[dicknose]

Originally Posted by denzee

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!

I was about to say "I cant believe you cant understand this question!" but actually I can believe you just dont understand the problem.

Stop thinking self-centred.

The question is not "why dont YOU want NK to have nuclear weapons".
Because that is easy - I also dont want them to have them.

What Im trying to get you do understand is that when there is a disagreement its pointless to argue by saying "I want this".
Unless you are the surpreme ruler of the planet, who says your opinion (or the US govt's) is more important than North Korea's opinion.

Think of it this way - you and NK go to Judge Judy for her to decide if they should be allowed to have atomic bombs.
What would you say to her?
What would you say that NK couldnt counter by saying "but they also did that"
eg if you say "they could fire it at the USA", they simply reply back "we wont, but the US could fire a nuke at us"
or "NK are a rogue nation" - they come back with "the US is a rogue nation, they have invaded countries"

What argument can you give to an impartial judge that would show why North Korea shouldnt have the bomb?

My point is that I cant see any good argument that isnt selfish.
While I dont want them to have these weapons, Im defendening the basic right of "freedom of countries" - the concept that one country shouldnt dictact what another country can and cant do.
Someone from the US should understand the concept of "rights and freedom". So you need a very good argument (not just a selfish one) as to why one (or even a number) of countries should restrict the rights of another country. Even more so when its to restrict them from doing something that your country has alreay done.

Is that clear enough for the uneducated?

[BK]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Atomic bombs are nuclear weapons.

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

^^^ What you said.

And thankyou dicknose, you just agreed that they're not actually a defensive weapon, which is my whole point.

Defenses against such weapons is where development needs to be made. Put an electric fence around your property, nobody bats an eyelid, patrol your fenceline with a rifle threatering everything in range (whist maybe effective) would be frowned upon and just raises tension and provokes people.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by BK

And thankyou dicknose, you just agreed that they're not actually a defensive weapon, which is my whole point.

99% of weapons are offensive.
Unless its an "anti-something" weapon then its an offensive weapon.

But atom bombs have been considered a defensive weapon, in that since ww2 they have never been used in anger and proliferated to maintain an arms war.
They exist for 2 reasons
- for US and Russia to have enough to stop them from using them on each other
- for them and other places to have a weapon so powerful that any non-nuclear country would not attack them

Look at the Falklands War - the UK never considered using an atom bomb on Argentina. If this was an offensive weapon - then why would you use it?

So yes its offensive by nature, but defensive (deterrent) by use.
It pretty common convention to refer to them as defensive - but of cause that doesnt mean that some country cant get one and use it offensively. But it is quite acceptable to argue that someone could want one for defensive purposes (especially defense against a much superior military opponent)

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by BK

Defenses against such weapons is where development needs to be made. Put an electric fence around your property, nobody bats an eyelid, patrol your fenceline with a rifle threatering everything in range (whist maybe effective) would be frowned upon and just raises tension and provokes people.

Problem is that its hard to near impossible to defend against this sort of weapon.

Its power is so great that passive methods (shield, hide) dont work.
Combined with a missile its very hard to stop it - especially if there is a very short flight time (so defending Japan against NK would be near impossible - defending USA from Russia is just extremely hard and expensive)
Dropping it from a plane, especially as a first strike, would be hard to stop. Mount in a commerical plane, fly it over somewhere and they would have to decide to shoot down your plane before it got close. A very tough call for a country to do. Easy if you know its got a nuke, not so easy if this is a sneak attack.

The US realised that "star wars" was never going to work, was going to be massively expensive and in the end was just going to start another round of arms race.

Defense against atomic missiles is mostly - make sure the other guy knows that firing one means he will be wiped out. MAD.

[sidmarklong]

As for defensive weapons; we now have weapons that can do a far more effective defensive and offensive form of battle and protection. It is not a neccessity to have a neuclear weapon at all for any country now. Russia, China, England, USA, Israel, and few other countries in the European Union have these weapons, either under development or already developed and usable. It is not neccessary, for anyone to think we need to use a neuclear weapon for anything anymore. The US stopped testing and making back in the 70's at least. What ever we have is of neglageable consequence. Yep, there are a few subs with em on board. Thats it. For the most part anybody running more than 2500 centrfuges to make Urainium and Plutonium to make core rods, is doing it with intention. Making Plutonium for Power Plant core rods is overkill. There are over 5000 centrifuges running in Iran. A country who's President has specifically stated that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth and his country will do it. This is a sound note of alarm. I don't care if he was just saying to rattle a sabber.
The fact that the USA has used a neuclear bomb twice is not a good thing to balance against this debate. The very fact that it was used is exactly why we dont want it to happen again. To Identify a country as a rouge country is not quite right either. To Identify the equipment being shipped, assembled for a purpose that is clearly showne, by way of configuration and use, to be exactly for the purpose of weapons grade production is a whole different subject. This is what the negotiation and hard stance is all about. For Iran, or North Korea to be threatened in any way is a complete and total false ploy. Their main objective is to creat the cappabillity to perform the neuclear holicost that everyone is trying there damdest to stop. No, it is not the big boy's who are the threat. It is what the big boy's realize from the past that makes them the one's who whish to control at the very least what happens with Atomic energy.
You'll have allot to say about this, I am sure Dicknose. However, you won't be able to change what is happenning and no one is smart enough to fully understand what is going on here. Your way of thinking is going down the wrong road . You have clearlly fallen for the false reports and false media. Unless you see these events first hand, "I dont think so", you like me, could not know the inner workings of this convolutted and twisted sittuation.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

As for defensive weapons; we now have weapons that can do a far more effective defensive and offensive form of battle and protection. It is not a neccessity to have a neuclear weapon at all for any country now. Russia, China, England, USA, Israel, and few other countries in the European Union have these weapons, either under development or already developed and usable. It is not neccessary, for anyone to think we need to use a neuclear weapon for anything anymore.

I think your logic is correct for most of the current (pre-NK) nuclear powers.
They dont need the nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent.
No one is going to invade Russia, USA, China, England or France.

But saying that the US doesnt need it as a threat doesnt mean the logic doesnt apply to other countries.

Israel is more interesting and probably the least likely to give up atomic weapons. They consider them a very important defensive threat.
Id probably also throw Pakistan in as well (they want the bomb because India got it)

I dont think its a big stretch to see that Iran could want one for the same reason as Israel - so that "the other side" wont invade.

