Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Could the Mid-East become a WMD-Free Zone?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 12:59 PM
link   
This thread sounds very pacifist, at first (but actually) everything is possible considering America alone, or even a good amount of Western civilisation, can pull all the diplomatic strings.

My View…
Israel is fine. It already has nuclear weapons, and does need them any more than Australia (which is a resource rich, 22.7 million population, bang next to China’s 1.34 billion population).
If Australia can get by without nukes (instead merely relying on America’s & Britain’s potential support, in such an event) then why can’t Israel?

Think…
1. If Australia was nuked by a change of government in China
America would be upset

2. If Israel was nuked: America would be beyond livid

3. If Australia was nuked…
Millions of Americans –practically all the British population, would be nuked in an exchange of sophisticated Chinese nuclear warheads -at least some of which would reach their targets.

4. If Israel was nuked…
Nobody with give a second thought about nuking Iran –or whichever Arab country might have done it. Firstly because they would have started it, and world peace only works providing MAD remains mad enough to be real.
Secondly because it is very unlikely this aggressors missiles would reach its targets.
Thirdly because: The number of warheads available to be fired is likely to be very small –particularly if half have already been used on Israel!
And Fourthly because: Whoever has done it, is likely to be a very small nation in terms of world, political influence, and GDP (at least in comparison to China).

My Conclusion…
Australia needs nukes FAR more than Israel, yet is getting by perfectly fine without them. If Israel did open up, then perhaps it would be possible to get Iran & Israel to agree to the same level of WMD inspections. This way, pride mad Iran & Iranians, need not feel it is being singled out for otherwise (quite undeniably) one-sided treatment.

I think if Israel is survive without fearing a change of government in Iran (the current one secretly knows they would go to hell, even by the standards of Islam, and therefore will not nuke it first) it needs to decide…
“Is our possession of nukes, worth more in defence, than the threat of Iran having nukes?” Either way, it sows its own harvest…

I do not propose…
Either country stop their nuclear programme i.e. both countries continue being “standby nuclear powers”. Iran has already reached this stage, and in any case they have germ and biological weapons. But in either case, mutual disarmament would go a long way to reducing the threat capacity of any future governments –that in politics, can at any time appear –especially given the destabilising effect of Iranian sanctions, and supporting the current’s political enemies without too much thought.

And for Good Measure…
Just as America (a UN authorised nuclear power) has given Israel its support, Iran should seek Russia’s support. The Cold War –which would otherwise have killed at least 50 million www.abovetopsecret.com...
So I see no reason why it cannot prevent the next World War. Of course Russia’s support would not apply if Iran attacked first –that would be a betrayal of agreement.

Right Now: Global economy is losing out through not trading with Iran. Iran’s population is nearly ten times greater than Israel’s, and of course it is also oil rich, plus strategically well placed for (a currently) dormant trade. Even with sanctions, Iranian GDP is around 11 billion greater than
Israel’s www.google.co.uk...:ISR&dl=en&hl=en&q=israel+gdp
Iran’s…
www.google.co.uk...:IRN&dl=en&hl=en&q=iran+gdp

Of course: World economy losing out would (perhaps) be fine, if something useful was actually being achieved by the current state of affairs; but does anyone actually think this? If anything, I think sanctions are (at best) a 40/60 double sword, as if Iran does fall from within, I’m far from confident many pacifists would form the next government!
What US politics (Demo-Rep) is currently doing strikes me as really stupid i.e. Quite useless, but very dangerous. Of course the rest of the Western world is doing it too, but those nations foreign are often to the U.S, what sheep are to a Shepherd!




posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
You’re not putting nukes on my land and why would you want to disarm just the ME?

Does America want to make sure that it has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 30 times over rather than just 20?

The aggression shown by the US has to stop at some point…….. The US is not the world police…….. Disarm the entire world and fight imperially if you must fight at all.

