[Brett Haven]

There is quote said many many times in defense of the USMC and its studious military reputation. "Freedom is not free, but the U.S. Marine Corps will pay most of your share".

I am a US Marine, and even thought we disagree on these subjects, if called to do so I will defend you and your right to freedom with rifle in hand. You may not like me, but people like you are allowed to think freely because of people like me.

[Surffrog]

As I have said many times, America will always find itself damned if it does and damned if it doesn't.

Countries beg the US for military aid, complaining when they won't grant it, and then complaining bitterly when the job isn't carried out fast enough in their eyes, when aid is granted. Sadly this will always be the plight of the US because you (as a country) have put yourself in that position. Brett, you are quite right. People find themselves in a position to lay criticism because others (like yourself) provide us with protection, be they American soldiers or British, Australian, etc. As I see it these days, while you probably fight from within your own unit, you are fighting collectively. That too should be recognised. United we stand divided we fall.

Now, sorry to be a pain, but could we please stop going off on tangents and get back to the wonderfully thorny issue of North Korea. Perhaps as a new direction, I could ask the Americans among us to give their long term view of this region and how they would deal with it if they were in power.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Brett Haven

Tell me the last time the US ever went to war anywhere and laid claim to that land for personal gain. Or the last time we invaded a country in a effort to do anything less than help oppressed people. Usually by their own government.

Well its all semantics isnt it.
How about
Korea, Vietnam, Iraq 2, Afghanistan.

Sure these were to help oppressed people, but also just as much about pushing down a power that you didnt like. Many would argue it has been much more about "the enemy" rather than helping the locals.
Really - if you think Afghanistan was about helping the people there and not revenge, showing might and wanting to do something - well then I got a bridge you might like to buy (one owner - slightly used by a hundred thousand people a day!)

The US has readily sent forces to the aid of its friends numerous times.

As has Australia. Probably more times than the US.

If you think for one minute that the Taliban are democratic and would openly accept compromise then you are sadly mistaken.

Wow - what difference does it make if they are democratic or not?

I urge you to research their history and mentality. If you find that they are just a misunderstood peaceful people then why not invite them all to Australia? Would you want them creating a presence in your country?

We have quite a few Aghans here already.
While I dont agree with the Taliban and how they run the place, that doesnt mean I think we should remove them with force.

A nuke is not the only defense a country can have. There are many many weapons that incur freight in enemies. Laser guided missiles, stealth fighters, ect......

Do you think that they could develop any of these weapons?
What could they possibly develop that would make them feel safe from a US invasion?
Why do places like North Korea and Iran feel like they need protection from a US invasion??

The people at the local pub decide that you aren't the type person they like. They all ride over to your house and kill your family while you watch. Then run into hiding when you start fighting back. I'd think you would have a grudge and seek them out the rest of your life. If not.... then I honestly feel sorry for you and hope you decide to fight for right.

Yeah because people in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and North Korea have killed your friends.
What are you smoking?

Do you try to kill the pope and invade the Vatican because some fundamentalist Christians somewhere killed some people at an abortion clinic?

Or using your example above - this group runs and hides in a suburb. So you get all your friends and go in and take over the suburb, killing many innocent people in the hope of flushing out some of this gang.
But the families of those you kill will be happy because you have freed them (some of them, you killed the others)

America is the world police, and has been for decades. We aren't a gang either. We are simply looking to make the world a better place for everyone, including us.

Sure!

I strongly disagree with the sentiment that you are doing any of this for others. US military actions since ww2 have been about stopping/removing some group from power because they are anti-american.

Even if it was about helping people, I just strongly disagree with how you do it.
Invading some countries and threatening others is not how to improve the world.

And I still havent seen you give an argument for why one country has the right to say to another country that they cant have certain weapons.
Why should a country have the right to tell another what it can and cant do?

It isn't easy being on top in anything. Especially if you just happen to be wealthy nation who has the most powerful military. Not everyone will like you, and thats fine.

But it would be nice if some respected you - especially your friends.
Look at the whole "freedom fries" and disrespect of France simply because they didnt agree with you.
The "you are with us or against us" - another very disrepectful thing.
America under Bush was very arrogant. Sure you are the biggest and can get away with that sort of stuff. But it doesnt win friends. Trying to improve the world through military might and intimidation is not going to work. Sure you might have some short term gains, but

BTW - saw an interesting show on tv last night.
Reel Bad Arab - a doco about US media and their portrayal of Arabs and Muslims. Not hard to see why many americans could be considered brain-washed into a fear/hatred of Arabs.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Brett Haven

I am a US Marine, and even thought we disagree on these subjects, if called to do so I will defend you and your right to freedom with rifle in hand. You may not like me, but people like you are allowed to think freely because of people like me.

