We went to war over them and yet the US are the worst offenders for having weapons of mass destruction. The US is still the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons against another country.
Why is it then that the US finds it so objectionable for other countries like Iran or North Korea to get hold of them.
Some have cited the Non Proliferation Treaty as the reason why a firm stand should be taken against Iran, but that doesn't really explain why it's okay for certain countries to keep their current stockplie of weapons and even renew them and others are frowned upon.
This question has often been posed to those who take exception to Iran's nuclear ambitions and the question is frequently ducked.
As yet I haven't really heard a good argument in reponse either by politicians or forum posters to this particular question.

You only have to ask yourself two questions.

1. Are those other countries run by regimes that may be inclined to use them? (Iran:check, North Korea:check)
2. Do those countries have any valid reason for creating a nuclear arsenal? (Iran:check, North Korea:check)

That will give you your answer.

To address a few of the points;
The US has used nuclear weapons yes, that's not going to change unless they invent time travel, so what's your point?
Iran and NK are ruled by unstable despotic tyrants who have proven that they have no care for international law, the rights of their own citizens, the rights of other countries citizens or human rights in general. They are also both militarist and antagonistic.

Basically I'm relatively happy that the US isn't about to start a nuclear exchange with another country, the same way that i'm fairly sanguine about the UK, France, Israel, Russia, etc.. having nuclear weapons (although the Russians lack of control of their weapons is a bit worrying).
If would not be happy for some crazy despot to have the same weapons as I think it's fairly likely they'd make some attempt to use them, even if only against their own citizens. I'd really rather the Chinese didn't have them, but they do and taking them away would be really rather costly for everyone involved.

So the argument is Iran and NK are unsuitable constitutionally and in the specific rulers and parties ruling them to have these weapons as they would be likely to use them.

You only have to ask yourself two questions.

1. Are those other countries run by regimes that may be inclined to use them? (Iran:check, North Korea:check)


hes already stated the US is the only country that HAS

That's not the point mel, the question is are they likely too again?

Precisely. As far as I'm aware they don't have anyone on the horizon that may be on the receiving end of a missile. As you say, it's impossible to turn back the clock by 62 years, and that is perhaps reason number 3 why nobody new should get them.

The USA has them, because they need them.
Prior to WW2 we lived under Pax Britannia
Post the Cold War, we live under Pax America.

It is vital for our lifestyle that the USA is able to destroy the planet at any time.

Without this securety we could not sleep easy in our beds at night.
George Bush is our friend,

Sleep Well :)

That's not the point mel, the question is are they likely too again?

Cuban Missile Crisis 1962, a pretty close shave
Don't forget JFK a decent president was in charge back then not George Bush!:huh:

Iran and NK are ruled by unstable despotic tyrants who have proven that they have no care for international law, the rights of their own citizens, the rights of other countries citizens or human rights in general. They are also both militarist and antagonistic.


that also seems to fit in with the US administrations actions of late too
:loopy:

George Bush may be the greatest threat to world peace that we've seen for some time, but the american administration is accountable to it's people.
Since 1962 we have moved further and further from the likley use of nuclear weapons by the us or old ussr. I see no good reason to make it more likely in the future by allowing unelected and unstable regimes to have them.

To address a few of the points;
The US has used nuclear weapons yes, that's not going to change unless they invent time travel, so what's your point?
Iran and NK are ruled by unstable despotic tyrants who have proven that they have no care for international law, the rights of their own citizens, the rights of other countries citizens or human rights in general. They are also both militarist and antagonistic.


Some might describe the current Neocon led US administation as led by unstable tyrants that have no care for international law!:huh:
The point is that if Iran can't have them then neither should the US.
It's a complete double standard, sure the genie is out of the bottle and it will be very hard to put back but who exactly let the genie out of the bottle in the first place?
We can't time travel yet (We may do in the future but that's another story!)
but we could at least have a level playing field.

that also seems to fit in with the US administrations actions of late too
:loopy:

You beat me to it mel!
Hence my duplicate sentiment.
Sorry.

Some might describe the current Neocon led US administation as led by unstable tyrants that have no care for international law!:huh:
The point is that if Iran can't have them then neither should the US.
It's a complete double standard, sure the genie is out of the bottle and it will be very hard to put back but who exactly let the genie out of the bottle in the first place?
We can't time travel yet (We may do in the future but that's another story!)
but we could at least have a level playing field.

