!! Nuclear Power ?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

With all the questions raised by the Iran President statements and the suspicions growing about this country wanting the nuclear weapon ...
what do you think about it ?
About the Non Proliferation Treaty ?
About countries like Israel, Pakistan, India (did not ratify  the treaty) *having* the bomb ... ?

the world is worried, and i understand, Iran shouldnt go that way. They say they only want the *civil* nuclear technology ... but their military devs. show that long range missiles are in dev.

But how can you tell a country that it shoulndt have the bomb when :
- countries that signed have it (france, usa ....) - france is indeed hypocritical, they signed right after their last bomb tests ... and the usa are ... well the usa ...
- countries that shouldnt have the bomb and might have it (isreal, india, pakistan ...) - they have their reasons (security, power ...)

whats the way out ?

i think the countries that have the bomb should go in a process where they show that they are *moving* backwards. like giving up the technology (even if , when u know how to make 1 bomb, you can make another one ...)

or maybe, eventually, accept that only one country will have it, a country such as France *i'm just saying* - who is reluctant to military action most of the times - and this country wil be the guardian of world peace with that Nuclear Force Persuasion ... ?

uh ?

http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/npttreaty.html

[Izzy]

or maybe, eventually, accept that only one country will have it, a country such as France *i'm just saying* - who is reluctant to military action most of the times - and this country wil be the guardian of world peace with that Nuclear Force Persuasion ... ?

Fantastically idealistic - leave 10 nukes in the whole world and put the UN security council in charge of them - its an idea for sure, but people would cheat.

It is certainly about time nations with nukes gave up the vast majority of them, 5-6, how many do u really need?

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

or maybe, eventually, accept that only one country will have it, a country such as France *i'm just saying* - who is reluctant to military action most of the times - and this country wil be the guardian of world peace with that Nuclear Force Persuasion ... ?

Fantastically idealistic - leave 10 nukes in the whole world and put the UN security council in charge of them - its an idea for sure, but people would cheat.

It is certainly about time nations with nukes gave up the vast majority of them, 5-6, how many do u really need?

we don't even need them, we just need the world to know that we have em. .... ?___0

[Jamie]

I think that Nuclear weapons should be banned worldwide, despite the obvious consequences that would come from their use on both the world's population and it's environment, it also creates massive amounts of international tension. How can the US or any other world power convince someone else to disarm when they themselves are armed to the teeth? It's just not practical. And we can also learn by looking at the atmosphere and suspicion that filled people during the Cold War, for the entire duration of that time people were living in fear of a Soviet threat and likewise in Russia fearing an American threat.

[nesquick]

edit: tiring...

[conny]

I don't think there's any way back now and the only way out is an actual nuclear war, because that's the only way to make people wake up, see and understand. The few that will be left might overthink the idea of war and politic itself. Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan were nothing compared to what is possible today.

[Prometheus]

I don't think there's any way back now and the only way out is an actual nuclear war, because that's the only way to make people wake up, see and understand. The few that will be left might overthink the idea of war and politic itself. Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan were nothing compared to what is possible today.

is somethign askew with this comment?

[conny]

I don't think there's any way back now and the only way out is an actual nuclear war, because that's the only way to make people wake up, see and understand. The few that will be left might overthink the idea of war and politic itself. Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan were nothing compared to what is possible today.

is somethign askew with this comment?

 

[Prometheus]

I don't think there's any way back now and the only way out is an actual nuclear war, because that's the only way to make people wake up, see and understand. The few that will be left might overthink the idea of war and politic itself. Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan were nothing compared to what is possible today.

the bolded part

[conny]

I don't think there's any way back now and the only way out is an actual nuclear war, because that's the only way to make people wake up, see and understand. The few that will be left might overthink the idea of war and politic itself. Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan were nothing compared to what is possible today.

the bolded part

What's wrong with that?

The bolded part is not my point, but I knew someone was gonna pick on it. Whatever I just wanted to say that technolgy is sure way ahead now and that the modern bombs are more powerful and can cause a lot more damage than the only two nuclear bombs ever used in war so far.

[Surfrider]

What two nuclear nations have gone to war since the development of nuclear weapons?  Ironically, the biggest weapon of destruction has proved to be deterrent to war.  Too bad we are passed the time where only rational "nations" have the ability to obtain these weapons.

[Prometheus]

I don't think there's any way back now and the only way out is an actual nuclear war, because that's the only way to make people wake up, see and understand. The few that will be left might overthink the idea of war and politic itself. Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan were nothing compared to what is possible today.

the bolded part

What's wrong with that?