There are over 5000 centrifuges running in Iran. A country who's President has specifically stated that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth and his country will do it. This is a sound note of alarm. I don't care if he was just saying to rattle a sabber.

And at the same time Israel has said it has the right to attack Iran if they attempt to make atomic weapons.
Iran complained to the UN this year about Israel's threats to attack them.

Both sides are happy to say they will attack the other.

To Identify a country as a rouge country is not quite right either. To Identify the equipment being shipped, assembled for a purpose that is clearly showne, by way of configuration and use, to be exactly for the purpose of weapons grade production is a whole different subject. This is what the negotiation and hard stance is all about.

Yes but that all comes back to .... what law stops them from making a bomb?
Does this law say "its illegal for Iran to make a bomb" but also says "but its ok for France or USA to make them"

For Iran, or North Korea to be threatened in any way is a complete and total false ploy. Their main objective is to creat the cappabillity to perform the neuclear holicost that everyone is trying there damdest to stop.

No - you are saying that they want to start a nuclear holocaust.
That is not their stated objective.
The official US position and that of most US experts is that North Korea is unlikely to ever use an atomic weapon. Their big fear is more that they could on-sell a weapon, fissionable material or other technology.

It is what the big boy's realize from the past that makes them the one's who whish to control at the very least what happens with Atomic energy.

Sure the big boys want to control it.
But wanting to do something and having any legal or moral right to do it are different matters!

You have clearlly fallen for the false reports and false media.

Yes and Im sure you are widely read on the topic from sources with different prospectives and agendas.
I can clearly tell that from your posts.

Unless you see these events first hand, "I dont think so", you like me, could not know the inner workings of this convolutted and twisted sittuation.

Sure Im not the world expert.

But Im just stating the point
- the USA or any other country doesnt have any right to dictate what weapons another country has.

Sure if the whole world gets together and says no, then I think there would be grounds for it.

I dont think NK should have atomic weapons. I think Iran having them is a much bigger risk. But the very act to telling them they cant have them could be considered an act of aggression. Certainly threatening them with military force makes it all the more desirable for them to have the weapon.
It becomes a self fullfilling prophecy.

If their need for the weapon is protection or at least a feeling of protection, then our aim should be to remove their desire for the weapon, rather than trying to stop them by threat or force.
Its quite simple logic!

[dr256]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Its worked to stop anyone having a nuke from ever being attacked/invaded.

Not quite correct and being pedantic for a mo...

What about 9/11?
This was a direct attack on the most powerful nation on earth. Killing near 3,000 people, in the heart of America's financial power centre.

What about the Mumbai train bombings in India? What about 7/7 in London? Even Russia, with around 5,000 active nuclear weapons and another 9,000 nukes stashed away somewhere has suffered a direct attack by a group or nation outside its borders. Of course there have also been terrorist or direct nation to nation attacks in Isreal and Pakistan.

All these nations have a nuclear capability, all of them have been attacked.

So while yes, the deterrent of a nuclear conflict may put off those who are equally as capable of wiping out a country, it has little and no effect on smaller nations, such as Palestine who attacked Israel, or militant groups such as Al Qaeda who don't really have anywhere to nuke!

Obviously I'm nit-picking but...and really I only raise the point because there seems to be an overriding opinion that nukes are some great wall of defense when really they only defend you from a nuclear attack from a rival nuclear capable power. And as everyone knows a nuclear war serves no purpose as there are no possible winners.

And the minute North Korea has one of these things sat on a launch pad and pointed at another nation it will have the same stark decision as all nuclear nations do.
Do I stop and find another route of attack, or do I push the button and risk absolute retaliatory obliteration?

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dr256

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.

Hopefully not. That haven't actually tied it all together just yet. If nothing is done to stop them building these things it basically means nothing will happen UNTIL NK (with or without little Kimmy at the helm) decides to do something about it. Not a strong position for the rest of us to be in.

As a consequence, I'm still in favour of the old saying, "Hope for the best but prepare for the worst."

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? 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.

Originally Posted by BK

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

Originally Posted by BK

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.

Originally Posted by BK

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.

Dicknose has covered most of these points eloquently enough without me repeating him. However, I will add this. If only one country has a handful of nuclear weapons and every other country decides to attack them on the basis that they have nuclear weapons, I promise you it will be a REALLY short war. The leader of the nuclear super power would only have to fire one missile on one city. When the smoke cleared and the damage could be viewed by the world all those other countries would back off. Period. So no, they could not be seriously considered strong. I believe the Americans have a great saying for this scenario:

"Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

Nobody says you have to convert these power plants to weapons making factories, it's just what seems to be happening. And you've answered your question right here: In a perfect world nobody has nuclear weapons and nobody wants to make them. Yet we live in the real world; a far darker and opaque political environment hangs over us all and we all, as human beings, have to get over the actions of the past carried out by people who are no longer living. Since no one here really believes that's going to happen, we find ourselves having to deal with the realities of brinkmanship and power-struggling.

Originally Posted by BK

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.

A good 90+ percent of the world feels the same way, BK, not just the Aussies. I for one am far happier sitting in my home in Thailand drinking beer and sleeping with a boatload of women or riding my bike. I can because others are out there protecting (either directly or indirectly) our interests by trying to make sure that some nut doesn't just make one of these things to fire it off and start something nobody can stop and for reasons most of us probably can't even fathom.

Originally Posted by dicknose

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

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.

Originally Posted by dicknose

Atomic bombs are nuclear weapons.

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

I am aware of this. However, I tried to make the distinction between the types of yesteryear and those in service today primarily due to the massive yield differences - so different in fact that they may as well not be considered the same.

Originally Posted by dicknose

Think of it this way - you and NK go to Judge Judy for her to decide if they should be allowed to have atomic bombs.
What would you say to her?
What would you say that NK couldnt counter by saying "but they also did that"
eg if you say "they could fire it at the USA", they simply reply back "we wont, but the US could fire a nuke at us"
or "NK are a rogue nation" - they come back with "the US is a rogue nation, they have invaded countries"

What argument can you give to an impartial judge that would show why North Korea shouldnt have the bomb?

My point is that I cant see any good argument that isnt selfish.