You can believe that.

Personally I think the world is a more hateful and dangerous place because of the actions of your military.

I dont hate or blame the people holding the weapons - they are doing the job they believe is important.
But I wont agree that my freedom has anything to do with what you are doing.

[denzee]

Unbelievable dicknose...that's all I'm saying.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

But it would be nice if some respected you - especially your friends.
Look at the whole "freedom fries" and disrespect of France simply because they didnt agree with you.

Not a good example, Dicknose. Nobody likes the French.

[sidmarklong]

How about we just let thing's go just the way they are. Let us Americans go back home, stop knocking down these power's that SUPPOSEDLY, don't agree with us. Let all these countries go on, and do what they are going to do. Professionally, it would be a good idea. Let the terrany increase for a while. Maybe, launch a few more practice missiles. Let the 5000+ centrifuges make more uranium 235, and plutonium for neuclear power plants?! Maybe just go back home and just let everybody do there thing. Might be a good thing. Might even be better to prove a point. I suppose even close our boarders. Don't want to let anybody in that might not agree with us, and our way of living. Probably don't want our money over there either. You can get everything from your selves. We, (USA), dont need to be the police at all. You European Union type have enough fire power to do it. Sound's pretty good to me. Just let that crap go on. I dont want to do it anymore and get my rep all waxed out by the media.

[sidmarklong]

Sheep!!!!!!! BAAA!BAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by denzee

Unbelievable dicknose...that's all I'm saying.

There you go again!!

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

Let us Americans go back home, stop knocking down these power's that SUPPOSEDLY, don't agree with us. Let all these countries go on, and do what they are going to do.

Might not be a bad idea.

There are other ways to affect change other than might and fear.


So now NK has supposedly tested a nuclear device - do you think the US will invade it? Or even threaten to invade?
Has this bomb bought them security or will it just bring more risk to their country?

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Might not be a bad idea.

There are other ways to affect change other than might and fear.


So now NK has supposedly tested a nuclear device - do you think the US will invade it? Or even threaten to invade?
Has this bomb bought them security or will it just bring more risk to their country?

Personally I think it has bought them breathing space. The Chinese have a personal agenda in not getting involved because they don't want others sticking their noses into their affairs; the Russian, too.

Sadly, Dicknose, if the US don't keep pushing NK for more transparency none of us will know what the hell is going on there - we don't know much as it is. Now we all know we don't always like the methods the US uses to conduct its investigations, interrogations, wars, etc. But if we don't like it that much then our countries should be doing one fu*k of a lot more to find out instead of pussy-footing around while having ago at the Americans for doing what it is we know we should be doing but haven't got the political balls to do.

[denzee]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Personally I think it has bought them breathing space. The Chinese have a personal agenda in not getting involved because they don't want others sticking their noses into their affairs; the Russian, too.

Sadly, Dicknose, if the US don't keep pushing NK for more transparency none of us will know what the hell is going on there - we don't know much as it is. Now we all know we don't always like the methods the US uses to conduct its investigations, interrogations, wars, etc. But if we don't like it that much then our countries should be doing one fu*k of a lot more to find out instead of pussy-footing around while having ago at the Americans for doing what it is we know we should be doing but haven't got the political balls to do.

You are bang on Surf. As someone said earlier that the US are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Other countries sit back and let the big guy on the block monitor these things and get critisized for it. Now NK did an underground nuclear test yesterday that appeared successful so they are close now (or there) to popping a nuclear warhead on a missile and bingo, they're in the game. To suggest that because the US and Russia have nuclear weapons, who are they to dictate what countries can't is utter nonsense.

I wish the Americans and their allies like the British, Canadians and a few others would pull out of everything and let the cards fall as they may, however I think the world in general will be the loser in such a senerio.

