so... will usa destroy their nukes too?

yeah, if Saddam had nukes, you really think he'd care not to launch them? Even if we did nuke them back, he wouldn't give a flyin' # about his people dyin', long as it wasn't him or his sons.

[Edited on 2-11-2004 by mouko_ryuu]

you forget that ours are of a devensive purpose only. the US will destroy its nukes soon as russia, china, and eveyone else does



so dont hold your breath

[Edited on 2-11-2004 by KrazyIvan]

No friggin way we'd destroy ours. You never know what country is secretly building more.


*cough* china russia and those other commies *cough*

[Edited on 2-11-2004 by mouko_ryuu]

I got nothing against the USA having nukes... i agree they are an effective detterant... what i'm against is they try to keep their power and influence on the rest of the world by stopping countries that may pose a threat against them from getting them so they can continue to use their power to keep the other countries in fear. Australia doesnt have nukes and we arent under threat by anyone (at least not untill we started kissing Bush's arse). but the worlds nukes will never be disarmed untill something more destructive is found... I likes the USA as it was just after WWII it was during the cold war i have decided they started to decline... the USSR weren't much better and neither are China... but i guess thats just politics

Australia would be under threat if it were the US. No, I don't know how to put my thoughts into words! People just seem to have a knack for hating us. How do you explain 9-11? And you can't just rule it off as they were just psychos. (although thats what they are)

The US will keep nukes as long as Russia does, and also as long as there's nuts-states liek N. Korea that make them and as long as Pakistan and India keep them pointed at eachother. The only current defense from nukes is to assure MAD by making them yourselves.

I know I'm a retard (no disrespect to those that are handicapped), but what is MAD?

The reason many arab nations and ppl dont like the USA is due to their support of Israels occupation of Palestine despite many many UN resolutions against it. The terrorist are against the US due to their foreign policy in the Middle East... more people dislike the USA now due to the way they have handled this terror threat.

I'll admit the US played a major role in defending the asia pacific region in WWII including Australia (i was born in malaysia so i wouldve been a jap otherwise) but since then their attitude has changed and i am not a fan... i dont like terrorism either so i'll just sit back and watch them take each other out...

Mutally Assured Destruction (i think)

"more people dislike the USA now due to the way they have handled this terror threat. "


Well you know what, 'more people' can kiss my fat American ass.

hey dont worry i'm not one of the 'more' i've disliked them for a while... but i do like the general population of america... i got good friends over there... i just dont like the admisnistration (democrat, republic) but hey i'm alive, i get to drink my beer, do my drugs, see my girl, play my x-box, watch cable, and earn a living... as long as those arent taken away i'm not gonna kick up a stink... the first country/radical group who denies me any of these liberties will have a 'jihad' declared on them by me! GRRR!!!

(i'm sure your all trembling now)

MAD = Mutually Assured Destruction, yes. It's basically the deterrent used in the Cold War. If the US launched it's nukes, the USSR counterattack would cripple the US, and vice-versa. It's assuring that neither side can win a nuclear war, so there would be no point in starting one.

Oh coures not. In the state of the union address, Dubya said that, "We need to keep these weapons out of the hands of dangerous regimes who are willing to use them." Or something like that. Now, does that sound like the US? Wait.....that does sound like the US. Does Dubya even listen to himself when he talks?

In a sense I agree with this Act by Bush. Harsher sanctions need to be dealt on countries with nuclear capabilites.
The US should also stop! But this was respecting terrorist groups, not all countries in general, note his stating of, North Korea, Iran.

Deep

The current US would never launch a nuke unless it was absolutely necessary, especially if it launched one at a antion that was an ally of Russia or China (and it would be insane to nuke either of those natiosn directly, they've still got the arsenal to completely screw us over). What Dubya (and basically, every president past and present since nukes were invented) is worried about is smaller states using them to attack other smaller nations in disputes, because that could easily escalate. Nukes are very bad news, and the fewer nations have them, the better.

However, the US disarming their nukes would also be a very bad idea. Not too far in the future the US could stop being so chummy with China or Russia. If we don't have the capabiltiy to hit them back, there's really no reason for them to restrain from alpha striking us if they wanted too.

As long as there are other nations with nukes or other WMD then it would be foolish for the US government to give up it's nukes.

Does that make the US a hypocrite for wanting to deter other nations from having nukes?

Not necessarily.

The fact is that the spread of nukes to all nations great and small increases the chances of a nuclear conflict exponentially.
It therefore is not only in the US's best interest to stop proliferation but it's in the rest of the world's best interest too...

I can emphasize with the US wanting to stop 'crazy' arab dictators from getting nukes coz they are likely to sell them to terrorists and what not (i dont agree with the US but i can kinda see their point there) but in the N.Korea problem i see no problem... i think its just because they are communists that the US is trying to hold their arsenal back... i really dont see N.Korea selling nukes to terrorists... but then again they do need the pocket money... i just wish someone would sell me a nuke then we'll see who starts WWIII.... muahahahahaha

We don't want N. Korea to have a nuke because Kim Jong-Il is a crazy mother#er who would have no qualms about using them to 'reclaim' South Korea.

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Esoterica]

[QUOTE]
Saying Bush is as dangerous as Hussein is so stupid that responding to it would only sully the respondant. [/QUOTE]

you tell that Iraqi people! who bush killed because of the oil!
and do you think he cares about his people? # he doesn't! if he did he wouldn't have sent American soldiers to die so he and blair can make money! and don't tell me it wasn't because of the oil! cause what was his name that British man who had documents to confirm that that all WMD was bull#! and they killed him right away!

[QUOTE]Bush isn't telling everyone to disarm. [/QUOTE]

lol! but he invades them and makes them disarm!

[QUOTE]And of all the nukes we've ever had, how many have we used?[/QUOTE]

*cough*Herosima?*cough* ever today people are dying of radiation! and it's the most famous nuke bomb ever launched, and guess who did it? what does it tell you? that USA will launch their nukes at you! .... even if you don't have them

[QUOTE]
you forget that ours are of a devensive purpose only. the US will destroy its nukes soon as russia, china, and eveyone else does[/QUOTE]

hahahha!

come out we won't kill you!*arming a machine gun* come out we won't!

and saddam had his weapons for defensive reasons too! and everyone that has any kind of weapon it's for defensive reasons!

US will NEVER! get rid of their nukes! and finally when no one else is left with nukes, than the real party will begin! then bush will say! other people are people of mass destraction and we have to kill them all!

I'll only respond to one of the ramblings above, since I'm quite sure there are members capable of taking care of the rest.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Without the nukes, the US would have had to invade mainland Japan. Projections put US casualties at 1 million. Remember, the Japanese were fanaticla to their God-Emperor. Civilians would not have surrendered, they would have fought or committed suicide (this occured on several islands the US captured). The Japanese Army would have fought to the last man.

The nuking of Japan saved more lives than it took by forcing a surrender, instead of a bloody march to Tokyo.

Not to mention bringing up something more than 50 years old that occured during a World War is just silly.

[Edited on 11-2-2004 by Esoterica]