We can find peace if the war machine stops producing and starts to think logically and has an interest in the future of our species.

Mickierocksman



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Mickierocksman and why would you want to disarm just the ME?
Because nukes have saved tens of millions of lives by the way they prevented the first WW3. That said, the fewer countries that have them, the easier those countries without them are to bully & control (very frankly speaking, of course!) For example: "Why do you think Australians died in Vietnam, but British troops didn’t?"
An: "Because Australia (for good reason) felt it needed the protection of America’s nukes, against a China then ruled by a man who killed more than either Stalin or Hitler, and some would say combined i.e. Chairman Mao."

Of course: Since that the 1970’s Western politics has become more corrupt, but also (in this way) more unified, and so the different nations of the West have been centralized under a unity headed by America (solely because it's proportionately the most powerful in terms of might & arms, and in this way it's consideration is democratic). That is why (in 2003) Tony Blair sent British to die for America in Iraq, and (had he been alive during Vietnam) that personal, money making bastard, would have done the same, again.


We can find peace if the war machine stops producing and starts to think logically and has an interest in the future of our species.
That the most naïve thing I’ve heard all month! Whilst you at it, can you ask Jesus to bring back the basket he used to feed that 5000?

You know what will happen if the world doesn’t have WMD’s…
1. Look at the number of fatalies, and number of wars nations used to have, when ther leaders could launch & loose a war without ever having to put their OWN lives at risk.
2. A leader, with a mindset like me, would reinvent the nuke, and be proud to steel all pacifist countries.

To be honest Mickierocksman (Although I do not want to see the decline of the West) it is a major upside, that if we continue to go down economically (just in relative terms) then China may very well be allowed to invade Australia, and you may have to kiss the Chinese flag i.e. legal system & way of doing things within your life time. I would rather this than see London, or Washington get nuked, all because Australia refuses to deter war, and therefore it's possible China could think it would get away with it, without a response. All I am saying (and I am sure you and I would agree on this) that if China ever feels like taking Australia, then nobody with WMD's -violence.

A Little Rant...
This site has gown hill majorly since I joined back in 2005. There was a good balance of people, rather than (mostly) different types of the same left-wing thing.
A woman called Samantha Power used to be here and she was (in opposition) Obama’s foreign policy advisor –way back, before he became known. I used to discuss policy, never knowing it was here, till it came out by accident, far later.

But today the more serious, world changing discussion, is done on numerous small sites I am more proud to be a member of. The lack of interest in this topic, and the response to it, is an illustration why. I would mention one other site in particular, but I would not want to contaminate it’s membership with such an idealistic, more paranoid than intelligent, thinking, or questioning, lot!

End of rant! But it needs to be said...
I won't abandon this place though -never run away. The whole reason why we post stuff on forums is to get the benefits of a critical, democratic audience, but please... Someone say something, deeper thought out.
edit on 090705 by Liberal1984 because: Updated.



posted on Aug, 13 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Liberal1984
 


You made me laugh, thank you…..

Let’s step through your response…. from the outset I can see that you believe that more military power means more peace, this is incorrect because peace does not come from oppression.

Nukes have not saved tens of millions of lives and only bring us closer to WW3, it’s not a deterrent it is an offensive power and simply unacceptable for anyone to have knowing the consequences of its use.

Who said the US has to be the one to ‘control those countries without WMD’s’?

Both Australia and the US got their ‘A’s kicked in Vietnam, so what’s your point; it just shows that our government is spineless and its tongue has reached down the back of the US underpants since WW1, the same could be said for the UK.

Once again my point remains – why does any country have to be ‘controlled or lead’ by the US? What gives you the right to enforce your draconian laws and outlook onto the rest of the world?

Talking about Naïve, I don’t believe in any religion or god. I can see that you believe however that someone must be religious if they don’t like killing and war?

You know what would happen if the world did not have WMD’s – peace, and if conflict did need to take place – the US would not be able to hide behind its phallic power of distruction.

