Why is it ok for the US to develop....

reply to post by pexx421

---

first of all im not even sure how this became a thread on morals. second of all is milk seriously bad for you?

i don't support America or most of its actions. but i _javascript:gvid()honestly and truly believe that nukes are necessary to maintain order. as for the japan thing i was somewhat aware of the fact that they already wanted to give up and it was just a test but one way or the other it saved American lives. i would argue this same argument for any country. if i lived in Russia i would argue that Russia should have nuked Afghanistan and cut our losses. if i lived in Afghanistan i would have argued the opposite. the point is that America is a #ed up place and that the only reason it still has the nukes is because it has the most. so who's gonna argue with the big guy?

Mr Tesla, here is only one problem with your logic, what happens when others decide that the US is a threat to World peace and stability dose that give others the right to take you out before you attack them.

yes it does. but fortunately (or unfortunately) America has the most nukes and controls most of the world.

Actually you are wrong on both counts there, the Russians have 2nd and 3rd strike nuke capabilities the US dose not plus Russia especially spends alot on civil defense where the US speds about $5. Plus the Russian nukes carry much bigger payloads. As for America ruling the World you are mistaken as well, from what perspective, McDonalds do you mean. The US is owned and run by powerful European familes the very same ones that set the country up in the first place.

I know Faux news might make you think it looks like that but the reality is quite different. If anywhere runs the World its London as all the Worlds finaces go through London as it is the banking capital of the World.

It would be far more fruitfull in removing the weapons of mass destruction as it will be you and I that will suffer and die not the perps or the super rich.

reply to post by Nohup

---

NOHUP you took the words rite out of my mouth about overpopulation of this planet! some just don't get contraception especially those in the 3rd world, tough talk heartless but that is how i feel. oh i cant feed my 9 children and I'm afraid if YOU dont help ME they may die, god forbid' the truth hurts they should take responsibility before conceiving so many offspring i have little pity. not that i mean you share my feelings NOHUP.

Stealth, the reason for high birth rates in the 3rd World is the high mortality rates. Developing nations always go through this process. But all that is off topic and the topic is why should the US dictate to anyone about having nukes and the answer is, wait for it, our friends can have them but our potential enemies cannot.

That said the US has for years been supporting despot regimes, and forming terrorist groups. There is nothing new in that but it usually goes tits up and those who you armed and supplied ends up fighting you.

In reality the US cannot dictate to anyone, despite the belicose bull from the White House the US is not about to commit mass suicide so it seeks to subvert those who want parity or to even overtake the US. Its all a moot point as if nukes were used it would be on a Global scale and the only winners would be the puppets and their masters.

I know it may sound corny but the best thing to do is get rid of the whole lot and spend it on the betterment of the human race but hey why should any one listen to me.

I.M.O the responsibility of being a nuclear power is great and the United States has the infrastructure rules and regulations levels and guidelines to keep Nuclear Weapons from falling into the wrong hands.

Also the rules of mutual assured destruction take on a different meaning when under certain religious ideologies it would be a celebration to use them for the benefit of mass destruction. When launching a missile or setting off a bomb against the U.S. has the only end result of Martyrdom then it becomes the responsibility of the US or other super powers to ensure that the playing field does not become even for a nation that could go rogue quickly

Hell, well as thats all hearsay and rumours as to what these so called rogue nations may or may not do to date non have done anysuch thing and its highly improbable that they would given the known response. But whilst America may abide by the rules what of Israel, they do not abide by the rules and if anyone was going to use nukes in the ME it would be them.

nuclear weapons should not be allowed to proliferate the nuclear arsenal in possesion by US, USSR, CHINA ETC are strategic ballistic missiles mrvs if used we or they would know where they came from small tactical weapons that can be transported easily who knows where they come from these weapons are more likely to be used against us since alot of you people feel we are evil and deserve to be nuked we nuked japan and they still wouldnt surrender they were also working on this technology germany was also working on this so cry me a river I dont want this in the hands of people like you these weapons may have a better purpose to deflect an oncomming asteroid or to keep the peace they are a lame duck

You guys need to freshen up on your History lessons. Russia was the one who should have invaded Japan after the annihilation of the Eastern front. Japan was actually trying to establish negotiations for surrender at the prospect of the Russian invasion. The US decided to drop the bombs regardless. They needed to flex the military muscle to convince Russia and the world on who was the top dog now. Hell, they just showed this on the History Channel a couple of days ago. Time to throw away those 1950's propa-textbooks, kiddos.

It's always been the case.. murderers always try to keep others defenseless..

Nuclear energy is a right to every nation, but nuclear weapons.. just for the murderers..

reply to post by Velvet Death

---

"Japan was stupid. They should have surrendered when Germany went down. They wanted to fight to the last man, woman and child so they had to be shown they were really defeated."

Well actually they tried to surrender, twice, they just didn't want to have their Emperor step down (since hes also the head religious figure). Anyway, because they wouldn't agree on that they nuked them into submission. And also to send a message to the commies that it was gonna be the US not the Russians who will come out as the main superpower.

More on topic though, it isn't fair, but war isn't about fairness. Its about power and control, whoever has the most dictates the show.

Nukes in general are obsolete in a sense, precision low civilian casualty weapons are in, mass death is out. Not that they aren't a great last resort "if were going down yer going down too". But the amount of negative PR which comes with killing millions of innocents simply to cripple an enemy would be extremely far reaching. Whatever the outcome, world opinion of the country who presses the button would be drastically lowered and relations would suffer.
A nuke is lose/lose. No one benefits. And obviously more dangerous in the hands who have nothing to lose, and live with so much hate.

It would be a disaster if any country could freely develop WMDs. End of the world as we know it...

Just as disturbing as unregulated proliferation of weapons, are the attempts by the Bush Administration to blur the line on the use of nuclear weapons from a device of strategic use (e.g destroying communications and transport hubs) to one of tactical relevance (i.e the super-bunker busters), and the use of nuclear devices at high altitude or in orbit as part of the SDI initiative. Both of the latter two uses are specifically proscribed in non-proliferation treaties, as is the development of further high yield strategic devices.
The RNEP (Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator) project, was cancelled in 2005, however defence insider's such as the Jane's periodical believe the project carries on under a different name.
The refusal of Congress to ratify the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, only confirms that the U.S. government will continue to develop and produce nuclear weapons whilst actively denying that avenue of research to other countries and even using the supposed possibility of such research to pursue aggressive military and diplomatic policies around the world.

The Japanese have American bases in their country because they want them there. If the Japanese people, by a vast majority, demanded the closing of American bases tomorrow and for servicemen and women to go back to the US then it would be done.

As for the proliferation of nuclear weapons, unfortunately it's a fact of life, and nukes won't go away. Remember that Japan possesses so much weapon's grade plutonium that if they converted it all into warheads, then Japan would have a nuclear arsenal bigger than America's. They keep it stored as insurance.

Nuclear weapons should be used as a deterrent only and countries who possess them need a clear policy which defines them as such. It is very dangerous when countries openly talk about the annihilation of other countries and have a secret nuclear weapon program though. That is why it isn't a great idea for Iran to have them.