Well, Dicknose, I think you might be throwing out the baby with the bath water on that one. I would argue the following, if I were a representative of the US government:

"Although the US is guilty of dropping said weapons on another country, that was a long time ago. As the years have gone by, they have had opportunities to fire nuclear missiles at other countries but did not having learnt the lessons of the past. The US government stands before you today seeking a Nuclear weapons ban on Iran and North Korea not only to protect US citizens for being the product of massive murder but also those citizens from other countries, one of which was the first and (to date) only country to have been the victim of an attack of this nature. We believe that both Iran and North Korea have hidden agendas and feel that until they are prepared to be completely open with their technology and power manufacture they should not be allowed to.

This is partly selfish given that we are concerned about our own well-being yet we feel justified as the action would also protect the well-being of many other countries as well."

Is that good enough for you, Dicknose?

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

As for defensive weapons; we now have weapons that can do a far more effective defensive and offensive form of battle and protection. It is not a neccessity to have a neuclear weapon at all for any country now. Russia, China, England, USA, Israel, and few other countries in the European Union have these weapons, either under development or already developed and usable. It is not neccessary, for anyone to think we need to use a neuclear weapon for anything anymore. The US stopped testing and making back in the 70's at least. What ever we have is of neglageable consequence. Yep, there are a few subs with em on board. Thats it. For the most part anybody running more than 2500 centrfuges to make Urainium and Plutonium to make core rods, is doing it with intention. Making Plutonium for Power Plant core rods is overkill. There are over 5000 centrifuges running in Iran. A country who's President has specifically stated that Israel should be blown off the face of the Earth and his country will do it. This is a sound note of alarm. I don't care if he was just saying to rattle a sabber.
The fact that the USA has used a neuclear bomb twice is not a good thing to balance against this debate. The very fact that it was used is exactly why we dont want it to happen again. To Identify a country as a rouge country is not quite right either. To Identify the equipment being shipped, assembled for a purpose that is clearly showne, by way of configuration and use, to be exactly for the purpose of weapons grade production is a whole different subject. This is what the negotiation and hard stance is all about. For Iran, or North Korea to be threatened in any way is a complete and total false ploy. Their main objective is to creat the cappabillity to perform the neuclear holicost that everyone is trying there damdest to stop. No, it is not the big boy's who are the threat. It is what the big boy's realize from the past that makes them the one's who whish to control at the very least what happens with Atomic energy.
You'll have allot to say about this, I am sure Dicknose. However, you won't be able to change what is happenning and no one is smart enough to fully understand what is going on here. Your way of thinking is going down the wrong road . You have clearlly fallen for the false reports and false media. Unless you see these events first hand, "I dont think so", you like me, could not know the inner workings of this convolutted and twisted sittuation.

Originally Posted by dicknose

I think your logic is correct for most of the current (pre-NK) nuclear powers.
They dont need the nuclear weapons as a defensive deterrent.
No one is going to invade Russia, USA, China, England or France.

But saying that the US doesnt need it as a threat doesnt mean the logic doesnt apply to other countries.

Editing my comment as having reread your post I think you need to clarify your position further.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

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

Hey I already gave up on him At the core he does not believe the saying when good does nothing evil wins. History has many examples of this but people keep ignoring them. Jimmy Carter empowered the PLO by negotiating with them and the result has been massive death and oppression of their own people. Obama is on the path to be Super Carter. He is lacking massive inflation and that is about 1 year away. In the meantime he will degrade our military and talk to every two bit dictator while pissing on our long term and great allies like UK/Australia/Canada/Germany and yes while they are not in the class of those already listed France.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

But Im just stating the point
- the USA or any other country doesnt have any right to dictate what weapons another country has.

And again I'll state for the record, it has nothing to do with rights (as you claim them) or morality and never has. It has always, throughout history right up to today, had everything to do with power, which means if you have the power that automatically gives you the right. It just so happens in this case (if the power is sufficient to stop these two countries having them) that the three elements would appear to converge.

Originally Posted by dicknose

Sure if the whole world gets together and says no, then I think there would be grounds for it.

Which means exactly what I've just said above. You may not be comfortable with it being couched that way, but that is the way it is.

Originally Posted by dicknose

I dont think NK should have atomic weapons. I think Iran having them is a much bigger risk. But the very act to telling them they cant have them could be considered an act of aggression.

No more than them telling the world that they want the technology for peaceful means and then letting off missiles in Japan's general direction and exploding radioactive material to show the world how big their dick is. Come on man, where are you going with this? I don't have the "right" to kill your family, but if you saw me setting up and aiming an RPG at your house, what are you going to do? You don't have to answer that, Dicknose. I'm pretty bloody sure I already know

Originally Posted by dicknose

If their need for the weapon is protection or at least a feeling of protection, then our aim should be to remove their desire for the weapon, rather than trying to stop them by threat or force.
Its quite simple logic!

The US has been trying that, Dicknose. But it is nigh on bloody impossible to work out what it is if they won't (in North Korea's case, at least) tell you what it is that's making them feel a need for it. And, what are you going to do in response if they told you the desire is to make the material in order to sell on to those who are fighting capitalism?

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Hey I already gave up on him At the core he does not believe the saying when good does nothing evil wins. History has many examples of this but people keep ignoring them. Jimmy Carter empowered the PLO by negotiating with them and the result has been massive death and oppression of their own people. Obama is on the path to be Super Carter. He is lacking massive inflation and that is about 1 year away. In the meantime he will degrade our military and talk to every two bit dictator while pissing on our long term and great allies like UK/Australia/Canada/Germany and yes while they are not in the class of those already listed France.

Hey Sheep While I would be concerned about most of them, don't be too worried about losing the French. They have a terrible habit of going back on their word right after getting what they want.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Hey Sheep While I would be concerned about most of them, don't be too worried about losing the French. They have a terrible habit of going back on their word right after getting what they want.

They have had their moments and the people are much more solid than their government.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by dr256

Not quite correct and being pedantic for a mo...

What about 9/11?
This was a direct attack on the most powerful nation on earth. Killing near 3,000 people, in the heart of America's financial power centre.

Not an attack by a country.

What about the Mumbai train bombings in India? What about 7/7 in London? Even Russia, with around 5,000 active nuclear weapons and another 9,000 nukes stashed away somewhere has suffered a direct attack by a group or nation outside its borders. Of course there have also been terrorist or direct nation to nation attacks in Isreal and Pakistan.

Sure and people are robbed or murdered in there countries and nukes arent a defense against that!

All these nations have a nuclear capability, all of them have been attacked.

None of them have been attacked by another country.

Probably the closest to an attack by another country would be India and Pakistan.