Whining that the US shouldn't have them isn't going to change reality. Stopping the Iranians and NK getting them is possible and so is worth whining about.
The playing field is level G8 have nukes, everyone else agreed that they wouldn't try to get them and the 8 agreed to reduce the number they have.

that also seems to fit in with the US administrations actions of late too
:loopy:

It could you're right, but Bush is on his way out and the democrats on the way in.

What's your point anyway.
Do you think the world will become safer if Iran and NK had nukes? If you do then you're wrong.

It could you're right, but Bush is on his way out

hm sorry just having pervy thoughts about that bit a second :)
brb

To address a few of the points;
The US has used nuclear weapons yes, that's not going to change unless they invent time travel, so what's your point?
Iran and NK are ruled by unstable despotic tyrants who have proven that they have no care for international law, the rights of their own citizens, the rights of other countries citizens or human rights in general. They are also both militarist and antagonistic.

Basically I'm relatively happy that the US isn't about to start a nuclear exchange with another country, the same way that i'm fairly sanguine about the UK, France, Israel, Russia, etc.. having nuclear weapons (although the Russians lack of control of their weapons is a bit worrying).
If would not be happy for some crazy despot to have the same weapons as I think it's fairly likely they'd make some attempt to use them, even if only against their own citizens. I'd really rather the Chinese didn't have them, but they do and taking them away would be really rather costly for everyone involved.

So the argument is Iran and NK are unsuitable constitutionally and in the specific rulers and parties ruling them to have these weapons as they would be likely to use them.

Are you saying that Bush is sane? America are seeking world dominance, this is the reason they have more WMD than anyone else. Bush is just as big a tyrant as any of the leaders of the countries you mention. Hence the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, under the pretence first that Iraq had WMD, and then that Saddam Hussain was wanted for crimes against humanity, and then that God told him to invade Iraq. What a fruitcake.

Are you saying that Bush is sane? America are seeking world dominance, this is the reason they have more WMD than anyone else. Bush is just as big a tyrant as any of the leaders of the countries you mention. Hence the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, under the pretence first that Iraq had WMD, and then that Saddam Hussain was wanted for crimes against humanity, and then that God told him to invade Iraq. What a fruitcake.

No, if I was going to say that I wouldn't have called him the biggest threat to world peace at the moment, and I would have just said what I wanted to say.

Now what's your point, will giving nukes to more madman somehow make the world safer?

No, if I was going to say that I wouldn't have called him the biggest threat to world peace at the moment, and I would have just said what I wanted to say.

Now what's your point, will giving nukes to more madman somehow make the world safer?

No my friend, my point is that if america, the uk, and every other country that has WMD were to dismantle and dispose of them, then there would be no need for anyone to build WMD. As it stands at the moment, every country has the right to defend its borders, and while several countries have WMD, then why shouldn't the vulnerable countries have them to, irrespective of who is the countries leader?

George Bush may be the greatest threat to world peace that we've seen for some time, but the american administration is accountable to it's people.
Since 1962 we have moved further and further from the likley use of nuclear weapons by the us or old ussr. I see no good reason to make it more likely in the future by allowing unelected and unstable regimes to have them.
And over the last five or six years, we have moved closer and closer to some Islamic whackjob like Ahmadinejad using them. But try telling the PC-inebriated lefties that. I notice the Doomsday Clock (http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/) was moved from seven to five minutes to midnight earlier this year, and once Ahmadinejad has nukes, it'll move closer still to midnight.

Whining that the US shouldn't have them isn't going to change reality. Stopping the Iranians and NK getting them is possible and so is worth whining about.
The playing field is level G8 have nukes, everyone else agreed that they wouldn't try to get them and the 8 agreed to reduce the number they have.

