Nuclear warfare just stepped closer

daveza said:
I'm not prepared to risk the world on the say so of the geniuses who said Iraq was covered with WMD. How many did they find again - oh yes, none.
Click to expand...
They found none, does not mean they did not exist. Where is all the other scuds and the chemicals they used on the Kurds?

Take a wild guess.
 
daveza said:
Are you saying the US and Britain are no longer capable of winning a conventional war ?

You may actually be right - they haven't actually won a fight since the Falklands - so they are going for the quick and easy press the red button and kiss the world goodbye.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I meant large scale. If there were no nukes there would be no stopping China taking back Taiwan, N.Korea marching into S.Korea and Putin going into any former Easton block states.

There is no way in the world the U.S or U.K could sustain the inevitable losses in a war defending those countries.


I'm simply saying one can't go around nuking countries because of a perceived, possible , future threat . That's like shooting someone who rings your doorbell 'cos you think he may want to rob you next year.
Click to expand...

IMO there's no place for a first strike policy in a war. It's a purely defensive weapon. Unfortunately that would mean heavier casualties to the side forgoing the nuke option


I'm not prepared to risk the world on the say so of the geniuses who said Iraq was covered with WMD. How many did they find again - oh yes, none.
Click to expand...

The likelihood of the French for example attacking anybody with anything nevermind nukes is not very high;)
 
I'm surprised, actually more than surprised that we seem to think the world will be safer if nukes are only in the hands of the US and Russia.

What makes us think these 2 governments lifts go to the top floor ?

They are the only two countries ever to bring us to the brink. They have sufficient WMD to blast our planet into the next galaxy. How many nuclear warheads do their enemies have in total?

If we must, then leave the US and Russia with what they have as a deterrent - Iran knows what will happen if they even think about pressing the button and they are well aware they will cease to exist the next day.

I don't recall India, Pakistan or Iran - North Korea even -threatening to use nukes against the west .

Quite honestly I lose far less sleep over nukes in Iran etc than I do over the undisclosed WMD in Israel.
No government, not even Bush and his warmongers wants to see Iran wiped off the face of the earth. I cannot unfortunately say the same for Israel.
 
UnoPanelvan said:
They found none, does not mean they did not exist. Where is all the other scuds and the chemicals they used on the Kurds?

Take a wild guess.
Click to expand...

Syria

In any case the blame lies with Saddam for blocking inspections. He gambled he lost and now he's dead. Glowing Ahemi is playing same game but with nukes.
 
UnoPanelvan said:
They found none, does not mean they did not exist. Where is all the other scuds and the chemicals they used on the Kurds?
Click to expand...

Nothing was more important for the credibility of the Wests invasion than to find WMD.
It would most likely have been more important than finding Saddam himself.

They did not exist.
 
daveza said:
Nothing was more important for the credibility of the Wests invasion than to find WMD.
It would most likely have been more important than finding Saddam himself.

They did not exist.
Click to expand...

That is the truth.

As for trusting Russia or America with nukes - not I.
 
UnoPanelvan said:
From 1942 -2008, many years of restraint and cold war diplomacy should surely be enough proof. Do you trust the rest?
Click to expand...

A nuclear war between these two superpowers was a lose lose option.

It was neither restraint nor diplomacy, just pure self preservation.
 
daveza said:
I'm surprised, actually more than surprised that we seem to think the world will be safer if nukes are only in the hands of the US and Russia.

What makes us think these 2 governments lifts go to the top floor ?
Click to expand...

Well firstly simple maths. The more nations with nukes the higher the luckilyhood of one of the goverments lifts not going to the top floor. The most likely being Iran :sick:


They are the only two countries ever to bring us to the brink. They have sufficient WMD to blast our planet into the next galaxy. How many nuclear warheads do their enemies have in total?
Click to expand...

At least they didn't actually have a coventional war. Imagin the casualty count. Secondly that's just 2 countries imagine dozens of them pointing nukes at each other waiting for one moment of madness or fault of some kind :eek:


If we must, then leave the US and Russia with what they have as a deterrent - Iran knows what will happen if they even think about pressing the button and they are well aware they will cease to exist the next day.
Click to expand...

Glad you trust that nut ball so much. It's the bomb with no return address that's the worse problem. Also Iran would be free then to export plenty of terrorism and violence to other countries. Third world countries will take most of the burden.


I don't recall India, Pakistan or Iran - North Korea even -threatening to use nukes against the west .
Click to expand...

Oh joy that's so reassuring :)


Quite honestly I lose far less sleep over nukes in Iran etc than I do over the undisclosed WMD in Israel.
No government, not even Bush and his warmongers wants to see Iran wiped off the face of the earth. I cannot unfortunately say the same for Israel.
Click to expand...

Well you feel comfortable living under MAD. The rest of us don't find it appealing
 
alanf85 said:
Syria
Click to expand...


The worlds eyes were on Iraq.
Eyes in the sky were on Iraq.
The inspection teams were there.
Israel was watching....

Iraq managed to gather all their WMD from bunkers across the country and transport them to Syria without anyone knowing ?

I have never heard any government, not even Bush, say that the WMD were moved to Syria.
 
daveza said:
Iraq managed to gather all their WMD from bunkers across the country and transport them to Syria without anyone knowing ?
Click to expand...

They must have moved them at night on the backs of their stealth-camels LOL!
:D
 
alanf85 said:
Well firstly simple maths. The more nations with nukes the higher the luckilyhood of one of the goverments lifts not going to the top floor.
Click to expand...

The less countries with nukes the better. Preferably zero countries.
 
Gilgamesh said:
That is the truth.

As for trusting Russia or America with nukes - not I.
Click to expand...

they did a pretty good job restraining themselves - especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Russia + US are competent enough to have nukes - as for the rest i'm not that sure...
 
Last edited:
daveza said:
The worlds eyes were on Iraq.
Eyes in the sky were on Iraq.
The inspection teams were there.
Israel was watching....

Iraq managed to gather all their WMD from bunkers across the country and transport them to Syria without anyone knowing ?

I have never heard any government, not even Bush, say that the WMD were moved to Syria.
Click to expand...

He said take a wild guess so I took one

JBFRobisher said:
The less countries with nukes the better. Preferably zero countries.
Click to expand...

So what measures would you suggest be taken to achieve that.

As for no nukes that would mean a large scale conventional wars that would kill millions. Of course no 'mass extinction' but still massive destruction.
 
alanf85 said:
So what measures would you suggest be taken to achieve that.

As for no nukes that would mean a large scale conventional wars that would kill millions. Of course no 'mass extinction' but still massive destruction.
Click to expand...

It is clearly not a practical option at this point in time.

Regarding the second point, you can't carry a large scale conventional war on an ICBM. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X