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

Oh.....
[post deleted]
Forget it, I'm just wasting bandwidth.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by ATS4dummies]

Originally posted by N. Tesla
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.

And you think that makes some kind of sense?
Perhaps you ought to think about alternatives to war a little.

Originally posted by N. Tesla
yes britian is seen as a threat aswell as over there america is a threat. britian is also developing nukes.

Huh??

The British Trident nuclear missiles were supplied by the US. Your comment does not appear to make sense.

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by N. Tesla
yes britian is seen as a threat aswell as over there america is a threat. britian is also developing nukes.

Huh??

The British Trident nuclear missiles were supplied by the US. Your comment does not appear to make sense.

do they have nukes? are they angry at america? they have nukes and can use them that makes them a threat. jsut because we gave it to them doesnt mean they wont use them against us.

we gave weapons to the middle east. that turned out to be a great idea.

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by N. Tesla
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.

And you think that makes some kind of sense?
Perhaps you ought to think about alternatives to war a little.

what alternative to war do you propose? a boxing match between the 2 leader? war is the worst and best option.

i was going to go into the whole issue around Britains nuclear weapons, suffice to say we havent ran an independant nuclear weapons programme since the 60s, and if it wasn't for america using our country as a base for your weapons we'd probably have none,

en.wikipedia.org...

This poster says it all

captain-america.us...

reply to post by N. Tesla


Well, I guess you don't have to attempt to counter my argument, but your buckled hypothetical situation that 'proves' there are no innocents in war just exposes you further. How many people outside the armed forces are prepared, or given a chance, should a soldier try and kill them or their family? What chance does a population have if they are attacked with air strikes, for example? I'm amazed you even used such a flawed example.

If the United States was defeated by an invading country, was run peaceable and declared part of the invading country, say Canada (how ever unlikely), how many years would it be before you or your decendents accepted yourselves as Canadian?


I'm editing this to add a few words in response to the OP: The non-proliferation act is designed to keep the world stable. The powerful countries make the rules and regardless of whether they are democratic or tyrannical, they do not want anything to upset their domination.

The United States has in the post-WW2 era become the most internationally agressive of the domineering countries, helped by the size of its military and its wealth, through a multitude of strategies in order to defeat, placate or ostracise those countries that don't agree to play be these rules.

That's it really. There are of course exceptions; during the time of the USSR a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR would end much of the life on this planet, so USA could do little but tolerate the USSR's possession of nuclear weapons. Israel is a client state of the USA and it's precarious position in the middle east requires a deterent, how ever unspoken. &c.

[edit on 8-11-2008 by Woland]

before this goes any farther can i please ask what the argument is about. are you trying to change my opinion on nuke? or are you trying to say that america is not hated? the last 3 pages are all off topic. but the fact that all of you attacked me for simply saying that nukes are needed is quite funny. none of you will change my mind and honestly i really dont care to argue anymore. the simple fact of the matter is that its pointless because we are not gonna force each others view once each other which makes argueing useless.

if you want to we can continue this in another thread that i will be happy to make and maybe we will get some more people involved and see where it goes. but as for this thread im done.

my closing statements are that
1. in war there are no innocents.
2. war is necessary for many thing
3. nukes are necessary
4. nuclear technology is necessary.


and with that i am done. if you want to continue u2u me and ill make a new thread. otherwise i will consider this over.

We have rules regarding using certain weapons. Rules which the likes of Iran would never dream of considering.

Nuclear weapons - Use only as a last resort.

Chemical- No first use (if a country uses it on us we are free to retaliate in kind)

Biological- we can never use these.

Most super power countries have the same rule regarding Nuclear weapons to ward off a chance of a nuclear holocaust. I'm not sure about other countries rules regarding the other two.

Originally posted by Redneck from Hell
God I'm so sick of my country, most people don't even know these sort of things and it's sickening.
I hope there is a NWO and that they enslave us, because we don't deserve to have freedom for being so ignarat and selfish.

How about you just LEAVE if you're so unhappy here. Stop talking trash, you're digging your own grave by making this thread.

Actions speak louder than words, if in a week you make another post about how you moved to BFE because you couldn't stand the US, I will applaud you sir. Until then, this post, in my opinion, is ridiculous.

Hoping NWO to enslave us? What kind of self sacrificing martyr are you?

What kind of American are you that you would wish that upon everyone else who lives in the States. Maybe you don't deserve all this freedom because YOU'RE ignorant and selfish, but I'll be damned if I have someone accusing me of being those things when I'm most definitely not.

Originally posted by N. Tesla
[what alternative to war do you propose?

Diplomacy, medation, discussions, summits -- the usual suspects.

Boring I know, and not as exciting as nuking other countried but ultimately a lot better for all concerned.

Your idea that "they don't like us, therefore we nuke them" just doesn;t work in the real world where you're killing real people.

Originally posted by jd140
We have rules regarding using certain weapons. Rules which the likes of Iran would never dream of considering.

Nuclear weapons - Use only as a last resort.

Chemical- No first use (if a country uses it on us we are free to retaliate in kind)

Biological- we can never use these.