But that's the point, how can the US dictate terms to states like Iran or N Korea when they have a massive asrenal themselves. In fact the US probably has enough nuclear weapons left to arm every non nuclear state in the world.
With the US it's a case of "Do as I say" rather than "Do as I act".
If the US unilaterally disarmed then it would follow that countries that feel threatened by the US wouldn't seek to develop a nuclear bomb.
If the US had no nuclear weapons or if Isreal was nuclear free do you really think Iran would want to develop a nuclear bomb, I think not.
Just like their presence in Iraq, America does not seem to realise that they exacerbate the problem not solve it.
The current status on nuclear weapons is hardly a level playing field.
That's probably why the Non Proliferation Treaty hasn't worked, with India, Pakistan, Isreal not signing or ratifying the treaty and North Korea pulling out of the treaty.
So we can whine about Iran trying to get Nuclear weapons but on the other hand we can't whine about the fact that the US has enough to destroy every other country the the world over or the fact that Israel hasn't signed up to the Non proliferation treaty and very probably has a good stock pile of nuclear weapons.
A double standard if ever I heard one.:suspect:

The USA has proven that it has managed to avoid nuclear conflict for over 60 years so the presence of nuclear weapons in its arsenals is a mere statement of fact. It matters not if the standards are double or dodecahedron.

Do you see a need for anyone else to have them? Especially as the 2 countries that you name have appalling records and an inability to manage themselves properly.. even by the American standards that you so dislike!

The USA has proven that it has managed to avoid nuclear conflict for over 60 years so the presence of nuclear weapons in its arsenals is a mere statement of fact. It matters not if the standards are double or dodecahedron.

Do you see a need for anyone else to have them? Especially as the 2 countries that you name have appalling records and an inability to manage themselves properly.. even by the American standards that you so dislike!

Tony, firstly I am not anti American.
As I quoted earlier we came damn close to it in 1962 with Cuban Missile Crisis a mere 45 years ago, nobody can forsee what's going to happen in the future so how can you be sure another similar crisis won't materialise?
In 1962 the US gave ground by removing their missiles from Turkey.
Double Standards DO matter, you can't expect "rouge" states to follow your lead, when you do nothing to make that lead acceptable yourself!
I am not advocating that Iran or North Korea should seek nuclear weapons but then again I'm not advocating that Isreal be allowed to have them either, and all states alarmed at the rogue states nuclear ambitions need to get their own house in order BEFORE laying down the law to others.

Tony, firstly I am not anti American.
As I quoted earlier we came damn close to it in 1962 with Cuban Missile Crisis a mere 45 years ago, nobody can forsee what's going to happen in the future so how can you be sure another similar crisis won't materialise?
In 1962 the US gave ground by removing their missiles from Turkey.
Double Standards DO matter, you can't expect "rouge" states to follow your lead, when you do nothing to make that lead acceptable yourself!
I am not advocating that Iran or North Korea should seek nuclear weapons but then again I'm not advocating that Isreal be allowed to have them either, and all states alarmed at the rogue states nuclear ambitions need to get their own house in order BEFORE laying down the law to others.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Well Posted. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Tony, firstly I am not anti American.
As I quoted earlier we came damn close to it in 1962 with Cuban Missile Crisis a mere 45 years ago, nobody can forsee what's going to happen in the future so how can you be sure another similar crisis won't materialise?
In 1962 the US gave ground by removing their missiles from Turkey.
Double Standards DO matter, you can't expect "rouge" states to follow your lead, when you do nothing to make that lead acceptable yourself!
I am not advocating that Iran or North Korea should seek nuclear weapons but then again I'm not advocating that Isreal be allowed to have them either, and all states alarmed at the rogue states nuclear ambitions need to get their own house in order BEFORE laying down the law to others.

Just how will the USA giving up it nuclear arsenal make sure that a nuclear war will never happen? I think that it could make it more likely.

Just how will the USA giving up it nuclear arsenal make sure that a nuclear war will never happen? I think that it could make it more likely.

How do you figure that?
That's not intended as a dig, but I am curious to see how you might expand that argument.

How do you figure that?
That's not intended as a dig, but I am curious to see how you might expand that argument.

Work out how many nuclear weapons would be left in the world if just the USA disarmed them selves, there would be more than enough to destroy life as we know it on this planet. The analogy would be, being threatened to be shot only twice in the head instead of six times.

Without the threat of immidieate retaliation from the USA, M.A.D. may become a thing of the past. Without the terrorfying power of the Americans arsenal some counties might feel that they could benifit from nuclear blackmale, or even a nuclear strike.

i have a dvd called weapons of ass destruction. is this the next in the series?

Without the threat of immidieate retaliation from the USA, M.A.D. may become a thing of the past. Without the terrorfying power of the Americans arsenal some counties might feel that they could benifit from nuclear blackmale, or even a nuclear strike.