[sidmarklong]

Your a week person Dicknose. But, you know what, how about you just go over there and just have that, "other way", wack at it and see what happens. Your so smart and intelligent you ought to be able to think of a way to perswade NK Kim into thinking he doesn't need neuclear weapons. Go and try talking to the Iranian president too for us. You will probably come up with that perfect word that will change both these psycho's minds. Yeah, better diplomacy oughtta do it . It might not occure to you right now, however this better diplomacy thing and better way idea has been going on for the past twenty years. How long? before people like you will realize that it doesnt work and is not working. What?! Maybe, we just dont have enough compassion, or maybe we have been using the wrong people. OOOOOPS! sorry, maybe I am just another sarcastic, egotistic, negetive, warmongering individual.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

Your a week person Dicknose.

Your a month person!

But, you know what, how about you just go over there and just have that, "other way", wack at it and see what happens. Your so smart and intelligent you ought to be able to think of a way to perswade NK Kim into thinking he doesn't need neuclear weapons. Go and try talking to the Iranian president too for us. You will probably come up with that perfect word that will change both these psycho's minds. Yeah, better diplomacy oughtta do it .

It might.
Heck as I said above a radical solution would be to give them a nuke.
Having a single nuke and no ability to make more would give them some feeling of security.

It might not occure to you right now, however this better diplomacy thing and better way idea has been going on for the past twenty years.

Yeah sure!
There has been sabre rattling from both sides for a long while.
In the last 20 years how many times has the US had its military sitting right next to Iran or Korea?
How happy would you be if they put a dozen warships in the gulf of mexico?
Oh thats right - the last time someone did something like put missiles near the US (in Cuba) it all came very close to starting a war.

How long? before people like you will realize that it doesnt work and is not working. What?! Maybe, we just dont have enough compassion, or maybe we have been using the wrong people. OOOOOPS! sorry, maybe I am just another sarcastic, egotistic, negetive, warmongering individual.

So what should be done.
If negotiating isnt working then how will saying "you cant have nukes" work - that is a negotiation. If there is negotiation then its just an ultimation - how well will that work if you dont even think negotiations will work.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by denzee

Now NK did an underground nuclear test yesterday that appeared successful so they are close now (or there) to popping a nuclear warhead on a missile and bingo, they're in the game.

Ok - so they are now in the game.
So what?

What do you suggest that the world does about it?

To suggest that because the US and Russia have nuclear weapons, who are they to dictate what countries can't is utter nonsense.

Why is it utter nonsense?
Why does it make any sense that one nation can say to another "you cant have this weapon"?
Sure I can see the concept of banning some weapons completely - attempts have been done to do that with mines and cluster style bombs.
Similarly the world has agreements on treating prisoners of war.

But how is it nonsense to say that no country has the right to say to another country "you cant have that weapon that we have"??
What legal or even moral right do we have to do that?
What is NK says "the US isnt to have nukes" or even "isnt allowed to have ships in the Sea of Japan"? Would you expect the US to do what NK tells them to do?

I wish the Americans and their allies like the British, Canadians and a few others would pull out of everything and let the cards fall as they may, however I think the world in general will be the loser in such a senerio.

Those allies would include Australia.
As for just acting - starting wars just to get what you want is evil. What has NK done to us? Sure its a threat, but by your very statement above you are admitting that the US and its allies are a threat to them. By your own logic they should be entitled to attack us first out of self defense.

Dont you understand the symmetry of this situation - both sides are a threat to the other. The only difference for you is that you only seem capable of seeing it from your own perspective.

And Im still amazed that a so called Christian is keen to kill people while an atheist is the one who is anti killing possibly thousands to millions of innocent people. What would Jesus do?

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by denzee

You are bang on Surf. As someone said earlier that the US are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Yep, that was me who said that.

Originally Posted by denzee

Other countries sit back and let the big guy on the block monitor these things and get critisized for it. Now NK did an underground nuclear test yesterday that appeared successful so they are close now (or there) to popping a nuclear warhead on a missile and bingo, they're in the game. To suggest that because the US and Russia have nuclear weapons, who are they to dictate what countries can't is utter nonsense.

Well, lets please remember that France, Pakistan, India and China also have nuclear capability, too. So that's at least six countries (the UK's nuclear weapons system is paired with the US) with potentially different views on the subject. If all five were in agreement that North Korea shouldn't have it there would most certainly be grounds for further debate. However, it is none too clear (forget what we hear publicly) as to the stance of those countries.

I know one thing for sure. If I were Japan or South Korea, I'd be deeply concerned by yesterday's development.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Well, lets please remember that France, Pakistan, India and China also have nuclear capability, too. So that's at least six countries (the UK's nuclear weapons system is paired with the US) with potentially different views on the subject.