So while yes, the deterrent of a nuclear conflict may put off those who are equally as capable of wiping out a country, it has little and no effect on smaller nations, such as Palestine who attacked Israel, or militant groups such as Al Qaeda who don't really have anywhere to nuke!

Well hard to say Palestine is a country - its effectively part of Israel.
It doesnt have an army.

And sure it does nothing to deter terrorist groups.
But neither does most of the military forces. Did a bunch of aircraft carriers stop 911?

Obviously I'm nit-picking but...and really I only raise the point because there seems to be an overriding opinion that nukes are some great wall of defense when really they only defend you from a nuclear attack from a rival nuclear capable power. And as everyone knows a nuclear war serves no purpose as there are no possible winners.

Not just a rival nuclear power, but any rival country.
Iran wont attack or attempt to invade Israel because they have nuclear weapons. Actually they might - and hope Israel responds with a nuclear weapon!

So yes it only works against other countries and convention "war".
But it definitely isnt just a defense against a nuclear attack (although it is possibly the only defense against nuclear attack by MAD)

But even using your logic its then quite clear that nuclear weapons ARE a good defense for Iran and North Korea. Their biggest threat is not terrorist attack, but an attack/invasion from a western nation. Especially Iran - they would be very worried about being the next Iraq (and I wonder why)

And the minute North Korea has one of these things sat on a launch pad and pointed at another nation it will have the same stark decision as all nuclear nations do.
Do I stop and find another route of attack, or do I push the button and risk absolute retaliatory obliteration?

Of cause!
And you are assuming that NK is the one wanting to invade/start a war.

But having one sitting on a launch pad gives them a very good sense of security from the US attacking them.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

I am aware of this. However, I tried to make the distinction between the types of yesteryear and those in service today primarily due to the massive yield differences - so different in fact that they may as well not be considered the same.

Actually the atomic bombs that most countries have wouldnt be that much better than the ww2 ones.
The real big gain is moving to thermonuclear (hydrogen) bombs. And they are a lot more complex to design and make. And you need to have very good atomic bomb technology to do them.
Only the USA and Russia have them. And I dont think anyone else would even bother - way too expensive and you would need a lot of very smart physicists and engineers!
And you dont get much gain. The only reason the super powers made them was a direct arms race during the cold war.


So when talking about places like India or even North Korea and Iran - we are talking about a ww2 quality bomb. I actually think they would be happy they were that good!


As for your argument...

"Although the US is guilty of dropping said weapons on another country, that was a long time ago. As the years have gone by, they have had opportunities to fire nuclear missiles at other countries but did not having learnt the lessons of the past. The US government stands before you today seeking a Nuclear weapons ban on Iran and North Korea not only to protect US citizens for being the product of massive murder but also those citizens from other countries, one of which was the first and (to date) only country to have been the victim of an attack of this nature. We believe that both Iran and North Korea have hidden agendas and feel that until they are prepared to be completely open with their technology and power manufacture they should not be allowed to.
This is partly selfish given that we are concerned about our own well-being yet we feel justified as the action would also protect the well-being of many other countries as well."

We can ignore the bit about US and bombs - I agree it shouldnt be relevent.
But your argument is basically
- atomic bombs bad
- North Korea has a hidden agenda
- we dont want them to have it

So even if they are open about their technology and say "we have the technology to produce 1 atomic bomb per year of X yield". That doesnt change much.
There is still isnt any reason given as to why North Korea or Iran shouldnt have a bomb other than "we dont want it"

Sure you wont feel safe with them having the bomb.
But they dont feel safe from you without the bomb.

Is that good enough for you, Dicknose?

Not even close!
The argument is basically a disguised version of "we are good, they are bad"
Big weapon + bad country = not allowed.

But unless you can argue why they are a bad country and that them having the weapon is fundamentally different to anyone else having it, then your argument is basically "selfish"

Editing my comment as having reread your post I think you need to clarify your position further.

The question is...
- is "as a defensive threat" a valid reason for having the the atomic bomb

Arguing that the US or Russia (or most other nuclear powers) dont need it as a defensive threat doesnt mean that the answer is no.
Saying "Chuck Norris doesnt need a gun to protect himself from an unarmed mugger" doesnt mean it applies to everyone else!

Israel has the bomb as a defensive threat.
North Korea and Iran could use it in the same way.

That some nuclear powers dont need it this way anymore doesnt mean that that applies to everyone else.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

At the core he does not believe the saying when good does nothing evil wins.

Definitely!!
At the core I dont believe in good and evil.

And I think that is a fundamental problem.

People are brainwashed into thinking these other places are evil.
Bush and his "axis of evil"

History has many examples of this but people keep ignoring them.

Except that who is good and who is evil depends on which version of history you read!

Thats the problem.
Most of you have a starting point of
US = good
Iran,North Korea=evil

And of cause if thats your starting point then the only conclusion is that they cant have weapons because they are evil.
But see - your argument was based on your starting assumptions. You need to argue why they are evil.

If your starting point is simply
US = generally good
Iran, North Korea = different

then it becomes a totally different discussion.

I hate to say "brainwashed", but if you think North Korea is evil, then you are brainwashed to some degree. Even given "US = good", someone who disagrees with you doesnt make them wrong or evil. Unless you have listened to Bush and his "if you arent with us you are against us"

Sure I wouldnt listed Saddam's Iraq under "good world citizens". But I wouldnt say that the country was evil.
And North Korea isnt exactly a nice guy, but its a long long way from being fundamentally evil. Same with Iran.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

People are brainwashed into thinking these other places are evil.
Bush and his "axis of evil"

I think it's time to get off your high horse about Bush now, Dicknose. He's gone already. And, while we have to live with his legacy such as it is, we all need to move on, too.

Originally Posted by dicknose

Except that who is good and who is evil depends on which version of history you read!

The reality of the world we live in can be summed up by an excellent quote from Winston Churchill:

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

Originally Posted by dicknose

Thats the problem.
Most of you have a starting point of
US = good
Iran,North Korea=evil

And of course if thats your starting point then the only conclusion is that they cant have weapons because they are evil.
But see - your argument was based on your starting assumptions. You need to argue why they are evil.

If your starting point is simply
US = generally good
Iran, North Korea = different

then it becomes a totally different discussion.

I hate to say "brainwashed", but if you think North Korea is evil, then you are brainwashed to some degree. Even given "US = good", someone who disagrees with you doesnt make them wrong or evil. Unless you have listened to Bush and his "if you arent with us you are against us"

Sure I wouldnt listed Saddam's Iraq under "good world citizens". But I wouldnt say that the country was evil.
And North Korea isnt exactly a nice guy, but its a long long way from being fundamentally evil. Same with Iran.