Someone like you will reinvent the nuke? And be proud to conquer all pacifist countries????…. Well you sir, is precisely what is wrong with the world.

In reply, the US is the only nation that has used nukes against civilians and killed many thousands of them…. So I will say again, what gives you the right to have them when you can’t and have not used them responsibly in the past? You did not need to drop the bombs on civilians, you could have dropped one off the coast on a fleet of ships for example as a warning to end the war… but no, you had to take out civilians and it looks like nothing has changed with approx. 250,000 civilians killed in your ‘war on terror’ in the past 10 years…. The entire world can see who the real ‘terrorists’ are and that is the US Government and its military.

You can warmonger all you like, but it does not change the fact that the US heads us in the direction or war rather than peace – the US cannot survive without war – your economy is not viable, you have no other exports besides weapons, death and destruction and it’s so obviously in-bread into your psyche that your too blind to see any other way.

Team America? FK NO!

Mickierocksman



posted on Aug, 14 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

You made me laugh, thank you…..
Good that we disagree enough to hopefully have an informative exchange of views.


Let’s step through your response…. from the outset I can see that you believe that more military power means more peace,
This is such a simplification that it’s actually a distortion. My view is military power makes the protected territory of the beholder a far more peaceful place.

A good analogy for my view would be: “Had a member of the audience happened to have a gun when the recent Colorado Cinema Massacre took place.” Had this happened far fewer would have died when the lunatic came in, in fact (with the lunatic knowing this situation) the massacre may not even have happened at all.
On the other hand: (if it was normal for everyone to be carrying guns, at all times everywhere) then this does not necessarily mean less people would suffer gun murder, every year, in total. Comparisons between UK and US gun deaths have long indicated far more would die. On the other hand, comparisons before and after Australia’s recent gun legislation indicate far fewer. www.abovetopsecret.com...


Nukes have not saved tens of millions of lives and only bring us closer to WW3, it’s not a deterrent it is an offensive power and simply unacceptable for anyone to have knowing the consequences of its use.

Ok. So (if this is true) then why does the historical record severely contradict it? Look at this other thread, and you’ll see I went through history to show (how before nuclear weapons) bloody & costly wars between countries (that today possess them) were rampant –if not increasingly epidemic, and yet (strangely enough!) for the last 67 years, every country to have gained possession of a nuke, has not suffered a war with another country that also possess a nuke. www.abovetopsecret.com...
And what on earth, can make you so confident that had the world after WW2 been without the invention of the nukes, the heavily armed (& diametrically, politically opposed East & West) would have refrained from warfare? Do note: It did happen in the build-up to WW1 and it didn’t in the build-up to WW2 either.
But ever since 1945, wars have only happened on countries that don’t have them.
I believe your philosophy is so at odds with reality, that I readily predict even in 2045 there still will not have been a single armed war between a set of nuclear weapons possessing nations. But perhaps you disagree? If so I would love to know your prediction of when a nuclear before 2045 might happen, and what you base it on?

History is great for debasing false ideologies: History repeats itself because it likes to, and it likes to for many reasons, (but mostly) because the human brain hasn’t changed much in 10,000 years. So whenever history pauses-stops repeating itself, you should know something fundamental (about world reality) has really changed.
I argue: That change (for this discussion) has come in the form of MAD making war (literally) mad. I argue that any combination of: Conventional weapons, Large armies, Peace agreements, & Good intentions, did not make war mad enough (as is evidenced from the number of major armed conflicts, between today’s nuclear possess, before the invention of nukes).