Also throw in Israel - its not "proven" but has been assumed for many years.

If all five were in agreement that North Korea shouldn't have it there would most certainly be grounds for further debate. However, it is none too clear (forget what we hear publicly) as to the stance of those countries.

Still not sure why it would depend on just those countries.
Why should the "haves" make a decision for the "have-nots"

Russia and China seem to have very different views on NK than the US.
They dont want NK to be a nuclear power - but they also dont want to threaten NK or put them in a corner.

The only world body that comes close to having any moral right is the UN.
It has no legal right - unless you sign up to its nuclear agreement then it doesnt have any rights over you (and Im not sure but you could probably un-sign)
And the UN has some serious flaws (the security council is a joke with its permanent members and veto power). The US also has shown a willingness to bypass the UN which weakens any moral grounds for saying "do this because the UN says so" - picking and choosing when to listen to the umpire isnt a good starting point for using that same umpire on others.

I know one thing for sure. If I were Japan or South Korea, I'd be deeply concerned by yesterday's development.

Any more concerned than North Korea was when Bush put them on notice as part of the axis of evil?
Sure invading NK is a big step up from Iraq, but it was being talked about as a possibility (which quickly disappeared when the reality of "holding" Iraq became obvious)

The last newspaper report I read (about another missile test) referred to a Washington based expert on Korea who says that these displays are more about internal support and PR than they are about international sabre rattling. Another comment...
"John Bolton, a hawkish former US ambassador to the United Nations, told AFP the North wants nuclear weapons because it is motivated by the desire to preserve its isolated dictatorship, and has no interest in nuclear diplomacy."

Not that saying that makes Japan feel any safer.
But its easy to see that wanting nukes doesnt mean you want to fire them at Japan or America.
It can be about self protection, from other countries but also from other powers within the country by promoting it as a great achievement for the country. Much easier and cheaper to do than putting a man into space.

And I gather the US is not so worried about NK using a nuke, more worried about them selling bits, technology or worse - a bomb.
Negotiations with NK would be far better spent on them agreeing to not help spread nuclear weapons and technology rather than trying to get them to give up what they most likely already have.

And to those who say that negotiations cant work - how come NK has been willing at times to negotiate? Sure negotiations have broken down several times, but not all of these have been due to NK changing its mind.
While they dont seem in the mood to negotiate at the moment (they havent released "demands" before any of these tests) its possible that they are positioning themselves to have a stronger seat at the table for any future negotiations. They probably feel coming to the table with "have a bomb" is a better position than "developing a bomb".

And realise - I dont think NK having a bomb is a good thing.
But I dont see any morally defensible argument for why some countries could demand another country to not have a weapon.

[sidmarklong]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Your a month person!


It might.
Heck as I said above a radical solution would be to give them a nuke.
Having a single nuke and no ability to make more would give them some feeling of security.



Yeah sure!
There has been sabre rattling from both sides for a long while.
In the last 20 years how many times has the US had its military sitting right next to Iran or Korea?
How happy would you be if they put a dozen warships in the gulf of mexico?
Oh thats right - the last time someone did something like put missiles near the US (in Cuba) it all came very close to starting a war.



So what should be done.
If negotiating isnt working then how will saying "you cant have nukes" work - that is a negotiation. If there is negotiation then its just an ultimation - how well will that work if you dont even think negotiations will work.

OKAY, SO, NOW YOU HAVE BEEN LEAD DOWN THIS PARTICULAR ROAD. Before you go any furhter, do take note; very soon a contradiction will occur, only very likely you won't see it in this comunication.
This particular time in our lives we are seeing events, that we all are now so far removed from, that not a single one of us will ever touch on anything that will work. It is all just a big smoke screen. For,"what", I do not know yet. Negotiation is alaway's a good way to go. However, success lies upon the player's in the negotiation game. None of the player's in this world game, actually believe, nor have any trust in the other. Both, or all player's have some sort of skeleton in the closet, all have some need of security/greed/control, and even pride,(as commical as that might be), truely a danger exist's. As for the factors involved, there more than you, or I can imagine, they effect each individual party and can be used to control an outcome of negotiation. As this is becoming more than I can stand to write about. I will pause here. One more Note; Some of us are closer to the events than others; this is not to say geographically, but in a more direct way.

[denzee]

[quote]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Ok - so they are now in the game.
So what?

What do you suggest that the world does about it?