Point taken, I don't agree with it but point taken none the less.
You and Tony obviously believe in the power of Mutually Assured Destuction,
so how is it then that the likes of Iran gaining nuclear weapons be seen as such a threat. By your logic Iran won't harm the US or its interests precisely because of M.A.D. :huh:

Point taken, I don't agree with it but point taken none the less.
You and Tony obviously believe in the power of Mutually Assured Destuction,
so how is it then that the likes of Iran gaining nuclear weapons be seen as such a threat. By your logic Iran won't harm the US or its interests precisely because of M.A.D. :huh:

By my logic no, I am not running Iran though. It is the logic of the people running Iran that scares everybody, life seems to be very cheap for them. For some in the Iranian establishment martyrdom may be something to be aspired to.

Ok - to answer the thread title - the USA has so many nuclear warheads as it has to ensure it can penetrate both the Russian and soon to be Chinese anti-missile systems through shear number of weapons in the air.

As to the thread starting post well ignoring the use of them in WW2 the last 60 years have been pretty clear of nukes dropping out of the sky, however the more countries that have them the more likely they will be used.

Ok - to answer the thread title - the USA has so many nuclear warheads as it has to ensure it can penetrate both the Russian and soon to be Chinese anti-missile systems through shear number of weapons in the air.

As to the thread starting post well ignoring the use of them in WW2 the last 60 years have been pretty clear of nukes dropping out of the sky, however the more countries that have them the more likely they will be used.

The USA also need a formidible second strike capability.

The USA also need a formidible second strike capability.


That problem's been sorted..Tony Blair is about to resign and assume the job of the "World's Vicar"! :hihi:

Gawd help everybody on this planet!

No my friend, my point is that if america, the uk, and every other country that has WMD were to dismantle and dispose of them, then there would be no need for anyone to build WMD. As it stands at the moment, every country has the right to defend its borders, and while several countries have WMD, then why shouldn't the vulnerable countries have them to, irrespective of who is the countries leader?

that's just fairy dreamland.
If everyone dismantled, the first one to rebuild secretly could then hold the rest to ransom, or if it happened to be say the chinese, they could just fire a few and then hold the rest to ransom.. The balancing act keeps everyone safe, rocking the boat with proliferation endangers everyone.

And over the last five or six years, we have moved closer and closer to some Islamic whackjob like Ahmadinejad using them. But try telling the PC-inebriated lefties that. I notice the Doomsday Clock (http://www.thebulletin.org/minutes-to-midnight/) was moved from seven to five minutes to midnight earlier this year, and once Ahmadinejad has nukes, it'll move closer still to midnight.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm one of the drunken lefties, although not PC.
And you're some sort of ranting militarist would be genocidal maniac from what I can tell.

But that's the point, how can the US dictate terms to states like Iran or N Korea when they have a massive asrenal themselves. In fact the US probably has enough nuclear weapons left to arm every non nuclear state in the world.
With the US it's a case of "Do as I say" rather than "Do as I act".
If the US unilaterally disarmed then it would follow that countries that feel threatened by the US wouldn't seek to develop a nuclear bomb.
Oh, obviously, because they wouldn't want to have a weapon that the US no longer had :loopy:
If the US had no nuclear weapons or if Isreal was nuclear free do you really think Iran would want to develop a nuclear bomb, I think not.Because really the power crazed leaders just want to live in peace and smoke pot, not
Just like their presence in Iraq, America does not seem to realise that they exacerbate the problem not solve it.this i agree with
The current status on nuclear weapons is hardly a level playing field.
That's probably why the Non Proliferation Treaty hasn't worked, with India, Pakistan, Isreal not signing or ratifying the treaty and North Korea pulling out of the treaty.
So we can whine about Iran trying to get Nuclear weapons but on the other hand we can't whine about the fact that the US has enough to destroy every other country the the world over or the fact that Israel hasn't signed up to the Non proliferation treaty and very probably has a good stock pile of nuclear weapons.
A double standard if ever I heard one.:suspect:
You can whine about several things, but it makes more sense to concentrate on the ones we can reasonably change.

As to the thread starting post well ignoring the use of them in WW2 the last 60 years have been pretty clear of nukes dropping out of the sky, however the more countries that have them the more likely they will be used.

