Proof that the USA needs to be disarmed.

First off, nicely put Anok.

Secondly, this crap about inventing therefore meaning you dont have to follow the rules regarding the invention is outrageous, you created the playing field so you play by the rules.

The US is the only country who has used nuclear weapons to destroy people, and still to this day wants to produce new types of nuclear destruction. I'm not American bashing, i am stating facts.

You can't honestly think people are going to want to disarm when you tell countries to do so, while you get to go on making new ones.

Here's an idea, you wanna make the world safer? Stop invading countries and start making a real effort to disarm, take the lead and others will have to follow. Your BMD is already doing the opposite since China has said it will just build more nuclear weapons to counter it.

Why do some of you keep making excuses for making the world safer?

America also spends millions if not billions of dollars updating, modifying, and repairing its own vast amount of nuclear weapons. While simitaneously demanding the rest of the world disarm ITS WMD... Lets not forget the US still has 6 Chemical Weapn storage facilities on its home turf... and only 4 of those are disarming...

EDIT:
I would also like to add that Anok has summed up my feelings quite well...

[edit on 7-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]

Caz, a nuclear device getting set off in any country in the world would spark nuclear reaction. So you dont think russia or china will feel threatend if america set off a nuke? THey will simply think well if they can do it to iran who is to say they wont do it to us next? A nuclear missle hitting any country is a attack agaisnt the world, and i love it how americans feel so safe in their mc donalds and wal marts that they think they can throw nukes around the world and not expect any retaliation.

Its the American way...

One nuke will set of a domino effect, when the last domino falls - it'll be the the end of the earth, simple as that... But its true the average american joe is bombarded with propoganda the day (s)he is born, yous grow up with it and very few even recognise its impact on society...

i apologize for being lazy and not even reading the whole thread. im sure these points have already been made, but to AceofBass i would like to say:

"you're an idealist in a realists world."

i sympathize with you and your morals, but the bottom line is 'might is right.' if it wasnt the USA being too powerfull, it would be somebody else: its human nature.

when humans cease to be humans and overcome their inate selfishness, then and only then will civilization advance into "idealism" (not gonna happen)

while i agree with you in ideals, reality is still reality.

Wang agrees with ghost soldiers assesment,

One nuke will set of a domino effect, when the last domino falls - it'll be the the end of the earth, simple as that..

This implies that the blame will SOLEY rest on the USA's shoulders....it assumes that the other countries would be stupid enough to perpetuate the use of nukes. You are all here saying that simply by removing dominoes from the chain that you cant stop armageddon....
its a falicy your believing in.....

The ONLY way use of a tacticle nuke or 2 would set off the end of the world is if OTHER countries take part...dont let them off the hook for being responsible with their nukes either....
responsabillity with nukes IS the reason Iran and N.Korea arent being look at by many in the world community as being capable of controling them selves if they had such a weapon.

over arming any country is bad.usa is in arming mode but where will they put all there new missiles.maybe under there beds lol.i think there will need to get rid of all dangerous weapons in the furture.there might not be any room to put them any where after the planet goes into enviromental disaster because of global warming........

[edit on 7-3-2005 by flukemol]

[edit on 7-3-2005 by flukemol]

This implies that the blame will SOLEY rest on the USA's shoulders....it assumes that the other countries would be stupid enough to perpetuate the use of nukes.

I'm saying that the blame WILL solely be put upon the person who launched the first strike. As for other countries being "stupid" enough to perpetuate the use of nukes... What do you expect them to do? Turn the other cheek let another Million people be blown away in seconds... You're crazy if you think there wouldn't be a domino effect... It may not neccercarily be the US, but they DO have the most aggressive foreign policy, so I simply put 2 and 2 together.

One nuke will send a virtual green light to all countries with a nuclear arsenal...

Ghostsoldier says,

What do you expect them to do? Turn the other cheek (or) let another Million people be blown away in seconds.

Yeah i expect that given the choice between letting a million people die and killing the rest of the world, other countries WOULD see the second choice isnt in their interest as much as the first one is.
DUH!
So on principle, you are saying that its ok for them to decide the fate of the world if the USA uses a single nuke? Please and you say the USA is being irresponsible...how stupid would it be to cause billions more deaths because a million just went poof?
I dont others want to die any more than we do, and certantly not over deaths of someone else....i think "thats their problem, but we'll call the USA nasty names and do less than hostile things to them because their bad" mentality will take over before someone else decides to nuke the USA, basically asking the USA to "please vaporize us all now."

You'd find that during the Cold War both the US and the USSR - had "dooms-day" devices specifically for that reason... "If we couldn't be on the earth, no one else can either..."

But whos to say what people would do under the circumstances, but I personally can't see a nuclear power getting nuked and NOT responding WITH nukes... I hope to god I'm proven wrong... But only time will tell...

The United States would never disarm with regards to one of the most destructive weapons on the face of the Earth. All that would happen then is we'd be at the mercy of other nations like China and North Korea (when they get launchable nukes) and so forth.

The idea of having nukes is to keep your enemy from threatening you; the only reason anyone wants nukes is just to keep from being bullied. That is how it always is.

The problem will be when push comes to shove, and then one too many shoves comes to "the big red button" ...

That is just a consequence. If the U.S. were to get rid of its nukes, it would just be at the mercy of other countries. Which is unacceptable.

I really don't believe any polls stating that "27% of U.S. citizens" support the use of nukes. Do you know how complex polls are? You could write a book on the many variables to polls alone.