There is not much anyone can do except to monitor and be sure they abide by the nuclear regulatory commission. As I said in a previous post, soon many rogue nations will obtain nuclear power.

Why is it utter nonsense?
Why does it make any sense that one nation can say to another "you cant have this weapon"?
Sure I can see the concept of banning some weapons completely - attempts have been done to do that with mines and cluster style bombs.
Similarly the world has agreements on treating prisoners of war.

But how is it nonsense to say that no country has the right to say to another country "you cant have that weapon that we have"??
What legal or even moral right do we have to do that?
What is NK says "the US isnt to have nukes" or even "isnt allowed to have ships in the Sea of Japan"? Would you expect the US to do what NK tells them to do?

I liken this to the world being a civilized community that has laws. Certain people (police) are allowed to carry arms. Some places allow other members of the community to carry. Known criminals or the bad in our society who want to inflict harm on others, are not allowed to have weapons of any kind, in a perfect world of course. They can't because either they have demonstrated by their own actions that they are not trustworthy or caused harm to others in the past. This would be any of the commiunist dictator countries or fascist governments like North Korea. Please don't insert here Dicknose how bad the US is either. Not interested in hearing that rant again.

Those allies would include Australia.

Sorry I didn't specifically mention Australia as I support all Ally efforts.

As for just acting - starting wars just to get what you want is evil. What has NK done to us? Sure its a threat, but by your very statement above you are admitting that the US and its allies are a threat to them. By your own logic they should be entitled to attack us first out of self defense.

I am not suggesting going to war with NK and I don't know where you got that from. When I was referring to Allies, it was more as it related to the Middle East. War is not a reasonable option at all with NK. Anything that can be done will have to be through diplomatic efforts I believe. You sure have a way of twisting things up Dicknose. Where is my logic that they should be able to attack us first out of self defense?

Dont you understand the symmetry of this situation - both sides are a threat to the other. The only difference for you is that you only seem capable of seeing it from your own perspective.

I see just fine thank you but nuclear proliferation must be controled at every point where possible. One can only imagine what happens when, and it will, get in the wrong hands. This should be the job of the UN but that's a whole other topic.

And Im still amazed that a so called Christian is keen to kill people while an atheist is the one who is anti killing possibly thousands to millions of innocent people. What would Jesus do?

Another twist dicknose. Being a Christian has nothing to do with it. Protecting our planet, my Country, my home and my family are what I'm concerned about. If it means using force to weed out the bad apples then I'm all for it. I personally am happy we have the United States to watch over these things. Yes they have made mistakes but at least they are trying. Curious Dicknose, have you ever been to the US?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

OKAY, SO, NOW YOU HAVE BEEN LEAD DOWN THIS PARTICULAR ROAD. Before you go any furhter, do take note; very soon a contradiction will occur, only very likely you won't see it in this comunication.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

This particular time in our lives we are seeing events, that we all are now so far removed from, that not a single one of us will ever touch on anything that will work. It is all just a big smoke screen. For,"what", I do not know yet.

Sure - these problems arent trivial and may never be "solved".
Instead of solving, the aim should be to improve the situation.

None of the player's in this world game, actually believe, nor have any trust in the other. Both, or all player's have some sort of skeleton in the closet, all have some need of security/greed/control, and even pride,(as commical as that might be), truely a danger exist's.

That still doesnt mean you need to jump from negotiation to attack or even sanctions.
You cant fix problems instantly - but again, work towards improvement.
So you need to recognise others fears, pride, greed etc
But its better to do that and try and see how the other side thinks/feels than it is to go in with the attitude of "they are wrong and evil" - that will never lead anywhere good. Thats the big danger - that both sides think of the others are so radically different that you cant sympathise with them.

[dicknose]

[quote=denzee;816482]

I liken this to the world being a civilized community that has laws. Certain people (police) are allowed to carry arms. Some places allow other members of the community to carry. Known criminals or the bad in our society who want to inflict harm on others, are not allowed to have weapons of any kind, in a perfect world of course. They can't because either they have demonstrated by their own actions that they are not trustworthy or caused harm to others in the past. This would be any of the commiunist dictator countries or fascist governments like North Korea.

You may want to think of it that way - but thats your ideal, its not reality.
The world doesnt have much in the way of international laws.
There definitely isnt any law about having nuclear weapons (there are agreements, but you have to sign up to opt in)
Also no body decided/elected who would be the police.