The bolded part is not my point, but I knew someone was gonna pick on it. Whatever I just wanted to say that technolgy is sure way ahead now and that the modern bombs are more powerful and can cause a lot more damage than the only two nuclear bombs ever used in war so far.

whats wrong with it?


its plain wrong thats whats wrong with it...............so your saying the bombs were made in germany and not developed in the US at los alamos........ or they were shipped to eurpoe to be dropped? which is it?

edit: fixed the spelling of alamos

[conny]

its plain wrong thats whats wrong with it...............so your saying the bombs were made in germany and not developed in the US at los alamos........ or they were shipped to eurpoe to be dropped? which is it?

If you are intrested in that topic, then maybe have read or would like to read a bit about what Einstein and Oppenheimer had to say about the bomb and its development. I really don't wanna get into detail here, let me just suggest you read and connect the facts, I don't have to do that for you and I sure won't do that here in public.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

well theoricaly german/switz scientists and knowledge were used to make these bombs. the us did give the money and offices (as usual )

[Prometheus]

its plain wrong thats whats wrong with it...............so your saying the bombs were made in germany and not developed in the US at los alamos........ or they were shipped to eurpoe to be dropped? which is it?

If you are intrested in that topic, then maybe have read or would like to read a bit about what Einstein and Oppenheimer had to say about the bomb and its development. I really don't wanna get into detail here, let me just suggest you read and connect the facts, I don't have to do that for you and I sure won't do that here in public.

hahaha

your fucking funny

i know the facts i know the history, I kow the bomb was not built in germany now was it? were german scientists working ont the project? what about amercian, canadian, british?


http://www.atomicmuseum.com/tour/manhattanproject.cfm

thats a link of the time line on the bomb

J. Robert Oppenheimer

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/entries/baoppe.html

hmmm seems he studied most of his life in the US..... phd out of germany..... hmmm loyality to us or germany?

http://www.me.utexas.edu/~uer/manhattan/people.html

about good old boy albert and his envolvement

and it seems teh key figures were amercian german/jew italian

and he spent most of his adult life in the US......... so who exactly did the US take from germany? no one..... they all either left early in their life and came abroad, were forced out becase of their ethnic background. they all became advocates for arms control..... but anyone who really seen the force knew that it would be a bad door to open again. and as mr BRiot has put out it became its own defence.... MAD.

and again i say where did those 2 bomb that were dropped on japan come from? because those involved would not have been in germany either way..... and as you put it "Those two baby bombs the USA brought back from Germany and then dropped onto Japan"

your words not mine... i guess your the one that needs to do the research now dont ya

thanks for the highly thought out responce?

[Charity Case]

Those two bombs in Japan sure as hell put a quick end to the war and may have saved a ton of lives in doing so.  Sometimes when you mess with the bull....you get the horns.   

I do agree that most countries can't be trusted with them.  That's why it was so important to go into Iraq before they could establish nuclear capabilities.  That is why we need to stop Iran.  And that is why we need to make sure that N. Korea, Pakistan and India are kept in check.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

Those two bombs in Japan sure as hell put a quick end to the war and may have saved a ton of lives in doing so.  Sometimes when you mess with the bull.

No kidding.  The allies were going to firebomb Japan to hell anyway.   

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Those two bombs in Japan sure as hell put a quick end to the war and may have saved a ton of lives in doing so.  Sometimes when you mess with the bull....you get the horns.   

I do agree that most countries can't be trusted with them.  That's why it was so important to go into Iraq before they could establish nuclear capabilities.  That is why we need to stop Iran.  And that is why we need to make sure that N. Korea, Pakistan and India are kept in check.

what about teh "thou shall not kill ? " thingie

anyway. considering that several countries have the bomb, it lost it's *persuasion* power. people aren't afraid of the american bomb or the french bomb because india has it, and china has it (maybe) and north korea has it (maybe).
so it cancels everything.
and as Iran prooves it (maybe they dont have it) they COULD have it ...

the only solution is to move backwards : remove the bombs from everywhere. and the powerfull countries needs to show the way.

[Genesis]

That's why it was so important to go into Iraq before they could establish nuclear capabilities.  That is why we need to stop Iran.  And that is why we need to make sure that N. Korea, Pakistan and India are kept in check.

And that is why the U.S should start minding it's own business.   

[Axl_owns_dexter]

the only solution is to move backwards : remove the bombs from everywhere. and the powerfull countries needs to show the way.

