic. Shiite mosques and political leaders do not have to work as hard and they are reminding their followers to be sure to vote. Women specially have a lot at stake. Womens organizations are working overtime, to educate Iraqi women about the proposed constitution and their rights. The mood of Iraqis in the newspaper, radio, TV, and commentary has become more up beat and enthusiastic. Why? Because they have a stake in their future, and they now have the ability to do something on their own. 30 months ago, you wouldn't have seen any of this hopefulness.
Quote:
They are becoming heroes in Iraq. That's not a good thing.
BZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong.
Support for terror wanes in Muslim republics.
Quote:
Oh, yes... and has it ever occoured to you that the only difference between terrorists and freedom fighters is who's side you're looking at them from?
There is no issue of relativity here. There is something called 'right and wrong'. Good and evil. If you commit suicide by blowing yourself up, intending to take as many with you as possible, then you're no freedom fighter. You are a terrorist. Period.
Quote:
Before then, Iran was a staunch US ally.
Like I said earlier, political situations can change over time. When the Shah was in command of Iran (before the Islamic Revolution), he was what many considered a 'Westernizing influence in the Middle East'. But as you know, he was deposed.
Quote:
More nuclear weapons is unequivocally a bad thing.
In fairy tales, that would be true. HOWEVER, the technology is out there. And as long as there are those who will commit evil, they will try to get their hands on the most powerful weapons around. Currently, the most powerful is the nuke.
Would I prefer if nuclear weapons were all dismantled? In a perfect world, people would learn from history, and I would agree.
But alas, I can't. There will ALWAYS be someone trying to unleash havoc and anarchy upon the world. I would rather that upstanding democratic countries (or, in the case of the United States, a constitutional republic) have some nuclear weapons; they can be a sufficient safeguard against the world's lunatics (another policy of the Cold War: mutually assured destruction), as well as a good bargaining chip during negotiations. To be blunt, I'd rather trust the United States or Britain with the bomb than North Korea or Iran.
Quote:
Every day, the horrible feeling rises in me that I'm going to either live through, or die in World War 4. Neither prospect pleases.
You should really try and be more optimistic. Too much pessimism is unhealthy.
Every day, the horrible feeling rises in me that I'm going to either live through, or die in World War 4. Neither prospect pleases.
Well, at least you know you'll live through World War 3...
Did anybody else find that funny?
Jimro
Quote:
In fairy tales, that would be true. HOWEVER, the technology is out there. And as long as there are those who will commit evil, they will try to get their hands on the most powerful weapons around. Currently, the most powerful is the nuke.
Would I prefer if nuclear weapons were all dismantled? In a perfect world, people would learn from history, and I would agree.
But alas, I can't. There will ALWAYS be someone trying to unleash havoc and anarchy upon the world. I would rather that upstanding democratic countries (or, in the case of the United States, a constitutional republic) have some nuclear weapons; they can be a sufficient safeguard against the world's lunatics (another policy of the Cold War: mutually assured destruction), as well as a good bargaining chip during negotiations. To be blunt, I'd rather trust the United States or Britain with the bomb than North Korea or Iran.
On the other hand, if we didn't make them and instead delcared them illegal under international law, we'd find it a bit easier to stop other countries from getting them.
My point about Iran was not about things changin, but about the fact the US itself was an instrumental factor in Iran being an enemy of the West, thus making their bolstering of Iraq in the 80s less excusable...
Quote:
On the other hand, if we didn't make them and instead delcared them illegal under international law, we'd find it a bit easier to stop other countries from getting them.
Rules were made to be broken. I understand where you're coming from, but I doubt it'd really make a difference.
Quote:
I don't trust anyone to have access to nuclear weapons.
The best sentence of the entire topic. Xag, you said it all. 😉