Firstly, Dicknose I know you have read my previous posts in other threads on this political section of the forum and you know I have never subscribed to the ridiculous notion that you are either "with us or you are against us."

However, I still believe you are missing (or choosing to miss) the main thrust of this side of the argument. Have you actually seen the interviews of those that have escaped North Korea? Have you seen the North Korean news presenters ranting on about how they are going to show the world how strong they are and how they will fight to do so?

It's got absolutely nothing to do with being brainwashed, Dicknose. At least not on this side of the argument. But it does seem to me, as read your posts going on and on about rights and morality, that if you got any more left you'd fall off the page!

I'm no fan of the Israelis or with how they conduct themselves concerning Palestine but Iran has publicly stated that it wants to destroy Israel. You have just dismissed this extremely important fact by saying this is not their "official" position. Your answer to all this is that you want to help these two countries feel more warm and fuzzy so they don't shoot at us once they have developed these weapons. WAKE UP! Your argument is now as flawed as you are suggesting everyone else's is. It is based on a premise that the US is fundamentally bad and that North Korea and Iran are the down trodden.

No one is arguing the the US is good or bad - just the lesser of two evils in this case. The argument is that these countries that have been left alone (US sanctions have had absolutely no affect) are now in a position to threaten the balance of power that exists today. A power balance that has until now (be it right or wrong) enabled you and I to live as we do. That will change if these two countries get their way. We both live pretty close to the problem and I can't see how you can take the stance that you do and remain comfortable with it.

If you are talking from an idealist point of view then fair enough, but you need to stipulate that. Then we can get on with discussing how the world should be. However, I don't think you are...

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Sure I wouldnt listed Saddam's Iraq under "good world citizens". But I wouldnt say that the country was evil.
And North Korea isnt exactly a nice guy, but its a long long way from being fundamentally evil. Same with Iran.

Sorry, Dicknose, but North Korea and Iran are a long way removed from the issues of Saddam and Iraq. Indeed, the only connection is that both Iran and North Korea know that the US and allied forces are spread thin fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. So-called "intelligence" isn't required to determine whether or not Iran and North Korea are gearing up to produce nuclear weapons, we have seen it. Both countries have also stated a willingness to use them once they are functioning. What more do you need to determine a clear and evident threat to Japan and Israel? Perhaps you would prefer a reactionary response after they have actually put the gun to these countries heads before we try and do something about it. Is that so or would you perhaps prefer we wait until the gun has been fired?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

I think it's time to get off your high horse about Bush now, Dicknose. He's gone already. And, while we have to live with his legacy such as it is, we all need to move on, too.

Problem is that its an attitude that is common.

Its not just Bush, a large number of people think this same way.
Many of them are in power, most of the rest are eligible to vote!
The whole "they are evil" is how most people simplify these sorts of problems and that in itself is one of the problems!

However, I still believe you are missing (or choosing to miss) the main thrust of this side of the argument. Have you actually seen the interviews of those that have escaped North Korea? Have you seen the North Korean news presenters ranting on about how they are going to show the world how strong they are and how they will fight to do so?

So what?
That its not a nice place to live or that it rants is not the issue.
Do you want me to quote a Bush rant again??
Or talk about US treatment of people?
See - you can paint any country as bad (Australia's detention of asylum seekers)

Im not trying to say that the US or Australia is as bad as North Korea.
But its just not black and white.
Unless you can say "this is what they did that means they shouldnt have a nuke", the rest is just painting shades of grey.

I'm no fan of the Israelis or with how they conduct themselves concerning Palestine but Iran has publicly stated that it wants to destroy Israel. You have just dismissed this extremely important fact by saying this is not their "official" position.

And Israel has officially stated it will attack Iran.
Again - shades of grey and neither side looking very good.

Your answer to all this is that you want to help these two countries feel more warm and fuzzy so they don't shoot at us once they have developed these weapons. WAKE UP!

Again - selfish.
Sure we risk being attacked - but why is our risk of being attacked any more important that Iran or North Koreas risk of being attacked.
Of cause its easy to put our wants ahead of theirs, but what right do we have to do that?

Your argument is now as flawed as you are suggesting everyone else's is. It is based on a premise that the US is fundamentally bad and that North Korea and Iran are the down trodden.

No!!!
Im not saying the US is bad.

Im saying that we cant just assign "good" and "bad" at our whim and use that as the reason for disallowing weapons.

Also saying "them having nukes is a risk to us" is not a good argument.
Because the reverse is "them NOT having nukes is a risk to them"
Why is our risk more important?

No one is arguing the the US is good or bad - just the lesser of two evils in this case.

Sure the US is by far the lesser of 2 evils.
But where does Russia fit into this?
Or Israel?
Do we rank all the countries in the world and someone decides a place to put the line that says "good enough to have a nuke"

Who gets to decide who can and cant have nukes?
What are the rules to decide it?

The argument is that these countries that have been left alone (US sanctions have had absolutely no affect) are now in a position to threaten the balance of power that exists today. A power balance that has until now (be it right or wrong) enabled you and I to live as we do. That will change if these two countries get their way.

Sure it will change the power balance.
Thats their objective.
At the moment they feel that they are well behind and are the ones most at risk of an attack. So they are taking what is their best/easiest option to fix this balance.
The problem is that this "fix" is so big that it can probably tilt things the other way.
So as I said before - rather than simply stopping them and keeping the current balance, we are better off fixing the problem and trying to give them a better balance, but without over balancing.
Heck my radical solution of "give them 1 atom bomb" might seem like a crazy suggestion, but if we offered that before they develop the bomb and held that as the carrot to stop them from developing their own bomb then they have a nuke to feel safe(r), but having only one means its harder to bluff and certainly you know using it is a no-win situation.

Im sure there are better options to that - but the point is to address the problem of why they want a nuke, rather than just saying no and worse, getting aggressive to stop them.

We both live pretty close to the problem and I can't see how you can take the stance that you do and remain comfortable with it.

Im not that close - actually thinking Im not close at all.

Seoul is over 8000km away...
Distance from Pyongyang to Sydney
Pyonguyang is 8500km (over 5000 miles)
London is a similar distance from it (as is most of northern europe)
Seattle is a bit closer
Hey - Jerusalem is closer!

Feeling a nice long way away.