There also isnt a body who says "you are a criminal and hence lose some rights". The UN and some other bodies do that for some stuff, but again without a central world authority there is no equivalent to domestic laws.
You can break a UN resolution and that doesnt mean you lose the right to have a weapon (otherwise Israel would be in trouble)

I am not suggesting going to war with NK and I don't know where you got that from.
...
You sure have a way of twisting things up Dicknose.
Where is my logic that they should be able to attack us first out of self defense?

You said "I think it's very important to keep nuclear power from rogue nations almost at all costs."
And "I wish the Americans and their allies like the British, Canadians and a few others would pull out of everything and let the cards fall as they may"
Maybe I didnt get the correct meaning, but it seemed that the implication is that we should be able to attack them to stop other countries getting nuclear weapons.
This is also Israels stated attitude to Iran.

My comment was assuming you meant this sort of this (war is allowed to stop a nation getting nukes). My logic is then - why should this only apply one way. Why can we say that about Iran or NK, yet they cant say the same about us?
Starting with "we are right, you are wrong" is not justification.
If you want to argue why we should stop them then you need to argue that. And if you want to argue how much force we should use, then again - argue on that point.
Your comments are so open ended that they seem to imply that any amount of force is justified but without any reasons why one side is allow to use this unlimited force and the other side is not.
An argument where I can just swap the words "USA" and "North Korea" and its the same argument is not a good argument!

I see just fine thank you but nuclear proliferation must be controled at every point where possible.

Missing the point.
Like I said just above - you dont seem to have an argument that cant be just turned around and used against the US.
Saying "The US should stop NK because they are bad" is not a good argument because you havent given any reasons.
I could swap it and say "NK should stop the US because they are bad" - same argument just reversed.
Now if you said something like "NK shouldnt have nukes because they have invaded other countries" - then there is an actual reason, not just a simple subjective "bad" call. The problem is that NK hasnt invaded or attacked anyone in a long while.

So can you give a reason why North Korea or Iran shouldnt be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Another twist dicknose. Being a Christian has nothing to do with it. Protecting our planet, my Country, my home and my family are what I'm concerned about. If it means using force to weed out the bad apples then I'm all for it.

See thats where I think it interesting.
Seems odd to me that a Christian would "use force" knowing it would kill innocent people. Sure you need to defend yourself, but anything pre-emptive like invade a country because they might be making a weapon is only vaguely defending yourself.
While I can see that there is an argument for this, it just surprises me that many Christians back the option that is "kill them before they kill us". Doesnt seem very Christian to me.

Curious Dicknose, have you ever been to the US?

Lived in Chicago for a while.
Been to 38 states.
How much of the US have you seen? Ive probably seen more of the US than most US citizens.

[denzee]

Originally Posted by dicknose

So can you give a reason why North Korea or Iran shouldnt be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

This one question supercedes the others as to why I haven't got time to answer this kind of garbage. This is the foundation of the debate and I can't believe an educated person would ask this question...sorry!

[BK]

Everyone has valid points here but let’s think about it... Aside from the threat of having a nuke (because THEY have one, WE need one) there is NOTHING DEFENSIVE about a nuke!!
Using a stick to hit a dog chewing on your arm? That's defensive. Shooting a dog half a kilometre away because he has pretty nasty looking teeth IS NOT! (Yes, before you all shout hippie, I regularly shoot vermin on my farm)

Maybe nobody should have nukes?? What benefit do they give mankind on the whole?? Yes, nuclear technology should be developed for power production etc but nuclear weapons are an OFFENSIVE weapon. You don't kill an intruder in your home with a grenade; you lob one over the fence into the neighbour’s yard.

Let’s look at steroids and the Olympics. Everyone on the whole agrees to ban them and so any cheater, while yes, they have an advantage, are soon opposed by EVERYONE as a whole as soon as discovered and stopped.

Now, same situation.. except this time a select few are ALLOWED to use steroids and somebody that isn't supposed to use them, does just that (to even the playing field of course).
But then as you’d expect, the accepted steroid user opposes this (as they lose their decided advantage) and so rallies up the other accepted steroid users (which then collectively bully the compliant non users) to stop the unaccepted user from using steroids.

Now how is this defiant user to take this seriously?? Pumped up steroid users telling them not to use steroids??!!!!! Haha, i'd tell them to f*ck off too!