That used to be accurate, until the advent of the Bush Doctrine (the one that Palin hadn't heard of).

Under this doctrine, the US would carry out nuclear first strikes against other nations. Previously the US policy was that only retaliatory strikes would be acceptable.

www.independent.co.uk...

Originally posted by N. Tesla
1. in war there are no innocents.

Do children stop being innocent because someone declares war?
Were innocent people killed in 9/11?

Thank goodness you're never likely to be in charge of anything.

Originally posted by N. Tesla

Originally posted by Wembley

Originally posted by N. Tesla
yes britian is seen as a threat aswell as over there america is a threat. britian is also developing nukes.

Huh??

The British Trident nuclear missiles were supplied by the US. Your comment does not appear to make sense.

do they have nukes? are they angry at america? they have nukes and can use them that makes them a threat. jsut because we gave it to them doesnt mean they wont use them against us.

we gave weapons to the middle east. that turned out to be a great idea.

So America's #1 ally is a threat? What does that make the rest of the world...

You don't seem to understand that just because you're angry at another country it doesn't mean anyone wants a war. There are a whole set of other measures - from changing the name of French Fries up to economic measures - before it ever comes to that. As as far the US and UK goes, I doubt that they'll be exhanging anything more deadly than sharply-worded communiques.
And we'll send back Madonna make you keep Victoria Beckham.

Some of you are seriously wrong on several points. Didnt read all the way through so sorry if someone has already posted this, but 1) The japanese had been begging to surrender for months before we dropped the bombs. Read your own history. They wanted to surrender with just 1 condition, that being that their emperor remained on the throne. We refused this, bombed them, then let them keep their 1 condition anyhow, so the only obvious reason for the bombing was to intimidate russia for the cold war we knew was coming.

2) Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not large military instillations, in fact they were almost completely women and children, as almost all men of fighting age were already at the front line.

and 3) we are NOT dismantling and reducing nuclear weapons, indeed we are expanding them to weapons of first resort, with "small" bunker busters being pushed for first attacks that WILL spread nuclear fallout and pollution, as well as our depleted uranium armor piercing rounds, Millions of which are scattered about iraq, which are causing our soldiers coming home now to have children with deformities and abnormalities, and may be the cause of "gulf war syndrome" that was laughed off in the 90's. We are not reducing our risk of nuclear use in war, we are making it a standard part of all attacks, and if its effecting our soldiers families now, it will be effecting the iraqi's families for generations, just as it has been the japanese.

I don't know what to say, I have never read so many inhuman and ignorant comments anywhere else on ATS. First off All weapons of mass destruvtion should be removed end of. No country should have them and no one is more important than anyone else.

As for the nukes used on Japan, they had nothing to do with Japan, military targets or anything else. They were used for 2 reasons, 1 to assess theri destructive power on a "live target" and 2 the main reason as a force demonstration to Russia.

The Allies feared that the military superior Russia would roll through Europe and not stop till it reached the Atlantic. Nobody can say how true this may have been but non the less that was the main reason for using the nukes. As for ending the war with Japan quickly is all lies. The allies new the Japanese were beaten months before the bombes were dropped and virtually had no effective fighting forces left to fight with so the argument of to bring the war to a hasty end dose not stand.

Its useless to argue with most americans about our actions overseas because most of them have no idea how badly we have affected such countries as el salvador, columbia, Iran, Cuba, vietnam, Congo, Rwanda, Laos, Cambodia, Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, with the 16 dictators we have installed around the world, and with the slave labor that our economy supports and makes endemic in africa, and in south america (during the banana republics). Hopefully one day americans will get to experience, in some form, the frustration other countries experience....maybe when some other predominant country meddles in our elections, or installs a dictator over OUR people that sends our natural resources to some OTHER country, or firebombs OUR cities in the name of ideological difference so that Capitalism and Fascism cant spread its poison to their land, or puts OUR people under military occupation so they can steal our oil, with dozens of their bases in our country, raping our women and imprisoning us without due process or habeus corpus....oh wait, our government can already do that last one to us now.

Truly, you can never expect the perpetrators, or those who GAIN from the perpetration, to understand the oppression they foster upon others. To even speak of it is to attack their addictions to the belief in their own greatness and anytime you attack someones addictions you can expect them to react violently. Just try telling people the truth of something as simple as how bad milk is for you and watch them get worked up as they try to defend the years of belief fostered upon them by the advertising agencies "WHAT?? milk Does a body GOOD! what kind of fool are you, dont you watch commercials?!!"

sorry magic mushroom you were just a little slow to the gun.

reply to post by pexx421


first of all im not even sure how this became a thread on morals. second of all is milk seriously bad for you?

i don't support America or most of its actions. but i _javascript:gvid()honestly and truly believe that nukes are necessary to maintain order. as for the japan thing i was somewhat aware of the fact that they already wanted to give up and it was just a test but one way or the other it saved American lives. i would argue this same argument for any country. if i lived in Russia i would argue that Russia should have nuked Afghanistan and cut our losses. if i lived in Afghanistan i would have argued the opposite. the point is that America is a #ed up place and that the only reason it still has the nukes is because it has the most. so who's gonna argue with the big guy?