But personally I wouldnt sleep any differenly at night if North Korea had an atom bomb even if I was closer.

If you are talking from an idealist point of view then fair enough, but you need to stipulate that. Then we can get on with discussing how the world should be. However, I don't think you are...

No Im not talking an "ideal" world.
Im talking about the concept that things arent black and white.
Once you realise that then you need to have a good reason to make a decison about who can have nukes.
And in the specific cases of NK and Iran I think the best solution is to address the "why" - and its not just about warm fuzzies.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Both countries have also stated a willingness to use them once they are functioning.

And the USA has stated a willingness to use whatever force necessary to stop them?

See - if you are going to argue based on "he said this", then its pretty easy to argue the other side.

US had officially stated that NK and Iran are targets.
That alone should be reason to justify a threatened country being allowed to build any weapons it feels are necessary for the safety of their country.

What more do you need to determine a clear and evident threat to Japan and Israel?

Nothing more than the a clear and evident threat to Iran and North Korea!

Perhaps you would prefer a reactionary response after they have actually put the gun to these countries heads before we try and do something about it. Is that so or would you perhaps prefer we wait until the gun has been fired?

What happens if the US attacks them?
Will someone do something about that after it happens?

Again - this simply turns into a selfish argument where you have already decided that the US side is right as the starting point of your argument (or assumed that the safety of our countries is more important than the safety of the enemy countries)

Why do we get to decide that Israel can have nukes and Iran cant?
Israel can attack Iran without any fear of atomic retaliation.
Why do we (the US or other western countries) get to make this decision?

And if you think Iran would actually drop a nuke on Israel as a first attack then I think you very much underestimate a countries will to live. Iran knows that would be the end of them. History hasnt had too many suicidal countries (can you think of any? sure some roled the dice on a gamble, but cant think of any that did an action that they knew would result in the total destruction of their country and people)
Ditto North Korea.
If you have read much about this you would realise that most analysts consider this to be an extremely remote possibility.
Sure it might happen, but its a long way from a certainty.

Have a look at this...
What Is North Korea Thinking? - The Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com

I particularly like the "The only thing worse than a totalitarian state is no state at all"

The best argument against them having weapon is not that they would use the weapons themself, but would on-sell them for someone else to use. But while atomic weapons are rare even that would be a huge risk if there was any chance of it being traced back. They would realise that even if terrorists detonated a nuke that could be cause for others to totally destroy any nuclear facilities - they know that would mean nuking large amounts of their own country - especially when they go to efforts to hide these things.

Maybe talks with Korea should recognise their right to have atomic weapons and work on a process to make sure they are accountable for them all.

Anyway - NK seemingly has atomic bombs. So now its not about stopping them, that is too late.
What do you think we should do?

[dicknose]

Ok - lets put this all another way.

What do you think the US response would be if they were told to get rid of all their nukes?
Even if it wasnt just one country asking - it was the majority of UN.
How about even something less than that - how about told that they cant base US military in other countries (remove them from South Korea, Germany, Japan etc)?
Or even told that they cant "park" fleets of ships in international waters, that they can travel thru, but that the majority of their ships must be kept within a certain distance of US soil (say 200 miles to match the economic exclusion zone)
Where are the following US fleets located (and whats are their home base/port) - US 5th fleet, 6th fleet, 7th fleet (ever seen a picture dividing up the globe with areas for each fleet?)
(edit - whats the distance from Pyongyang to the nearest US fleet base? would you be happy if North Korea opened a base that close to US or UK?)

Do you think the US would listen to anyone telling them what to do??
The answer would be a "you have no right to tell us what to do"
So why would you expect anyone else to give a different answer when told they cant do something?

Thats the amazing thing - that somehow people think that might is right and that one country can tell another what to do, but would be insulted if the situation was reversed.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Thats the amazing thing - that somehow people think that might is right and that one country can tell another what to do, but would be insulted if the situation was reversed.

It's not that we think it's like that, it is that way and has been since the first stone aged guy realised he was stronger than his rival for a mate once he picked up a large rock or bone and hit him with it. The sad thing is that most of us know that's a fundamental fact of life but you seem to think otherwise. I don't want it to be like that but it is and, whether you like it or not or argue till you're blue it the face, it isn't going to change.

[sidmarklong]

Two big Countries on this planet both agreed that neuclear weapons were not good to have. They began a reduction plan. They disclosed their efforts. What we dont get told and really is none of our business is this; The big six all agreed that some should be kept in case. For exactly what, I do not know. A comment from Dicknose here, will only be an annoyance . As if these big countries would not give up the responsibility to regulate any more neuc's on the planet, well maybe. However, it is apparent that someone wants to have this dilema continue. Claims of the little countries rights to have such things, being infringed upon by some bully, who has these so called hideous weapons in stock and at the ready; do not make the need or threat an actual neccessaty for leverage while saying I am just making plane old neuclear powerplants.
How about maybe a 1 or 2 killotone neuc directly pointed at someone who wants to debate about this, in defence of a country that actually wants to make these weapons for an intentional battle use.
As soon as I find that big red button, I'll press it, after I program it for your location there Dicknose. What would you like, one, or two? This I believe is what everybody ( quite a few countries, not just the big six ), is trying to negotiate away from. Jealousy of some big country having the weapon, and saying to the little country, why do you have them?, is not a smart thing to reveal while debating such a toppic. Maybe you are, maybe your not.
Somewhere along the way, it will come to a point that one of these pshyco countries will launch one and you, or me wont have a thing to say about it anymore. Everything we think will become moot point. It wont even matter whoes fault it is.
Who would want to look at this as some sort of mistake at that point. You can discuss this all you want, but in the end knowing now that I would press the button just for sport, is exactly what everybody is affraid of.
These countries didn't ask to make neuclear power plants, they just did their thing, as if it wasnt even neccessary to discuss the idea. They also went about it in a secretive manner. Why, because they are not interested in cooperating with anyone, or think they can just do something like aquire neuclear technoligy, and play with the new toy. This was a widely publisized thing about neuc's during the cold war. Tell us about it, and we will help you make power with neuclear energy. No one talks about this idea because, it takes all the fun out of hatred and defience. Hardly anyone knows this, because all anyone ever herd was, that neuclear weapons are evel during the cold war years.
What a hoot.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

It's not that we think it's like that, it is that way and has been since the first stone aged guy realised he was stronger than his rival for a mate once he picked up a large rock or bone and hit him with it. The sad thing is that most of us know that's a fundamental fact of life but you seem to think otherwise. I don't want it to be like that but it is and, whether you like it or not or argue till you're blue it the face, it isn't going to change.