Ok so if the US and Russia get rid of all their nukes, that means everyone else will just play fair and get rid of theirs? 

Ofcourse, they would never take advantage of the situation.   

[Axl_owns_dexter]

what about teh "thou shall not kill ? " thingie

Go tell that to one of the guys who fought the hellish battles on Iwo Jima.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

the only solution is to move backwards : remove the bombs from everywhere. and the powerfull countries needs to show the way.

Ok so if the US and Russia get rid of all their nukes, that means everyone else will just play fair and get rid of theirs? 

Ofcourse, they would never take advantage of the situation.   

so let's not be hypocritical and call out iran or what ever country... just like the teacher hitting the kids to tell them not to fight ....

[Jamie]

I do agree that most countries can't be trusted with them.?

Correction, no countries can be trusted with them. I think the use of nuclear weaponry in the second world war proved that, the 'world police' and international good guys America used them to attack Japan and wiped out a large quantity of the population in the cities they were used on. They are unsafe and deadly, regardless if it is America, Britain, Iraq, India, anyone who has them in their posession.

[Axl_owns_dexter]

I think the use of nuclear weaponry in the second world war proved that, the 'world police' and international good guys America used them to attack Japan and wiped out a large quantity of the population

Like I said before, Japan was going to be firebombed to hell by the allies.  Would you have prefered Japan to have been firebombed to hell and invaded on top of that?  Would that have been a "nicer" end to the war?

[Axl_owns_dexter]

so let's not be hypocritical and call out iran or what ever country... just like the teacher hitting the kids to tell them not to fight ...

In an international context, your statement means absolutely nothing.  Like I said, just because the Big Boys get rid of their nukes, doesn't mean everyone will follow suit.  In fact, I gaurantee you that the other countries (Iran, North Korea) would use the clout of having the bomb to push their agenda.  Is that what you want?  Do you want a rogue dictator like the psycho in North Korea to have nukes at his disposal to push his perverted agenda?

Think rationally about it.  Don't resort to silly metaphors that mean jack.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

so let's not be hypocritical and call out iran or what ever country... just like the teacher hitting the kids to tell them not to fight ...

In an international context, your statement means absolutely nothing.  Like I said, just because the Big Boys get rid of their nukes, doesn't mean everyone will follow suit.  In fact, I gaurantee you that the other countries (Iran, North Korea) would use the clout of having the bomb to push their agenda.  Is that what you want?  Do you want a rogue dictator like the psycho in North Korea to have nukes at his disposal to push his perverted agenda?

Think rationally about it.  Don't resort to silly metaphors that mean jack.

well my point was that we are trying to use ethical method to ask some countries to get rid of the bomb ... and you prove that it doesnt work.

politics at this level is not rational. power and authority relations are not rational.

[Jamie]

I think the use of nuclear weaponry in the second world war proved that, the 'world police' and international good guys America used them to attack Japan and wiped out a large quantity of the population

Like I said before, Japan was going to be firebombed to hell by the allies.? Would you have prefered Japan to have been firebombed to hell and invaded on top of that?? Would that have been a "nicer" end to the war?

I never suggested that Japan be bombed and invaded, in fact I never suggested either one, but since you have brought it up, I am of the opinion that America send troops into Japan to remove the dictator that was in power. What the fuck does bombing an entire city and killing many innocent people do? It's been the same in America's current "war on terror" of all the cities that were bombed to fuckin pieces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, how many major international terrorists were killed by direct consequence? None. How many innocent civilians? A hell of a lot more than none. It was the same case in Japan.

[Prometheus]

I think the use of nuclear weaponry in the second world war proved that, the 'world police' and international good guys America used them to attack Japan and wiped out a large quantity of the population

Like I said before, Japan was going to be firebombed to hell by the allies.? Would you have prefered Japan to have been firebombed to hell and invaded on top of that?? Would that have been a "nicer" end to the war?

I never suggested that Japan be bombed and invaded, in fact I never suggested either one, but since you have brought it up, I am of the opinion that America send troops into Japan to remove the dictator that was in power. What the fuck does bombing an entire city and killing many innocent people do? It's been the same in America's current "war on terror" of all the cities that were bombed to fuckin pieces in both Iraq and Afghanistan, how many major international terrorists were killed by direct consequence? None. How many innocent civilians? A hell of a lot more than none. It was the same case in Japan.

ok really do we need to open this arguement again..... went through this one not 3 months ago on here.........