The average citizen isn't super smart, and I seriously doubt this poll covered a vast portion of the population anyhow. The U.S. is one of the only countries that I'd trust not to use nukes unless absolutely necessary.

France had no problem conducting nuclear tests not too long ago; EVERYONE was against this, but they went ahead and did it anyhow. If the U.S. had decided to conduct more nuclear tests, everyone would've been raising all holy he**.

If the US were to take the lead in actually disarming, Russia would in turn have to do the same. Russia no doubt out of the major nuclear powers is strapped for cash and would probably accept it so they can stop spending money on maintaining and keeping the weapons secure.

China as well would come under international pressure to disarm, maybe less willingly; however, if the world stood together with America, not just America, France, and Britain being all hypocritical when telling others to disarm, placing tariffs or whatever on nuclear weapons country X would be effective.

And with smaller countries such as NK or Iran, as they seem to be doing now, give them incentives to stop and disarm or prevent them from producing these weapons.

Now you will say "that won't work", and i will say, "How do you know, if you haven't even tried?".

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yeah you and what army? Ha ha ha

Seriously the United States seems to be the only strong remaining voice of sanity and moral clarity left in Western civilization. Others exist, but they are drowned out by the reactionary voices of France and Germany.

Man o man, If there was such a thing as a prize for the most ignorant fool in the history of the world, i would definatally nominate you.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Yeah you and what army? Ha ha ha

Seriously the United States seems to be the only strong remaining voice of sanity and moral clarity left in Western civilization. Others exist, but they are drowned out by the reactionary voices of France and Germany.

Just to clarify, The UK is alot more sane than the americans, hell the potsmoking dam are more sane than americans, 11,000 deaths in the US by gunshot alone quoted from "Bowling for columbine".

The army will be the whole world, Especially if the US think they can take on the world.

[edit on 7/3/05 by Hunting Veritas]

Originally posted by Ponderosa
Now you will say "that won't work", and i will say, "How do you know, if you haven't even tried?".

This is the problem, no one knows how other countries would react, but no one is willing to find out. We can't "un-do" history, once something has been built it would be difficult to "un'build it"... But I would like to see a huge reduction, who needs 1000's of nukes anyway...

Im sure I've read something that said it would only take 7 "properly placed" nuclear devices to destroy the world via-nuclear holocaust... some one correct me if I'm wrong...

Originally posted by djohnsto77
yeah you and what army? Ha ha ha

Seriously the United States seems to be the only strong remaining voice of sanity and moral clarity left in Western civilization. Others exist, but they are drowned out by the reactionary voices of France and Germany.

Man o man, If there was such a thing as a prize for the most ignorant fool in the history of the world, i would definatally nominate you.

In the global arena, the United States is the most powerfull of a handfull of players. The United States does not hold this upper hand by pure luck. This power was forged by 220+ years of hard working citizens dedicated to the ideals of democracy and freedom (and capatalism). Believe it or not, there have been foes to democracy, and American efforts have had to keep democracy at least on par with (think coldwar) and thankfully above any threats to democracy. Throughout the years, freeriders have become common, but the root of the country is still there: self governance. Seeing as the USA is THE world superpower and not just one person, but a democratic balance of many active opinions, she cannot make policy based on personal feelings of 'heal-the-world' idealism unless 'heal-the-world' idealism is actually the gauged opinion of that active citizenry. You ask why is this not the case?

because our ACTIVE citizenry has decided that it is more important to maintain the monopoly on nuclear weapons in order to maintain the security of democracy and our way of life.

personally, i acknowledge the selfish empiralism that the USA has adopted as its foreign policy, but i also acknowledge that there MUST be a 'king of the hill' and am therefore thankfull that the USA is king verses communism or whatnot. think about it, Utopia is not realistic enough to be crying for it - atleast there is an inkling of "moral clarity" that bleeds through from our active opinions to our governments foreign policies all the while keeping the USA's rank as THE world superpower and therefore keeping us alive.

granted, osama & company are no USSR - but if islamic fundamentalism is indeed a real threat, then there is still very much an interest in maintaining the monopoly on nuclear weapons.

the strong do what they can - the weak suffer what they must. (thucydides)

thank god USA is 'the strong' because it could be taking a lot more.

in the end humans are still inately selfish - deal with it.

Congratulations Anok on your great post!!! I can't believe how naive, immature and uneducated some of the posters are on this subject. You get my Way Above Award this month.




.

lost
granted, osama & company are no USSR - but if islamic fundamentalism is indeed a real threat, then there is still very much an interest in maintaining the monopoly on nuclear weapons.

The USA's imperialistic veiws are what created the problem with "islamic fundamentalism"... do you think one day Osama just woke up and said... "hmmm I think I will hate America and do anything I can against them..." The US created the problem decades ago, with the Mujahadeen (spelling?) they funded to fight the USSR and then abandoned suddenly, allowing thousands to die in the process and to no oveil... And thats only one of the many examples that INITIATED the hatred towards the US...

"The strong do what they can - the weak suffer what they must...
-- Thucydides

I agree with this statement at the base level, but I dont agree with the context it has been put into... To me that translates to this...
The US exerts power, by destroying and exploiting other "weaker" countries economies and resources to the point where they cant feed themselves - And they put up with it because they must. Sure, it protects all you Americans alows you to get fat, lazy and ignorant... What about the rest of us.

in the end humans are still inately selfish - deal with it.

This day and age yes, but not because its been genetically built into our brain, but because hundreds of years of social conditioning have "bread" it into us. People are brought up differently to what they were in the past, simply to be able to survive in the societal system we've doomed ourselves to.

[edit on 10-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]