Sure I know might is right and thats how the world works.
If thats your argument then wanting a nuke is just a good way to improve their argument!

But seriously - do you really think "NK shouldnt have a nuke because we say so and we have nukes so we are right" is any way to do international diplomacy?
Of cause what the US says carries a lot of weight due to its might (both economic and military) but you cant use it as a justification for enforcing your will on other countries.
And doesnt it seem ironic that the country that yells "freedom and democracy" is the one most likely to totally ignore those principles and use "might is right" to force its will on others?

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

This I believe is what everybody ( quite a few countries, not just the big six ), is trying to negotiate away from.

Most definitely agree.
North Korea having nukes is not a good thing. Well not for everyone that isnt North Korea (and possibly even them)

But this is still a grey scale - how much worse is North Korea having a nuke than Pakistan? (Id say a lot - but how much is enough to say it should be a NO)
Who draws the line as to who can and cant have them?
Is Indonesia ok?
Egypt?
Or is it a simple proposition that no more countries should have them?

Even if we make this decision - do we (being our countries) have any legal or moral right to make and enforce this decision?
Sure it might be a 100% good and sensible decision for us to make, one that is without a doubt the best decision in our interests.
But that doesnt mean its something we have a right to do.

Other than "might is right" - has anyone given an argument as to why we have any right to stop another country having a weapon?
Or a measure by which we can say who should or shouldnt have these weapons?

I dont think that is a hard concept to grasp.
That they could hurt us with the weapon is not a good excuse to stop them - thats the risk of any weapon. And if thats the excuse - then why shouldnt they be allowed to say "these other countries shouldnt be allowed to have such big military forces - those are a risk to us"

Jealousy of some big country having the weapon, and saying to the little country, why do you have them?, is not a smart thing to reveal while debating such a toppic.

Why is not smart?
Im just looking at it from their point of view.

These countries didn't ask to make neuclear power plants, they just did their thing, as if it wasnt even neccessary to discuss the idea. They also went about it in a secretive manner. Why, because they are not interested in cooperating with anyone, or think they can just do something like aquire neuclear technoligy, and play with the new toy.

Sorry - since when is there a principle that you need to tell others what weapons you are making?
India, Pakistan and Israel all developed their atomic weapons in secret.
In fact Im struggling to think of a country that was open about developing atomic weapons?
Why would we expect anything different from someone else, especially when they feel threatened by the people who are telling them not to do it.
It would make no sense to be open about your plans otherwise you would risk an attack - which is the exact opposite of what you are trying to achieve.

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dicknose

Sure I know might is right and thats how the world works.
If thats your argument then wanting a nuke is just a good way to improve their argument!

Indeed it is Dicknose. No argument there. We have seen them go ahead with building these things (more than likely) on the basis that it will strengthen their position in whatever action it is that they are planning for the future. So (and you have already agreed with me that this is the way the world works), the "mighty" is attempting to stop them from gaining the increased power such technology will afford them.

Originally Posted by dicknose

But seriously - do you really think "NK shouldnt have a nuke because we say so and we have nukes so we are right" is any way to do international diplomacy?

I have stated my reasons for why I believe North Korea and Iran should not be allowed to continue on this path. Both countries have STATED they wish to engage in fighting once the weapons are functioning and in place (You dismiss this fact at your own peril, Dicknose). Actually, it doesn't matter whether they are sabre rattling or not. Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct on these things and (as neither you nor I are in possession of all the facts) mine is telling me that in North Korea's case the change in the balance of power will bring about long-term problems of a magnitude hitherto unseen by the modern world. No, I do not have recordings of little Kimmy telling his minions that he's going to blow up those troublesome Japanese or rid himself of the annoying capitalist South Korea, but I don't need it. Just watch and listen to the tone being used by their newscasters, just look at the aggressive action taken by firing a weapon (opps, sorry a test satellite rocket) in the direction of Japan and FACT that North Korea has already STATED they will not re-engage in talks with any country ever again. If someone will not talk to you it is IMPOSSIBLE to assess what they want and how to stop the country from putting fear into those other countries. You then have to use your gut instinct as there is nothing else.

Both these countries started out by telling the world that they wished to engage in nuclear power technology for peaceful purposes. Ordinarily if that were true one would be able to see an increase in the use of electricity around the country, but we can't. The general public of North Korea has to date seen zero improvement to their lives.

I am SLIGHTLY less concerned about Iran if only because immediately after their leader's statement that he wanted to destroy Israel, clerics desperately tried to quell the situation and others asked that he stand down from power. In other words, it can be seen that there are people in positions of power that see this as a bad move. We have NO such contact with anyone in North Korea.

Originally Posted by dicknose

Of cause what the US says carries a lot of weight due to its might (both economic and military) but you cant use it as a justification for enforcing your will on other countries.

Yes you can use it as a justification and that can be seen clearly by the fact that they do.

Originally Posted by dicknose

And doesnt it seem ironic that the country that yells "freedom and democracy" is the one most likely to totally ignore those principles and use "might is right" to force its will on others?

No, that's just a fact of life. Until, of course, the next empire rises to power.

[sidmarklong]

Yes, Dicknose (actually, I dont really like using Dicknose for your name, I am not getting joy out of that ), I do see that it presents a point of veiw when you try to put yourself in their shoes. However, the one thing that gets me is this, "Why do these countries feel threatened? Do they really have a good reason to feel this? Is it not just some ploy to make everybody else play along with.?"
I know that you all have presented facts and information to prove your theories and truth's on this subject. Yet, I do not believe, nor do I see any reasonable reason for their actions. Regardless of what information anyone brings to the table in our conversations of this.
The reason I feel this way: I presently do a job that put's me in some of these places. I get to see and hear. Yet, I do not get direct information. However, the story I do get has been confirmed, "to an extent," by some of you in this forum and of course in the job I do. That is because, some of you are a little more aware, I suspect. However, trying to keep on track of what I want to get across this time> What bit of a story I do see and hear, is still quite a bit different.
I really do not think that we should try to put our selves in their shoes. They are comming from the wrong side of the road .
I would rather have things more calm in this world. I do not think we will have the level of calm we have right now in about two years. It is a far darker sittuation than we can see. See on the surface we do only.
Maybe, a chance occurance of common sense will happen and things will get better. I always hope for that. This is respectfully directed at Dicknose.

