It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POLITICS: Venezuela Pursuing Nuclear Capability!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Can this story get voted up already? So I can quote conveniently



Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Your argument assumes that all countries are equal - and crass though it may be, they simply aren't. In the same way that I would make a distinction between a law abiding person and a criminal in deciding who should get a gun, so must the same distinctions be made between countries. If Japan got a nuke it would be regrettable, but no big deal. If North Korea gets a nuke it's a very big deal. This is not because of race or prejudice. What's different between the two is that one is aggressive, does not value human rights, violates international agreements, etc. - in short, Japan can be trusted with a nuke, but North Korea can't. I think this is obvious to just about anyone.

Crass and my point entirely. How can you judge another country without expressing bias? Is the fact that a country doesnt like your country enough reason to deny them nuclear weapons?

The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against another country. Is that the measure of a responsible country with nuclear weapons? I dont want to open the WW2 can of worms so I'd appreciate if you could stick to the nukes use in WW2 rather than the surrounding WW2 themes if you can, in the interest of topical relevance.


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
You're making assumptions about my views based on facts not in evidence. This is a result of your own bias, not mine. Are you advocating that all criminals be given guns?

I dont understand where your draw that conclusion from. Im a staunch anti-gun proponent so you've kinda missed the mark there



Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Non-proliferation means to not spread them around.

Main Entry: pro·lif·er·ate
Pronunciation: pr&-'li-f&-"rAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing
Etymology: back-formation from proliferation, from French prolifération, from proliférer to proliferate, from prolifère reproducing freely, from Latin proles + -fer -ferous
intransitive senses
1 : to grow by rapid production of new parts, cells, buds, or offspring
2 : to increase in number as if by proliferating : MULTIPLY
transitive senses : to cause to grow by proliferating

I've read the NPT on many occasions and the trade off for these countries that forgo their sovereign right to nuclear weapons is that the nuclear-armed ones give up all of theirs. The definition of 'proliferation' is not the limitation of the NPT.


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Your assertion that the US has not significantly reduced it's nuclear arsenal (which DOES take time) is bogus.

The fact that nuke-armed countries still have nuclear weapons 35 years after signing the NPT is proof that they have broken the NPT. Just how long does it take to decomission nuclear weapons? There is no incentive for non-nuke countries not to go nuclear if the nuke-countries still have theirs.

The whole inclusion of the "disarm" clause for nuke-countries was THE incentive for others not to go nuclear. Otherwise why would they give up their right to defend themselves with the epitome of the deterant weapon?


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What are you going to do about countries that sign the NPT but STILL develop nukes - as North Korea has already done? Many countries have continued to develop nuclear capabilities even after signing the NPT.

Personally? Nothing. What do I suggest? Well for starters there is no proof that the North Koreans did more than enrich plutonium whilst bound by the NPT. The North Koreans formally withdrew from the NPT before they announced they have nuclear weapons. It should also be noted that we only have North Korean testimony that they have nuclear weapons. The North Koreans are well versed in the tactics of brinkmanship and bluffing is their forte. We have not seen a nuclear test from the North Koreans and until we do we cannot know for sure that they are actually a nuclear weapon country.

If they had developed any nukes whilst bound by the NPT then all the evidence proving such activity should be brought to the worlds attention. The UN security council show be showed all the information and retaliatory action should be mandated. Merely accusing, with no proof (ala Iran) that a country is developing nuclear weapons is not enough. Its also not enough to justify breaking your own NPT commitments by furthering the arms race.


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What you're suggesting is that we eliminate all OUR nukes but allow rogue nations to continue developing them. I see no result from that except a bloodier and more deadly world. And even perhaps a dictator like Hitler managing to wrest control of the world.

And thats a different scenario than the United States having nuclear weapons with arguably the most aggressive President they have ever seen?

If the United States systematically dismantled its nuclear arsenal with every other nuclear power reciprocating at every stage it would be possible. Every NPT nuke-country could beleft with a single nuclear weapon as a security blanket until a non-aggression treaty could be signed by all the nuclear powers. At this stage the North Koreans, Indians and Pakistanis should be brought before the UNSC to remove their nukes in response to Britains, USAs, Russiass, Chinas and Frances removal of all but 1 nuclear weapon. The North Koreans, Indians and Pakistanis should be made to sign a non-aggression pact with the NPT nuke-powers and when that is achieved a mutal decomissioning of all countries last remaining nuke should take place.

