Bully Rules 12A, Subsection 4.c: It is ok for me and my friends to do it. But no one else is allowed to do it.Originally Posted by j2k4
p.s. Look under hypocrisy.
Poster
BT Rep: +1
Bully Rules 12A, Subsection 4.c: It is ok for me and my friends to do it. But no one else is allowed to do it.
p.s. Look under hypocrisy.
The best way to keep a secret:- Tell everyone not to tell anyone.
That's right, a non-legally binding treaty. Under Article X they can withdraw any time they like, so what happens when you bomb their facilities? They'll just withdraw from the treaty and acquire nuclear weapons. Then what? At least they are offering inspections to the European delegation, the big stick will backfire.
Israel. Cuba, Pakistan and India have never signed, and North Korea pulled out. But of course, Israel, Pakistan and India are allies, so that's OK then. Why weren't sanctions put on these countries? l say as long as Israel has them, others should too, if no-one in the Middle East should have them, Israel should be made to give theirs up, and allow verification.
As to the treaty itself; one of the main tenets was that nuclear armed countries should actively pursue the goal of a nuclear free world, do you see that happenning? 1967 the treaty was drawn up, 38 years ago, which nuclear armed country hasn't done the opposite in that time, and consistantly upgraded their arsenals? Only a couple of weeks ago Russia announced that it was developing a new class of nuclear weapon, who kicked up a fuss about that, except for Canada?
Last edited by UKResident; 01-28-2005 at 10:09 AM.
effendi
Do you really mean that. Since that is the case at the moment, do you really wish for all countries in the Middle East to be armed with nuclear weapons.
I certainly don't.
If you're saying that if Israel have them then then it increases the likelyhood of other countries in the area wanting to procure them for defense purposes - so Israel shouldn't have them, then I would agree wholeheartedly.
I think the best solution, for me, would be that Israel didn't have them at all - rather than to arm the entire Middle with nukes. You were probably implying that too but if there is no way to disarm Israel then the situation where Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East is entirely more preferable than every country in the Middle East being armed with nuclear weapons.
Wouldn't you agree.
Last edited by manker; 01-28-2005 at 10:42 AM.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
l agree with you up to a point, of course; l too would like to see Israel not have them, but l also believe that if Iran had them we may get them off Israel. Why do you think Iran would want them? For the same reason India and Pakistan did.
Now look at that conflict, they both now realise that they can no longer go to war with each other, and for the first time they are genuinely talking peace. They even have Kashmir on the negotiating table, something India has insisted would never happen for the last 57 years. They are even considering the possibility of an independant Kashmir, would that have happened without the nuclear weapons, or if only one side had them? Never.
Countries with nuclear weapons are in danger of feeling invincible, a bit like the point in another thread somewhere about carrying guns for self protection. Why does Israel need them? Their conventional armed forces have wiped out every army on their borders in a few days.
They have them so they can continue to oppress the Palestinians and stick a finger up to their neighbours. There will never be peace in the Middle East all the time Israel occupies Palestine, unless there is a sea change in the area. Don't be fooled by these latest peace moves, they'll come to nothing. Israel will not give back the land it has stolen in the West Bank because it doesn't have to, who can stop them doing what they want? Only the US, and they won't.
That's why l say it wouldn't be such a bad idea to see the balance of power in the Middle East shift away from Israel a little, to even things up. Maybe then we can have negotiations to get them both to give them up, which will also happen one day with India and Pakistan.
effendi
I can maybe see how the nuclear stalemate has facilitated negotiations regarding Kashmir but what a helluva test! There have been tense situations over the last 5 years that I can think of where I've pondered if one of them would declare war where a nuke would be deployed. It is a testament, of sorts, to the respective leaders that it did not come to that but it was touch and go there for a while.
However, the Middle East is an entirely more complicated problem. I'm not so sure, in fact I'm particularly unsure, whether the same stand off would ensue. The risk would be much greater since Israel would have at least six different nuclear threats to contend with c.f. only one for India/Pakistan. The situation would be untenable. If they were all armed, I'd give it maybe 2 months before a nuclear winter in the Middle East.
If only Iran was armed then it would still throw up new problems because who knows what sort of proliferation treaties they would draw up. They may decide to tolerate Palestinian raids into Israeli territory - but not revenge mossad attacks, maybe there is only a small likelyhood of that but it would certainly bring the threat of nuclear war closer, in my opinion, rather than dissapate it to the point of them both disarming.
Israel is never going to fire it's nukes as things stand, ever - it has nothing to gain and everything to lose. Putting politics to one side for a moment and looking at the humanitarian aspect, this situation now, of Israel being the only nuclear power in the region, is much preferable to any other country being armed as well.
As I say, for Israel to disarm their nukes would be perfect, but that just doesn't seem possible therefore I believe it's best to settle for the second best option.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
l'm not advocating every Middle East country should be nuclear armed, just Iran. l think the shift in the balance of power would be a good thing, but who knows, it's all speculation at the moment, because we none of us know what's going on. Israel has them for a reason, they don't want Iran to have them for the same reason. You have to also consider the "Cold War" and the concept of MAD, it has often been argued that the balance of power actually saved the world from a 3rd world war. The US is still the only country to have used nuclear weapons on civilian populations, they also threatened to use them in Korea if the North didn't agree to a ceasefire, this was when the US was being badly beaten. Every country knows that if they used these weapons they would likey be wiped out in return, they use them as a deterent to the use of conventional warfare being waged against them.
effendi
Well, you did initially say that others should have them, inferring more countries in the Middle East than just Iran, if Israel has them, that's why I made my points.
However, I do see what you mean about MAD - it's just that I consider the Middle East to be a more complex issue than either the cold war or the Korean war when MacArthur was having his mentalist spell, he actually wanted to use them long before a ceasefire was thought about.
I'm not at all convinced about the validity of past experiences of stand offs being used as a rationale to arm more countries with nukes.
There is also another factor that troubles me, Saddam surely knew that he would be overthrown and likely killed, along with his army and tens of thousands of the populace if he didn't submit to the might of the coalition. He did not submit. If Saddam could have let a nuke off in Time Square he would have done so, without a second thought, in the full knowledge that it would result in his country being razed to the ground.
What is saying that the Iranian incumbent, or a future one, will not turn out to be similarly inclined. It's another risk I'm more comfortable not taking.
I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -
--Good for them if they survive.
l guess it comes down to how you perceive Iran. l don't see them as another Iraq, and l believe if it hadn't been for the hostage crisis all those years ago, the failed rescue, and the US's well known penchant for revenge, (Cuba) things could be a lot different. They have long been the most democratic country in the Middle East, Israel excepted, and have had many years of friendly association with Britain. (a few unfriendly ones too)
l don't believe what you say about Saddam either, he had chenmical weapons during the first Gulf War but didn't use them, and remember, he ran away and hid this time, like the coward he is, l don't believe he's the suicide type. The US refused to confirm or deny that they took nuclear weapons to the Gulf the first time round, so Saddam wasn't sure.
l still say countries want nuclear weapons to avoid being attacked by conventional means, assured destruction isn't on anyones mind. You only need to convince your enemies that you are prepared to use them. It worked for Pakistan, it's working for North Korea, the US isn't prepared to take the risk on them having them, especially after the threats to use them during the Korean War by the US, the shoes are on both feet now.
en(un)lightened
Pretty much the way it works, Boab.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Poster
Youre quite ignorant if you belive that.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_pro
As you can see, alot of oil. And why does the Us wanna invade Iran? For the oil of course. Just as they overthrew their democratically elected president 50 years ago for the same reason.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks