The Iraqi war..

popinfresh

Do you agree that countries like the USA and others should be allowed to have nukes (and are currently making more) and then if Iraq or North Korea trys to get them they deserve to be "brought to justice". In general, do you feel that the USA has the right to declair war on a country simply for the possesion of weapons as opposed to using them. It poses a dilema. By right if the usa can have them to "ensure the safety of their country" then so should Iraq.. Your views please..

BKtje

I agree with your statement to a certain extent but i dont want the likes of Hussein to have chemical weapons/nukes. God knows what he'd do with em.

In a perfect world nuclear weapons wouldnt exist but since they do, i quite like the fact that some countries are making sure that they dont fall into the wrong hands...the wrong hands? what exactly are the wrong/ right hands tho

Talliesin

I agree with your statement to a certain extent but i dont want the likes of Bush to have chemical weapons/nukes. God knows what he'd do with em.

BKtje

hes not doing anything with them...
why would he need to...

Victor

There is some legitimacy in larger, more stable countries having them, however numbers need to come down further.

Originally posted by popinfresh
Do you agree that countries like the USA and others should be allowed to have nukes (and are currently making more)

Is there any evidence of any large scale programme to make new nuclear weapons by the USA? (Other than the refurbishing of older weapons). Generally the USA, Russia, France and the UK have been reducing their nuclear arsenals. Several other countries (South Africa, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan and others) have got rid of all their NBC weapons.

Originally posted by popinfresh
..... and then if Iraq or North Korea trys to get them they deserve to be "brought to justice". In general, do you feel that the USA has the right to declair war on a country simply for the possesion of weapons as opposed to using them. It poses a dilema. By right if the usa can have them to "ensure the safety of their country" then so should Iraq..

The difference with Iraq is the 1991 truce stated they couldn't have WMD and ballistic missiles over a certain range.

Kell

Personally I would rather that there was no weapons of any description whatsoever. If someone wants a war, then back to knives and pitch forks.

I think that there is something massively wrong when one country has a military arsenal bigger than the combined arsenals of the rest of the planet. If some American president loses the plot (as we are seeing at the moment) and decides to go into a loner war at the expense of everone else (as we are seeing at the moment) then theres no-one to stop him. And once he's finished with Iraq, whats to stop him thinking "those froggy fúckers wouldent support me, bye bye Paris................" anon.

I'm sorry but I have to say that barring his regime and the damage he does to the people of his own country, I dont see Hussein as a threat to society. If they want him out, whats happened to spy satellites that can direct someone to his exact location and take him out with a knife rather than imposing a war so America can flex it's military muscle?

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
Is there any evidence of any large scale programme to make new nuclear weapons by the USA? (Other than the refurbishing of older weapons). Generally the USA, Russia, France and the UK have been reducing their nuclear arsenals.

True, but a stated reason for the US withdrawing from the NPT was because they wanted the freedom to develop new types of nukes...things like battlefield "clean" nukes, "defensive shield" nukes and so on.

Now, while it may be no more than a stated intent, rather than an actual action being carried out at present, it does show that the US is most definitely interested in making new nuclear weapons - even to the point of knowing the areas it wants to research.

On one hand, its easy to see how a small clean battlefield nuke would be preferable to a dirty city-buster, so if the US only swapped their warheads one-for-one with these new ones (assuming they ever build them) we would end up in a better situation. We'd have the same number of nukes, but less mega-tonnage in total, less fallout potential, and in general, a "safer" situation. Sounds reasonable.

On the other hand, clean battlefield nukes are no longer a defensive weapon of last resort - they are a strategic weapon, useful for offence as well as defence.

This is there the risk lies.

If the US goes and drops a strategic nuke on the tanks of whatever nation they have grief with in (say) 20 years, how much weight do you think their targetted nation will put behind the "but our nukes are clean, so they're not really WMDs, but your nukes are dirty so you shouldnt use them in retaliation" argument???

My guess is "not a hell of a lot".

Now - getting back to the original question....

No, I do not believe that any nation possessing a technology has the right to tell another nation that it cannot possess the same technology.

jc