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

Originally posted by N. Tesla
reply to post by ken10

 

like i stated above maybe you dont want war but we need war. war is nessacery. it keeps the population down. it keeps other countries in check. ever get into a fight in high school? was it wanted? but it was necessary otherwise you'd be a loser.

Be careful what you wish for ?

America has made known the countries on its hit list and i wouldn't be surprised that if America starts on another from that list, It could find the rest of them uniting very fast for a strike (I know i would)..........And whilst America would then have its troops already spread in three conflicts.....It could find itself caught with its pants well and truly down.

i never said i support america. i support whatever country i live in. i dont support iraq war. i support the troops. i believe war is necessary but i would rather have it over there. and whenever the war comes here im prepared to fight. but not for america i will fight for my family.


war is Darwinism at work.

Originally posted by N. Tesla
immoral maybe unjustified nope. if people from their country attacked us then they should pay the consequences

Again this goes back to nuking the land to kill Osama Bin Laden.

You are either overlooking my point or you are twisting yours.

Innocent civilians did not attack us in the scenarios we are discussing. And it was their lives you said you had no qualms with ending.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by N. Tesla
immoral maybe unjustified nope. if people from their country attacked us then they should pay the consequences

Again this goes back to nuking the land to kill Osama Bin Laden.

You are either overlooking my point or you are twisting yours.

Innocent civilians did not attack us in the scenarios we are discussing. And it was their lives you said you had no qualms with ending.

i never said we should nuke a country for one person. but if the majority of that country causes us problems or if that countries government threatens us and the people agree with it then nuke away,

There are 8 countries that have nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia have been trying to reduce their number of warheads that they have.

Why would anyone want more countries to develop more weapons?

You have to start with the current reality and hopefully reduce the total number of weapons on the planet, not increase the number.

reply to post by Wildbob77


Well I for one never believed the US Military and Russia were really reducing their nuclear capabilities. I could be wrong sure, but it's what I believe. Most of what they do is entirely unavailable to the Publics eye. The only reason they would reduce nuclear capabilities imho is because they are comfortable with the nuclear submarines that have patrolling the Oceans. I don't believe there is some humane goal to eliminate nuclear weapons altogether.

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
See this is exactly whats wrong with the American world police mentality. We have nukes, and we believe we have the right to say which country has the right to develop nukes?

Tread carefully, you seem to be promoting world wide nuclear proliferation.

Don't you see that this only causes tension among countries and separation, which leads to hatred and ultimately and i believe UNDOUBTEDLY wars!

I would say it is the opposite, countries develop these dreadful weapons as a sure way to destroy any and all who stand in there way. It is a constant power struggle. One I hope to be on the winning side of.

You want to tell a country to stop nuke development, FINE don't have them yourself. Plain and simple.

Run for office...so you can learn first hand what your policy would do. To every proactive nuance, there is a negative side affect, the plan you propose is not thought out very well.

WE ARE NOT SPECIAL!

Yet here we are, and there they are. Thats life, deal with it.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by West Coast]

Originally posted by Wildbob77
There are 8 countries that have nuclear weapons.

The US and Russia have been trying to reduce their number of warheads that they have.

Why would anyone want more countries to develop more weapons?

You have to start with the current reality and hopefully reduce the total number of weapons on the planet, not increase the number.

Which is the progressive response. The more weapons developed, the better chance rogue factions have at attaining these weapons to carry out a horrific plot. Since everyone wishes to blame the US for everything, this logic will undeniably go over several of the posters heads here.


[edit on 7-11-2008 by West Coast]

if you done a poll in the UK you'd find that a hell of a lot of people hate America ( that doesnt mean they hate americans but what america does as an aggressive government) so do you see us as a threat, should i be watching for the bomb.

this must be one of the worst cases of bigoted racist BS i've read in a while, If I were to think that all americans were like you, hell i'd drop the bomb myself. the world will never move on from this war mentality untill people like you change.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by whoswatchinwho]

reply to post by N. Tesla


You don't understand Darwinism if you think it explains foreign relations and war-time behaviour.

The problem with your argument is that you would have to approve of the bombing of your country by an usurped government (for example, Afghanistan's) as acceptable behaviour. Yet, at the same time you'd be outraged and demand an equal or superior reaction. While this is logically acceptable, it's extremely weak.

You offered the argument that you'd support the death of large numbers of non-combative Iraqi people if it meant saving the life of an American. As with Japan in the second world war, the United States and it's allies are the aggressors in Iraq war, yet you don't seem to appreciate that there would have been millions of Japanese that would have been like you in not supporting their country's aggressive war. Wouldn't you and your family be innocent should the ousted leaders of Iraq manage to bomb your home town? Thus, doesn't that make those Japanese civilians innocent victims?