(please bare in mind that the North Koreans have repeatedly said they will give up their nukes and dismantle their Yongbyon reprocessing plant if the USA would only sign a non-aggression pact)

The removal of every last nuke in the World is a matter of trust and if we are ever to rid the World of this scourge chances have to be taken. Until such brave manouvers are undertaken, as I illustrated above, countries will fall by the wayside from the NPT and North Korea's actions will be repeated and repeated.


Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
The Iranians have a simple solution to remove our 'attentions' - they can STOP attempting to develop nuclear weapons, which they've ALREADY promised to do!

The Iranians only admitted to a peaceful nuclear program last year. A full 2 years before the United States government labelled them part of the Axis of Evil. Even before that invective the Iranians were demonized since the American Embassy in Tehran hostage situation. The Iranian revolution toppled the U.S backed Shah of Iran. The mutal mistrust of Iranians and Americans predates the Iranian nuclear program by a full 10 years.

To say that America will leave the Iranians alone if they abandon their nuclear program is optimisitic. Also any contradiction to the Iranians claims they are purely peaceful in their nuclear ambitions is to believe the Americans unfounded speculation. The IAEA has inspected Irans nuclear facilities and found absolutely nothing that points to weapons development. What does the US know that the IAEA doesnt?




posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 05:50 PM
link   
subz, subz, subz....like always you blame both the US and the UK only for continuing to build nuclear weapons...

You don't say a peep that China, Russia, and a few others have been doing it at an alarming rate....nor do you say that countries such as France have proliferated nukes to other countries, such as Israel, and their politicians are talking about doing the same to other Arab countries.....

But it wasn't as if we wouldn't expect something like this from you huh subz?.....blaming once again all the problems in the world on the US and the UK....



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Don't you'll believe its all just a matter of time, before most Nations can catch the technology, even at it's simplist beginnings.

Dallas



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 07:04 PM
link   


Crass and my point entirely. How can you judge another country without expressing bias? Is the fact that a country doesnt like your country enough reason to deny them nuclear weapons?


Are you seriously suggesting that ANY country in the world be allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Would you have been so eager to allow it at the start of WWII, when Britain was looking down the barrel of Germany's 3rd Reich? To suggest that all countries and all governments are equivalent is just plain ignorant, IMO.



The United States is the only country to have used nuclear weapons against another country. Is that the measure of a responsible country with nuclear weapons? I dont want to open the WW2 can of worms so I'd appreciate if you could stick to the nukes use in WW2 rather than the surrounding WW2 themes if you can, in the interest of topical relevance.


52 MILLION people died in WWII. Is it so hard to understand that the US was war weary by the time the bomb was dropped, and didn't want to continue a war of attrition with Japan? Attitudes change after that much death and destruction.

It's also true that Truman et all didn't have 50+ years of data on atomic weapons to use in making their decision.

A quote from Truman's diary is telling:



This weapon is to be used against Japan between now and August 10th. I have told the Sec. of War, Mr. Stimson, to use it so that military objectives and soldiers and sailors are the target and not women and children. Even if the Japs are savages, ruthless, merciless and fanatic, we as the leader of the world for the common welfare cannot drop that terrible bomb on the old capital or the new.

He and I are in accord. The target will be a purely military one and we will issue a warning statement asking the Japs to surrender and save lives. I'm sure they will not do that, but we will have given them the chance. It is certainly a good thing for the world that Hitler's crowd or Stalin's did not discover this atomic bomb. It seems to be the most terrible thing ever discovered, but it can be made the most useful...


www.historyplace.com...



I dont understand where your draw that conclusion from. Im a staunch anti-gun proponent so you've kinda missed the mark there


My point is that you fail to distinguish between the past actions of both individuals and nations. Actions are not equivalent, and so REACTIONS cannot be equivalent. I would not give a criminal a gun. I would not give a criminal nation a nuke.



I've read the NPT on many occasions and the trade off for these countries that forgo their sovereign right to nuclear weapons is that the nuclear-armed ones give up all of theirs. The definition of 'proliferation' is not the limitation of the NPT.


And I pointed out that MASSIVE actions to reduce nukes occurred in both the US and Russia. We did act properly under the treaty. Other countries have not.