Once again my point remains – why does any country have to be ‘controlled or lead’ by the US?
Because the US and Western World has a different foreign policy. Because they know, and is right to know, that whilst military might does not necessarily equal moral right, it does (at least) acts as a way of bullying other nations into submission –regardless of whether it works when it is actually used.
Libya disarmed itself of all WMD’s immediately after seeing what had just happened Iraq (which I agree, and have always agreed, ever since joining this site, has been a totally rotten idea & failure). Nevertheless: That is what Gaddafi did. And by unilaterally disarming his nation, he condemned himself to either the Hague (or as it happened) death; and therefore Libya to its current turmoil & endlessly messy situation. To see this, you must first look at (his inspiration) (Iraq) again…

Uninformed minds, often say: “It would have been better for the U.S to have destroyed Saddam’s government in 1991, instead of another war again, in 2003”. What these people show they either do not know, or do not balance, is the fact (in 1991) Saddam had both chemical (and far more alarmingly) biological weapons. Well…. Whenever a country is overthrown there is always an inevitable period of anarchy, in which numerous weapons go astray. There is no way we wanted some irresponsible terrorist to walk into Saddam’s military bases with a van and few hundred dollars, or even just find the place completely abandoned, and pick 1 or more biological weapons.
So: Saddam was left in power because he had WMD’s. Then once he was fully disarmed, and we were sure of it (through knowing the results of UN inspections, some of whose team member, doubled-up as allied spies) he was promptly destroyed (when our own political situation was right i.e. after 911 and –the people “sheeple!” had been built-up with media propaganda i.e. tales created to induce fear).
Likewise: Today we put pressure on Iran to disarm itself of nuclear weapons technology. We put sanctions, we fund armed groups within the country that we hope can turn into another Libya. And we well tell (just like we did with Saddam) “get rid of your WMD’s, and (despite our differences) you will enjoy nothing but peace, trade, and prosperity”. Needless to say, our promise is not being believed by the Iranians! They might have been foolish enough to believe us, had we actually honoured our promise to Saddam (or at least Gaddafi). But no, we didn’t!

On the upside: When Iran finally tests an atomic bomb (or as is actually far more likely in its case, merely secretly shows us) (through the diplomatic channels) it has one, you can then bet your life & pants that any war U.S-Iran war has become pure lunacy AND fantasy. I already think such a war would be lunacy! (Iran already has biological weapons –more than enough to make Israel a land of empty houses with decaying corpses).
Iran with a nuclear bomb will be respected, and if it can avoid testing the device, you may find sanctions are lifted under some kind of peace deal i.e. public rouse.
As this thread tells: I don’t think this is an ideal situation. I would much rather both Israel & Iran agreed to disarm, for the sake of the region and each other (whilst to be realistic, getting guaranteed support against a First Strike).


Talking about Naïve, I don’t believe in any religion or god. I can see that you believe however that someone must be religious if they don’t like killing and war?
On the contrary; I said I thought, the only way an Iranian government would launch a First Strike if they were headed by a leader who actually believed in a God, and not only that but a God who would reward them. I also said I don’t think is the case today, that (actually) (most) people high in Iran’s leadership simply use religion as a way of political control, and I believe this is so, because almost any religious scholar will be aware they would go to hell, for many of the things they personally do (even by the standards of their own religion –Islam).
I think it unlikely that “religious” situation in Iran will change too. I for the record am a Spiritualist, although (some in my view nutters) would say “Satanist”. Putting it bluntly, I believe “God is reality and reality is God”. Also (solely in my opinion-experience) for all that people of these rare, alternative beliefs, make up a very small proportion of a national population, they make-up a great many of The Heads of State and other senior officials immediately beneath them. I certainly don’t believe in a basket with an endless supply of fish, and won’t until they find it on some archaeological dig! I merely said you may as well as ask Jesus to return that basket, as an analogy for how unrealistic I think a world without WMD’s (but peace) is.


You know what would happen if the world did not have WMD’s – peace, and if conflict did need to take place – the US would not be able to hide behind its phallic power of distruction.
Without WMD’s the U.S, Russia, China and countless other nations would still have their Military Industrial Complex’s. So even if there was no need for war, a “need” would be found (as is regularly the case).


