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.

 

Does America Have The Right...(Nuclear Weapons)

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Stevo, are you denying that America is an Empire and is the envy, and superpower of the world? This is why I am saying America (and other more developed nations) should get involved with other nations (especially the rogue ones) that are trying to develop nukes. Rogue nations don't care who get nukes, they are in it for the $. And I wouldn't doubt it if they got a chucle out of the idea of one of their nukes hitting the big bad bully on the block that has pushed them around in the past.




posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
an empire and superpower are 2 different things, a 'superpower' was the term first used to describe the british empire/the united states and russia...

en.wikipedia.org...

an 'empire' is were you invade/occupy a country/s and make them apart of your ruling.

the united states as no infulence on any nation, no country shares the same ruling/law/nor ideas as the US...therefore the united states is not an empire but a 'superpower' and yes america is the only current global superpower after the collapse of the USSR, but if you class the EU as a superpower.

en.wikipedia.org...

then there's 2.

[edit on 11-10-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Oct, 11 2006 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
do america have a right to stop nations researching into nuclear technology
afterall america is the ONLY nation to have:-

1) ever used the atom bomb

2) one of 2 nations who as threatened to use atomic weapons (cold war)

3) and probably the only country actually stupid enough to use them again


therefore is it hypocritcal of them to say which nation should/and shouldn't research into nuclear technology?


I appreciate what you're saying, but you need to look at the big picture. Take American quality of life, for example. You notice how everyone's going crazy about Bush's recent laws, the ones that restrict freedoms and give the government the legal right to do pretty much whatever they want? A fuss is being made over this stuff because we're supposed to be the symbol of freedom and success to the rest of the world, and this post-9/11 mentality is destroying that.

Yes, we used nukes, and it effectively brought an ultimate end to Japanese involvement of WWII.

The cold war was mutual proliferation; Soviets and Americans were involved in that one. Cuban Missile Crisis anyone?


i can understand why nations like north korea and iran would want to develop these kind of weapons to defend themselfs from the threat of the united states the way they've been acting after 9/11 (i'm sure you can too if you look from their perspective).


No offense, but I don't think you understand as much as you think.

Hypothetically, what if NK wasn't touting their nuclear weapons program? And what if Iran wasn't encouraging terrorist activity amongst Muslims, supporting Hezbollah, calling for the "removal" of Israel, denying the Holocaust while calling for a new one, etc?

Remove those, and the US would have had no superficial interest in either country. Yet both felt the need to get nukes, and given the mindset of both leaders and the current governing style of both nations, this represents a threat.

If you think Americans are the only ones that believe there's a threat, at least regarding NK, you might wanna let Japan, China, South Korea, Thailand, and Russia know they're all wrong. Because they aren't basing their opinions and actions on faulty intel; they're going by what they know of NK, and of Kim, specifically.

Do a little research about the goings-on within Iran and (especially) North Korea. Contrary to what some believe, all international happenings are not whitewashed by America or MEMRI before hitting the international public sector. Believe it or not, there are worse governments besides the USA.


but me myself i'm not too keen on the idea of india developing into this kind of technology (and the US is helping them with it)


So, because the US is helping, you're not too keen on it? Do you even know anything about India?


therefore what gives the united states the right to say who should and shouldn't research into nuclear technology


I can agree to a point; the military capabilities of a soveriegn nation really shouldn't be left up to the decision of another country. I've said it before; it someone told the USA we weren't allowed to have nukes, I'd build twenty just on sheer principle.

Again, it is the men behind the countries that have so many worried for the future.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
my answer would be no nations should have nuclear capablity, but again i relitrate the point what gives the united states to the right to say who should and who shouldn't have these weapons just because it suits their interests?


If no nations should have nukes then how do you propose a disarmament pact should be carried out?


afterall they (US) have the worst track record in dealing with these weapons (using and threating to use)...if they really wanted to stop these nations getting nuclear weapons why did they not aim for iran/korea before iraq?


We have never threatened to use nukes. We used them twice, very effectively, ended a war, saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Rogue nations are threatening to use nukes to get what they want, NK wants food from the WFP to feed it's people but they are taking it and selling it. They won't even keep their own people from starving and you think it's wrong for us to be upset that they might have nukes? Very curious.


afterall iran/n.korea are the 'only' 2 nations out of the 3 who have actaully 'ADMITTED' into researching nuclear technology....saddam always denied the claim iraq was researching/or had these weapons (and at the moment he seems to be right)


We thought Sadaam could have any number of different types of weapons, nukes, bios, chem. It turns out he did have chemical weapons and he used them on the Kurds. It's pretty clear to me anyway that there is an Iraqi stockpile of WMD now in Syria. You should look into the leukemia rates in Iraq and ask yourself, "how did these get so high?"


summary those claims by george bush and the main reason why it took america/britain (other nations) to war was because of saddam and NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!


Go to the library now and read every newspaper you can dated between 9/2001 and 3/2003. You are misinformed.


thats now proved 'not' the case....so then the question must be asked 'why did bush let 2 other tyrants press/pressing ahead with research more'? (never stopped them in iraq)


No one has ever proved that Sadaam wasn't in the business of WMD, he used a chemical attack on his own people.

(answer) because america dare not go it alone with korea or iran!! *cough* quote from George Bush before the iraq conflict:-


If we were so hot to nuke Iran and NK, we wouldn't care if we went alone? What could other nations possible do-sweep up the fallout? The fact is that we don't want to go to war with NK because there are other alternatives. Remember Iraq violated every UN sanction that was imposed to guarantee Sadaam peace. NK and Iran are not even under sanctions yet. We have a ways to go before we start taking about continuing hostilities with NK.


CX

posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Techsnow
OF course America has the right! Were the American Empire! Wake UP! Whos gonna stop these insane nations and their waco leaders from creating atom bombs and giving them to terrorsit thugs? Who? I will tell you. The leader of the free world.


Free world lol!
Thats a joke!

How come a good majority of threads on here are about the liberties that are gradualy being removed from us?

CX.



new topics

top topics
 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join