The whole inclusion of the "disarm" clause for nuke-countries was THE incentive for others not to go nuclear. Otherwise why would they give up their right to defend themselves with the epitome of the deterant weapon?


And my point was that even while we were destroying our nukes, other countries were developing them after signing the NPT.

I would also argue that a nation that has a nuke and is sufficiently provoking would not prevent us from attacking. Therefore the argument that a nuke is an absolute defense is itself bogus.



If they had developed any nukes whilst bound by the NPT then all the evidence proving such activity should be brought to the worlds attention. The UN security council show be showed all the information and retaliatory action should be mandated. Merely accusing, with no proof (ala Iran) that a country is developing nuclear weapons is not enough. Its also not enough to justify breaking your own NPT commitments by furthering the arms race.


OK, and who retaliates, and with what? If a rogue country gains a nuke and is willing to use it - and no one else has nuclear capability - how many countries are going to join with the US in dealing with the problem?



If the United States systematically dismantled its nuclear arsenal with every other nuclear power reciprocating at every stage it would be possible. Every NPT nuke-country could beleft with a single nuclear weapon as a security blanket until a non-aggression treaty could be signed by all the nuclear powers. At this stage the North Koreans, Indians and Pakistanis should be brought before the UNSC to remove their nukes in response to Britains, USAs, Russiass, Chinas and Frances removal of all but 1 nuclear weapon. The North Koreans, Indians and Pakistanis should be made to sign a non-aggression pact with the NPT nuke-powers and when that is achieved a mutal decomissioning of all countries last remaining nuke should take place.


You assume (wrongly) that rogue nations will just automatically comply with the UN when it slaps their wrist. If countries are ALREADY not complying with the NPT, then what hope do we have that the UN could force disarmament later?

We can't get North Korea to eliminate nukes now - what's your plan for forcing them to get rid of them later? Do you naively expect them to just get rid of them if we get rid of ours? Just like criminals just hand over their weapons in the middle of a robbery because you're unarmed?



(please bare in mind that the North Koreans have repeatedly said they will give up their nukes and dismantle their Yongbyon reprocessing plant if the USA would only sign a non-aggression pact)


Considering the fact that Clinton made all kinds of agreements with North Korea in exchange for North Korea's agreement not to develop nuclear weapons, WHY do you think we would believe them now when they say the same? Betrayal has the tendency to undermine trust.



The removal of every last nuke in the World is a matter of trust and if we are ever to rid the World of this scourge chances have to be taken. Until such brave manouvers are undertaken, as I illustrated above, countries will fall by the wayside from the NPT and North Korea's actions will be repeated and repeated.


And what we're learning is that rogue nations cannot be trusted. Therefore, the rest of the argument has no meaning.



The Iranians only admitted to a peaceful nuclear program last year. A full 2 years before the United States government labelled them part of the Axis of Evil. Even before that invective the Iranians were demonized since the American Embassy in Tehran hostage situation. The Iranian revolution toppled the U.S backed Shah of Iran. The mutal mistrust of Iranians and Americans predates the Iranian nuclear program by a full 10 years.


I think the key world is 'admitted.' If Iran only just began it's nuclear activities, then why was it slapped on the hand by the IAEA like this:



Iran had first told the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that its last experiments with the reprocessing of plutonium took place in 1993 but revised that date to 1998, according to a draft speech deputy IAEA chief Pierre Goldschmidt is due to make to the agency's board of governors on Thursday.


news.yahoo.com.../nm/nuclear_iran_dc



To say that America will leave the Iranians alone if they abandon their nuclear program is optimisitic. Also any contradiction to the Iranians claims they are purely peaceful in their nuclear ambitions is to believe the Americans unfounded speculation. The IAEA has inspected Irans nuclear facilities and found absolutely nothing that points to weapons development. What does the US know that the IAEA doesnt?


The IAEA also said Iraq had no nuclear capability prior to Gulf War I, but inspections after the fact found they were very close to a weapon. IMO, the Iranian resistance to discontinuing enrichment activities is suspicious enough to doubt their word. Add to that their repeated 'mistakes' that might be called lies to the IAEA regarding their nuclear activities, and I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

www.iaea.org...

You seem awfully willing to trust the word of countries who have proven in the past that they can't be trusted. You may be willing to trust their good intentions, but I am not.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join