Nuclear Weapons - The only answer?

Memnoch

I'm horrified that I find myself saying this, but I've come to the sad conclusion that it seems nuclear weapon technology is the only answer.

Iraq didn't possess any WMD's, I was sure of this before the war, and off course I'm sure almost everyone is sure of this now. The US knew this, the british knew it. They lied and propagandised to manufacture an excuse to attack, and later claim that WMD was never the sole/most important reason. Yet North Korea that definately does posses such weapons is diplomatically negotiated with.

So bearing all this in mind, it would seem the only way to guarentee that the US won't invade/bully you into submission is if you have nuclear weapons as a deterrant. While this off course creates an increasingly dangerous and less stable environment for everyone concerned, it seems that the only way countries like Syria or Iran can retain their independence is if the aquire nuclear weapon technology.

Azza

You can't hug your children with nuclear weapons!

Nuttzz

interesting, does Ireland or any other non nuclear power in europe now need to equip themselves with nukes to prevent themsleves falling victim to US bullying?

A Dub in Glasgo

Of course not ...... we have no oil!

mike65

Memnoch wrote:

Iraq didn't possess any WMD's, I was sure of this before the war, and of course I'm sure almost everyone is sure of this now.

Such vision! Why are'nt you our leader?

The idea that having nukes will protect against the mad dog imperialist whores er...of the United States of America is plainly daft what most likely is that one country, say Iraq would simply turn them on thier neighbour say Iran....that'll fix everything.

Here we could wait anxiously for the C/P/O-IRA to break into the Irish launch site in Tallaght and nuke Perfidious Albion. While the exchange between
Turkey and Greece would be inevitable, though brief.

Mike.

Nuttzz

Nuttzz wrote:

interesting, does Ireland or any other non nuclear power in europe now need to equip themselves with nukes to prevent themsleves falling victim to US bullying?

No,but I would imagine that is because our economies are subservient to the demands of corporate America.

solas

Memnoch wrote:

I'm horrified that I find myself saying this, but I've come to the sad conclusion that it seems nuclear weapon technology is the only answer.

you could always try and make the enemy gay...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/arms.homosexual.reut/index.html

The U.S. military rejected a 1994 proposal to develop an "aphrodisiac" to spur homosexual activity among enemy troops but is hard at work on other less-than-lethal weapons, defense officials said Sunday. The proposal, disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information request, called for developing chemicals affecting human behavior "so that discipline and morale in enemy units is adversely affected."

or give them bad breath...

Another idea involved creating "severe and lasting halitosis" to help sniff out fighters trying to blend with civilians.

or what about a bug plague?

The Air Force Research Laboratory also suggested using chemicals that could be sprayed on enemy positions to attract stinging and biting bugs, rodents and larger animals.

seriously....

Nuttzz

Deleted User wrote:

No,but I would imagine that is because our economies are subservient to the demands of corporate America.

We cannot allow this to happen! I suggest that we follow the original posters idea and develop nukes so that we can have an independent economy

Gilgamesh

Azza wrote:

You can't hug your children with nuclear weapons!

wasn't it 'you can't hug your kids with nuclear arms'?

aodh_rua

solas wrote:

you could always try and make the enemy gay...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/17/arms.homosexual.reut/index.html

or give them bad breath...
or what about a bug plague?

seriously....

They're discussing this on Newstalk at the moment.

Gilgamesh

I think Korea proved the way to keep the US at bay.
They straight forward threatend that if the US would pull the same thing off with them as they did with Iraq, then they would prove that they Have Nukes in stock, by giving a demonstration on them.
Since then I do have to say that I have respect for Korea. they didn't curl up and obey the mighty Daddy US

vorbis

er yeah.. I also have respect for the marvellous way that N. Korea run their economy. Such visionaries!

mr_angry

Nuttzz wrote:

interesting, does Ireland or any other non nuclear power in europe now need to equip themselves with nukes to prevent themsleves falling victim to US bullying?

No, but it seems if you've been labelled as part of the Axis of Evil already, its a workable tactic. You either:

a) Get diplomatic talks.
b) Get your nuclear facilities, and the rest of your country bombed.
c) Get the rest of your country bombed.

Considering the default US tactic with the Axis of Evil is (c) anyway, you can't really go wrong!

toiletduck

What about Libya? They saw what happened to Iraq and disarmed their WMD capibility.

Boggle

Depends on what they saw happen Iraq. I'm sure they knew as well as everyone else that Iraq was personal - not business.

mr_angry

toiletduck wrote:

What about Libya? They saw what happened to Iraq and disarmed their WMD capibility.

Yes, but you have to have something to disarm. In Iraq's case, they had nothing to disarm, but because there was no visible disarming process, the coalition had the ammunition to make a case for war. Get yourself some WMDs -> disarm = happy days.

North Korea -> Have nukes -> Result = diplomatic effort.
Libya -> Had WMDs -> Result = diplomatic effort.
Iraq -> Had no WMDs -> Result = invasion.

It seems to me that if I was the tyrannical leader of an Axis-of-Evil country, I'd get me some WMDs to bargain with.

goin'_to_the_PS

3 Ships circled the bay in iraq, when the forces noticed this they went to search them and found them to be empty, this could have been were weapons were stored, but the war and WMD are wrong end of story

Hobbes

There was no 3 ships containing WMD. It was just an excuse at the time for the US to conduct piracy, that was until they got slapped for it.

As for NK it is better for them to continue the NK/SK divide then it is to arrange a peace or let NK nuke SK.

goin'_to_the_PS

i know americans have great amginations but still i find it hard to believe that they made up 3 boats

Moriarty

It appears oversimplification and FUD are as fashionable as ever.

mr_angry

Heh. I know I'm drastically oversimplifying the situation, but there does seem to be a rather distinct correlation between countries having a recognisable threat, and being given a great deal of diplomatic leeway. Now, I'm not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, or indeed weapons of any kind, but there are governments out there that are prepared to go to those lengths to survive. It would seem to me that as a diplomatic tactic, the posession of a nuclear arsenal is proving an effective means to survive for those governments. Maybe thats stating the very very obvious, but I would have thought that in todays political climate, the west would be trying to downplay the proliferation of a nuclear arsenal as a bargaining tool. In my opinion, they seem to be doing the opposite. Feel free to point out where you think that is inaccurate.

mr_angry

It seems that vBulletin is doing its best to eat my reply, so excuse my while I take the time to differentiate my posts by saying blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

*ahem*

Thank you. Now for the actual post:

Heh. I know I'm drastically oversimplifying the situation, but there does seem to be a rather distinct correlation between countries having a recognisable threat, and being given a great deal of diplomatic leeway. Now, I'm not advocating the use of nuclear weapons, or indeed weapons of any kind, but there are governments out there that are prepared to go to those lengths to survive. It would seem to me that as a diplomatic tactic, the posession of a nuclear arsenal is proving an effective means to survive for those governments. Maybe thats stating the very very obvious, but I would have thought that in todays political climate, the west would be trying to downplay the proliferation of a nuclear arsenal as a bargaining tool. In my opinion, they seem to be doing the opposite. Feel free to point out where you think that is inaccurate.