You did not need to drop the bombs on civilians, you could have dropped one off the coast on a fleet of ships for example as a warning to end the war…
Actually the fact it took not one, but two atomic bomb drops, to get the Japanese to surrender indicates otherwise. Hiroshima was dropped on the 6th of August 1945. Despite losing an entire from just one bomb, the Japanese leadership insisted-convinced itself it was some kind of one-off.
So on the 9th of August a plutonium bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. But again the self-brainwashed, kamikaze, still Japanese leadership still dithered and nearly rebelled against their emperor for wanting peace!!! This coup (called the Kyūjō Incident) was actually attempted on the 14th of August en.wikipedia.org...ūjō_Incident
Finally on the 15th of August (having been threatened with another U.S 3rd atomic strike –something the U.S did not actually have, as it had actually temporarily run out) Japan surrendered. Your idea that Japan’s leadership would have been able to take seriously nuclear pyrotechnics as a warning, is therefore completely fanciful. It’s probably built on “left-wing” lies I’ve heard before.
Two (not one) cities needed to be destroyed, and even the threat from of third one did not stop that brainwashed Japanese military, commit from trying to commit treason (punishable by death) against their supposedly beloved emperor, to continue, what even (to them) must have become a clearly, totally futile, war. You urgently need to remember only a small part of world, thinks like you (just as I also take into calculation the same) Case in point…


Someone like you will reinvent the nuke? And be proud to conquer all pacifist countries????…. Well you sir, is precisely what is wrong with the world.
Unfortunately there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people like me. And we are the habit of reaching high office for many reason (not least) being prone to being more practical, than idealistic.
You can say people like me are what’s wrong with this world all you like, just as much as you can moan about earthquakes and weather storms. Complain all you like, but it does not change everyone in the worlds opinions, and therefore it does not make my group of ideological thinking disappear.
And (if) you act as if it does, then that (actually) makes your own views guilty of nothing less than delusional. And political delusion be it (well intentioned, like when a poorly armed Korea was invaded by a vicious Japan in 1901) or badly intentioned (like when Adolf went on the rampage throughout Europe) has been a source of real death & destruction, far more than it ever has been of real peace.

(Like all followers of a political belief) my way of thinking has been shared by leaders ever since the dawn of mankind, and all projections are, it will continue to be well into the distant future. Maybe you have something to say, that will prove that wrong? However…
The way I see it, my thinking has always been in government (across all nations, & cultures) far more than yours. Even if part of the world-culture believes as you do, it hardly makes this part immune, from those bits that don’t! And (should this be the case) would that make your own ideology far more idealist, than pragmatist? I.e. More as way of dreaming nice dreams, than finding honest solutions? –i.e. solutions that are “honest” as in actually being workable enough to be wise!!!

One Big Question
Will you agree with me, that if any at point in the future, a tyrant or aggressive rise in Chinese leadership (natural through the passage of time) was to lead to an invasion of Australia: Then quite regardless whether nuclear weapons were used against Australia (or not)
No military action whatsoever should be used against China. Instead any response to this action should consist of entirely peaceful methods (even though, the historical record also shows, a large country is more than capable of shrugging off, & ignoring all these peaceful methods, in all there forms) i.e. take Germany, or Soviet Russia and Western Europe.

For the Record: I do not support, nor have ever supported the way we conduct the (so-called) “war on terror” and I completely oppose current Western efforts to impose our versions of democracy, on a tribal society. I confess that ideologically I’d like to think it would work, but as a thinker, have looked at history seen that there is not a single case (of a Tribal Society anywhere on Earth) successfully, becoming a functional democracy. You have to remember the British Empire tried too, and failed in every Tribal Society it tried e.g. look at Zimbabwe & Kenya today. There isn’t a case of a tribal society successfully becoming a democracy anywhere, the closest I’ve known is South Africa –today, effectively, a one party state. So on this at least, we agree.





new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join