No, my nation does not have nuclear weapons. Yes we have some fantastic minerals we could mine and produce these. Yes, our nuclear technology should be advanced, but, in non weapon related technologies...

I for one am happy Australia doesn’t have nuclear arms

On a side note, if Australia were to develop and test nuclear weapons, would everyone here just be cool with it??

[MACI4LIFE]

the NK are like little kids trying to get the attention they think they deserve. The country is in ruins and they hope that more chest thumping will get them the supplies they need.

I say ignore them. Their leader will die soon, and maybe then dialogue can really happen.

The NK know that it would be suicide to attack anyone.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by BK

Everyone has valid points here but let’s think about it... Aside from the threat of having a nuke (because THEY have one, WE need one) there is NOTHING DEFENSIVE about a nuke!!

Since the US fired something similar to a nuclear weapon (the atomics bomb), I would argue they have, until recently, proved very effect as a defensive tool.

Originally Posted by BK

Maybe nobody should have nukes?? What benefit do they give mankind on the whole?? Yes, nuclear technology should be developed for power production etc but nuclear weapons are an OFFENSIVE weapon. You don't kill an intruder in your home with a grenade; you lob one over the fence into the neighbour’s yard.

Using your analogy, I believe in this case the grenade would be the nuclear missile. I personally can't see a scenario where any government would fire one into their own territory. You're not making much sense here, but perhaps I've just misunderstood.

Originally Posted by BK

Let’s look at steroids and the Olympics. Everyone on the whole agrees to ban them and so any cheater, while yes, they have an advantage, are soon opposed by EVERYONE as a whole as soon as discovered and stopped.

Now, same situation.. except this time a select few are ALLOWED to use steroids and somebody that isn't supposed to use them, does just that (to even the playing field of course).
But then as you’d expect, the accepted steroid user opposes this (as they lose their decided advantage) and so rallies up the other accepted steroid users (which then collectively bully the compliant non users) to stop the unaccepted user from using steroids.

Now how is this defiant user to take this seriously?? Pumped up steroid users telling them not to use steroids??!!!!! Haha, i'd tell them to f*ck off too!

Well, the fact is that IF a country armed with a nuclear weapon were to point it at a country without one and no friends to back it up, that country wouldn't have a choice but to take "this defiant user" seriously. Of course it can tell that country to f*ck off, but it wouldn't be a particularly wise move within the analogy you've given here, now would it?

Originally Posted by BK

No, my nation does not have nuclear weapons. Yes we have some fantastic minerals we could mine and produce these. Yes, our nuclear technology should be advanced, but, in non weapon related technologies...

Unfortunately, once you have the technology to produce power for your country it is, figuratively speaking, easy to convert it to nuclear weapon technology. Therein, as the bard says, lies the rub!

Originally Posted by BK

I for one am happy Australia doesn’t have nuclear arms

On a side note, if Australia were to develop and test nuclear weapons, would everyone here just be cool with it??

Well, there is something you might not have considered. With new potential threats on the horizon (new countries with nuclear weapons technology) to Australia, you may well end up getting it whether you like it or not if only to restore a balance of power in the region. That will no doubt p*ss of a few Aussie coal miners at the same time.

[dr256]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Well, the fact is that IF a country armed with a nuclear weapon were to point it at a country without one and no friends to back it up, that country wouldn't have a choice but to take "this defiant user" seriously. Of course it can tell that country to f*ck off, but it wouldn't be a particularly wise move within the analogy you've given here, now would it?

But isn't this, in some respects, exactly what North Korea IS doing?
I kinda think yes. And lets face it they can. I mean what are we gonna do - nuke them? Invade them?
No...all we can do is stop selling them stuff and stop buying their stuff.

[BK]

[quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BK http://www.fireblades.org/forums/ima...s/viewpost.gif
Everyone has valid points here but let’s think about it... Aside from the threat of having a nuke (because THEY have one, WE need one) there is NOTHING DEFENSIVE about a nuke!!

Since the US fired something similar to a nuclear weapon (the atomics bomb), I would argue they have, until recently, proved very effect as a defensive tool.

This is my point, it's only defensive as an intimidation. Destroying a couple cities really isn't very defensive now is it? It's seems you go by the rule "the best defense is a good offense" I don't care how effective it is, it's still offensive

Quote:
Originally Posted by BK http://www.fireblades.org/forums/ima...s/viewpost.gif
Maybe nobody should have nukes?? What benefit do they give mankind on the whole?? Yes, nuclear technology should be developed for power production etc but nuclear weapons are an OFFENSIVE weapon. You don't kill an intruder in your home with a grenade; you lob one over the fence into the neighbour’s yard.