Doesn't the equanimity of logic dictate that both actions would be wrong and, to use your approach, evolutionarily inferior. Everyone bombing everyone is not an evolutionarily stable strategy.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Woland]

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Well I for one never believed the US Military and Russia were really reducing their nuclear capabilities.

Wow, that's an incredible claim - do you have any evidence for it?

Under the SALT and START programs there were a whole raft of verification measures in place opn both sides to ensure that they could tell that the other side had done what they said they would.
Are you saying that both sides actually circumvented this? How? And why hasn't anyone in the intelligence or disarmament communities noticed?

Originally posted by N. Tesla
but if the majority of that country causes us problems or if that countries government threatens us and the people agree with it then nuke away,

So if the majority of the American people opposed the US government, they should nuke the place?
Yeah, that's smart.

How mcuh planet would you expect to have left under this scheme?

In a perfect world I woul be able to take you for an inter-dimensional flight to a paralel world where those countries you mention would have nuclear weapons, and let you see why it would not be cool for US ALL, that they have those fuzzy litle toys .................... But the world is not perfect, so use your head and figure it out your-fine-self

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
Nuclear weapons, but when another country starts to develop one it's suddently "unecceptable "?
I'm an American and I thing this is BS. Let he who is without nuclear weapons cast the first stone!

Apparently, because America declare themselves RIGHTEOUS and PEACEFUL along with Israel.

Since the U.S is the most powerful nation, don't you think that they would want to stay that way? And who's gonna stop them anyway?

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by N. Tesla
but if the majority of that country causes us problems or if that countries government threatens us and the people agree with it then nuke away,

So if the majority of the American people opposed the US government, they should nuke the place?
Yeah, that's smart.

How mcuh planet would you expect to have left under this scheme?

well obviously you missed the entire argument so don't make stupid accusations or assumptions. first of all lets say all Americans hate their government. then why would we have it? if the majority of America decided to change things change would come. so no one would be nuked. BUT people in another country who don't like America cant change our government because there is either not enough of them and because they don't have the money/weapons whatever. so they resort to war with us. then we nuke.

Originally posted by Woland
reply to post by N. Tesla

 

You don't understand Darwinism if you think it explains foreign relations and war-time behaviour.

The problem with your argument is that you would have to approve of the bombing of your country by an usurped government (for example, Afghanistan's) as acceptable behaviour. Yet, at the same time you'd be outraged and demand an equal or superior reaction. While this is logically acceptable, it's extremely weak.

You offered the argument that you'd support the death of large numbers of non-combative Iraqi people if it meant saving the life of an American. As with Japan in the second world war, the United States and it's allies are the aggressors in Iraq war, yet you don't seem to appreciate that there would have been millions of Japanese that would have been like you in not supporting their country's aggressive war. Wouldn't you and your family be innocent should the ousted leaders of Iraq manage to bomb your home town? Thus, doesn't that make those Japanese civilians innocent victims?

Doesn't the equanimity of logic dictate that both actions would be wrong and, to use your approach, evolutionarily inferior. Everyone bombing everyone is not an evolutionarily stable strategy.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Woland]

i said that darwinism should apply to the soldiers not the civilians. and there are no innocents in war.

lets say that your country is at war and a soldier comes to your house and tries to kill you. do you stay innocent and get slaughtered or do you kill him?

if you kill him you are no longer innocent. and if you choose to die.. well there isnt much to be said about that.

nukes should be developed as a constant fear. fear keeps people in check. the only reason every single country isnt at war with each other right now is because they know that the war would end in complete death for everyone.

Originally posted by whoswatchinwho


if you done a poll in the UK you'd find that a hell of a lot of people hate America ( that doesnt mean they hate americans but what america does as an aggressive government) so do you see us as a threat, should i be watching for the bomb.

this must be one of the worst cases of bigoted racist BS i've read in a while, If I were to think that all americans were like you, hell i'd drop the bomb myself. the world will never move on from this war mentality untill people like you change.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by whoswatchinwho]

im gonna assume that this was a reply to me. and yes britian is seen as a threat aswell as over there america is a threat. britian is also developing nukes. alot of countries are. it keeps everyone in check. and this war mentality as you call it is animal nature and if humans are animals well then its our nature too.

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy



Remember this?

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
If you are talking about 911 - well there is a possiblity that a fraction / group within the American Government perpetrated the destruction of the two towers in order to manipulate the American People into "fear mode".

The ememy / traitor could have come from within and not "The Middle East".

Until mankind learns to control his "monkey rage" we are doomed to remain a violent and primitive creature.

As David Icke said: "PROBLEM - REACTION - SOLUTION".