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct on these things and (as neither you nor I are in possession of all the facts) mine is telling me that in North Korea's case the change in the balance of power will bring about long-term problems of a magnitude hitherto unseen by the modern world.

Sure - but gut instinct is fine for when you are making a decision about what you want to do.
But its a lot different when making a decision to tell someone else what they cant do.

Plenty of people would say "my gut says being gay is wrong" - is that a good reason to kill them or lock them up?

[quote]
If someone will not talk to you it is IMPOSSIBLE to assess what they want and how to stop the country from putting fear into those other countries.

You then have to use your gut instinct as there is nothing else.

Again - is "gut instinct" how we should be running world politics.
Who has the gut that we (the western world) should be using?

Im not arguing against you holding your opinion based on your gut (and I generally agree with your opinion)
Im arguing against using our personal opinion biased by what is best for us as a basis for international diplomacy.

Both these countries started out by telling the world that they wished to engage in nuclear power technology for peaceful purposes.

The US announce both as "axis of evil"
So their gut feel is the US is going to invade them.
Again - why is our gut better than theirs?

Yes you can use it as a justification and that can be seen clearly by the fact that they do.

Its not a justifaction for why its right.

If Im bigger than you and punch you in the face, you might not fight back.
Me being bigger is why I got away with it.
But its not a justification that is was right in any legal or moral sense.

See the difference between "justification" and "why I think I can do it"

Sure the US "can" do something, doesnt mean its "justified" in doing it.

No, that's just a fact of life.

Sure its a fact of life.
But its just a huge sign of hypocrisy - yell to the world about "rights and freedom" but really its just "rights and freedom for me - screw the rest of you!"

[dicknose]

Originally Posted by sidmarklong

Yes, Dicknose (actually, I dont really like using Dicknose for your name, I am not getting joy out of that )

Call me DN.

However, the one thing that gets me is this, "Why do these countries feel threatened? Do they really have a good reason to feel this? Is it not just some ploy to make everybody else play along with.?"

So Iran doesnt feel threatened?
Not by US and the "axis of evil" comments.
Not by Israels threats to attack them.
Not by history of Israel actually attacking them??

I know that you all have presented facts and information to prove your theories and truth's on this subject. Yet, I do not believe, nor do I see any reasonable reason for their actions. Regardless of what information anyone brings to the table in our conversations of this.

You might not think they are threatened.
But it shouldnt take much to be convinced that they could feel threatened.

Im also happy to admit they could easy be doing "oh Im threatened" when they arent!
But there is plenty of very obvious reasons why both these countries would feel extremely threatened.

I really do not think that we should try to put our selves in their shoes. They are comming from the wrong side of the road .

Im not saying you need to take their side.
But unless you consider an argument from the other persons point of view you are never really going to understand why there is a disagreement in the first place.

I would rather have things more calm in this world. I do not think we will have the level of calm we have right now in about two years. It is a far darker sittuation than we can see. See on the surface we do only.
Maybe, a chance occurance of common sense will happen and things will get better. I always hope for that. This is respectfully directed at Dicknose.

Sure Id like more calm.
But unless you say to them "no nukes" and they go "ok", how do we get more calm?
Is saying "no nukes or else!!!" going to make more or less calm?
Is starting a war over this going to be more or less calm?
Is putting in sanctions or trying to blockade a country going to be more or less calm?

You can get calm and peace by destroying one side!
Or by negotiation and understanding.

Sure there are times when you have to stand up and fight.
But I dont see this as a reason to do so.
And in fact it could be the worse thing to do (could result in the use of nuclear weapons - the very thing we were trying to avoid)

[sidmarklong]

Have you not noticed that the USA has become the blame for all of the problems in this world. Yep,I suppose that if they have been the police of the world for a while, ( mainly by request of other countries, and not that the US wouldn't jump on the idea, and not that the US has not done it willingly. The US has.), and then being accused of orchestrating empire biulding, also being the only country capable of projecting its power all over the world, then of course being made the culpret to cause problems just to have a reason to invade, while all of these things happen, the very countries that requested our position, now make the accussations afformentioned. I am saying that Iran, North Korea, and a few other psycho terrorist supporting countries, are now taking advantage of this little known fact. Not surprizingly enough; I also now understand, that the European Union consortium, is under the rug in support of these countries playing the game. However, as this may not come out in the plastic finger news media that we all hear from, and also the ever revealing internet, along with real experiences from people, and the ever biased news papers; It all sounds a bit too dramatic, and very unrealistic that I can not trust, nor will I fall for any of the rhetoric that we are dealing with.
This being said because; I am sure the picture is not painted for us in a realistic way, because of my own personal experiences. I am saying this is a very convolluted and distorted game. I do not have to put myself in their shoes to see the truth. I do not want to deal with people who whole harttedly squawnder their countries reasorces, for a leverage factor under a propaganda program, that is giving a blake eye to people who have no clue, nor do they have an interest in being played, for a pon of expendature upon reputation or authoraty.
By the way the real problem here is; I can't spell for !!@#$%....

[Rbro]

Threads like this are nothing more than nets to trawl for
the unwashed masses opinions. As informed as they are.


If there ever is a real threat to a rich man's country and
he risks losing his ballgame, then the threat is eliminated.
As was Saddam when he tried to attain nuclear weapons.
He was made enough to use them. Or at least threaten them.


You only need to look at the majority of countries and note
their educated people (the language they speak) or their economic
status to understand the purpose of a nuclear arsenal. Israel aside
ofcourse. They are handy in keeping the arabs stupidily fighting other
middle easterns (jewish people) while the anglo saxon's pillage and plunder. Ofcourse, Zionists really want a home, while real Jews shake their heads and
get on with life. Ofcourse, Jewish people are a handy resource
for intellectual achievement as they instinctively try and keep ahead of
so many people who hate them. Funny how anglo-saxon media always
keeps anti-semetic sentiment alive somehow. Obviously just reporting
on it. Not exploring it any meaningful way naturally. So that it can
be over come and accepted........ Zionists will figure that all
out when they outlive their usefullness, burning arabs with them
as response to a small collection of zealot arabs (nudged along by
various outside influence).


So that brief foray into the cause of the exception to the rule,
that's all nukes are about.


However, as I stated, threads like these are only useful in monitoring
sentiment. Handily exploited when necessary.



Oh come on.........Who here is actually a highest level security officer?
Diplomat? IMF? Anyone?



Back to bikes.