Using your analogy, I believe in this case the grenade would be the nuclear missile. I personally can't see a scenario where any government would fire one into their own territory. You're not making much sense here, but perhaps I've just misunderstood.

That's my point, they're only used to attack other territories, not defend your own soil. Well done, good pickup....

Quote:
Originally Posted by BK http://www.fireblades.org/forums/ima...s/viewpost.gif
Let’s look at steroids and the Olympics. Everyone on the whole agrees to ban them and so any cheater, while yes, they have an advantage, are soon opposed by EVERYONE as a whole as soon as discovered and stopped.

Now, same situation.. except this time a select few are ALLOWED to use steroids and somebody that isn't supposed to use them, does just that (to even the playing field of course).
But then as you’d expect, the accepted steroid user opposes this (as they lose their decided advantage) and so rallies up the other accepted steroid users (which then collectively bully the compliant non users) to stop the unaccepted user from using steroids.

Now how is this defiant user to take this seriously?? Pumped up steroid users telling them not to use steroids??!!!!! Haha, i'd tell them to f*ck off too!

Well, the fact is that IF a country armed with a nuclear weapon were to point it at a country without one and no friends to back it up, that country wouldn't have a choice but to take "this defiant user" seriously. Of course it can tell that country to f*ck off, but it wouldn't be a particularly wise move within the analogy you've given here, now would it?

that's what i'm saying is the problem, didn't say it was possible (due to everyone's own agendas) but if there were to be no Nukes and just possessing them were to be an act of aggression and everyone was united in standing against anybody having ANY, doesn't matter who they point it at. If the whole world's ready to act against them (even with no nukes) it's suicide anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BK http://www.fireblades.org/forums/ima...s/viewpost.gif
No, my nation does not have nuclear weapons. Yes we have some fantastic minerals we could mine and produce these. Yes, our nuclear technology should be advanced, but, in non weapon related technologies...

Unfortunately, once you have the technology to produce power for your country it is, figuratively speaking, easy to convert it to nuclear weapon technology. Therein, as the bard says, lies the rub!

who says you have to convert it to weapons? If your enemies don't have them (in a perfect world, and no I don't think it'll ever happen) you need not cross that line. If everyone stopped with the "my stick's bigger than yours" type attitude and rely more on allies support (allies witout Nukes) you're still strong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BK http://www.fireblades.org/forums/ima...s/viewpost.gif
I for one am happy Australia doesn’t have nuclear arms

On a side note, if Australia were to develop and test nuclear weapons, would everyone here just be cool with it??

Well, there is something you might not have considered. With new potential threats on the horizon (new countries with nuclear weapons technology) to Australia, you may well end up getting it whether you like it or not if only to restore a balance of power in the region. That will no doubt p*ss of a few Aussie coal miners at the same time.

Yes, many Aussies will have thought of this but really, we'd rather just have a beer and chill out with our 2 or 3 tanks and hope that not having any nukes doesn't make us a tasty target better to invest time and money on DEFENDING from a nuke attack rather than DETERRING by having your own.

If someone's throwing rocks at you and there's not a chance one will get you, no needto throw any back... Just have a beer and wait for them to run out of rocks

[Brett Haven]

Sounds to me like they just want to use it for defensive means..... that was a joke.

washingtonpost.com
"Those who provoke [North Korea] once will not be able to escape its unimaginable and merciless punishment," the North's official news agency said.

Once ??? Provoke ??? Sounds like they are just waiting to use their new found power doesn't it?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by BK

This is my point, it's only defensive as an intimidation. Destroying a couple cities really isn't very defensive now is it?

Ignoring the first 2 atomic bombs, historically nuclear weapon have been defensive as an intimidation.
So saying "it's only defensive as an intimidation" is exactly the point - that has been the only use of atom bombs since the end of ww2

It's seems you go by the rule "the best defense is a good offense" I don't care how effective it is, it's still offensive

Yes its offensive - but if you never actually plan to use it but just want the threat of it then it can be considered a defense.
Its worked to stop anyone having a nuke from ever being attacked/invaded.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Since the US fired something similar to a nuclear weapon (the atomics bomb)

Atomic bombs are nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia are the only places to have hydrogen bombs, which are better described as thermonuclear weapons.