You're right the more countries that have them the more likely they will get used. India and Pakistan came close to a dangerous showdown only a few years back. They both were non signatories of the Non Proliferation Treaty.
It still brings me back to my question though, why are States like Iran frowned upon by the US for developing their nuclear technology (There is only conjecture that Iran will use it to make a bomb, just as their was only conjecture that Saddam Hussien had WMD stockpiles), and yet hardly anything is made of Isreali's covert nuclear program (Yes this is also conjecture but it seems highly likely that the US knows that Isreal have got them and probably helped them to achieve it!)
The Non Proliferation Treaty was as good as dead before it got started, so long as counties like the US, UK, China, Russia are allowed to keep their stockpiles.

How do you figure that?
That's not intended as a dig, but I am curious to see how you might expand that argument.

Mutually assured destruction stops sane leaders from starting a nuclear war. And might even give slightly insane ones reason to pause.
If the us had no retaliatory power then there would be no reason not to use nukes against them if you happen to be on an anti american trip.

Point taken, I don't agree with it but point taken none the less.
You and Tony obviously believe in the power of Mutually Assured Destuction,
so how is it then that the likes of Iran gaining nuclear weapons be seen as such a threat. By your logic Iran won't harm the US or its interests precisely because of M.A.D. :huh:

MAD relies on sane people, not religious fruitcakes who believe that killing infidels guarantees a better place in the afterlife.
Not that GW isn't a fruitcake, but at least he's not prepared to use nukes in his holy crusade.

Not that GW isn't a fruitcake, but at least he's not prepared to use nukes in his holy crusade.

He might if he thought God was instructing him to do so!:gag:

that's just fairy dreamland.
If everyone dismantled, the first one to rebuild secretly could then hold the rest to ransom, or if it happened to be say the chinese, they could just fire a few and then hold the rest to ransom.. The balancing act keeps everyone safe, rocking the boat with proliferation endangers everyone.

The same could be said of the countries that already have them. They too could be building more secretly, and fire a few off at random countries. There is nothing to say that the leaders of these countries are not planning to attack, and as I keep repeatedly saying, every country has the right to defend its borders, and if the threat is nuclear, then they should have the right and means to retalliate with nuclear weapons. I would really like to know, what gives one country the right to dictate how another country carries out it's military armament. I just see it as bullying, and a case of do as we say and not as we do. Basically I don't see any of the world leaders wanting their country to be annhialated by a nuclear strike, but it is only fair and just that they have the means to retalliate, even if it is the last thing they ever do.

The same could be said of the countries that already have them. They too could be building more secretly, and fire a few off at random countries. There is nothing to say that the leaders of these countries are not planning to attack, and as I keep repeatedly saying, every country has the right to defend its borders, and if the threat is nuclear, then they should have the right and means to retalliate with nuclear weapons. I would really like to know, what gives one country the right to dictate how another country carries out it's military armament. I just see it as bullying, and a case of do as we say and not as we do. Basically I don't see any of the world leaders wanting their country to be annhialated by a nuclear strike, but it is only fair and just that they have the means to retalliate, even if it is the last thing they ever do.

Well said Pooch:thumbsup: as you already know from this and other threads I am in full and complete agreement with you here.

Not that GW isn't a fruitcake, but at least he's not prepared to use nukes in his holy crusade.

People seem to be overlooking the two jokers in the nuclear pack, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan in particular walks a tightrope of political stability and there is a realistic possibility that it's nuclear capability could fall into the hands of religious extremists at some time in the future.

Well said Pooch:thumbsup: as you already know from this and other threads I am in full and complete agreement with you here.

:thumbsup: Thank You Kingmaker, at least two of us agree :)

People seem to be overlooking the two jokers in the nuclear pack, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan in particular walks a tightrope of political stability and there is a realistic possibility that it's nuclear capability could fall into the hands of religious extremists at some time in the future.

Grey, I didn't totally overlook those 2 jokers (See my post 37).

You make a good point about Pakistan and stability, General Musharaf is a direct result of a millitary coup and it is understood that Musharaf is one of the most likely world leaders to fall victim to an assaination attempt.

The same could be said of the countries that already have them. They too could be building more secretly, and fire a few off at random countries. There is nothing to say that the leaders of these countries are not planning to attack, and as I keep repeatedly saying, every country has the right to defend its borders, and if the threat is nuclear, then they should have the right and means to retalliate with nuclear weapons. I would really like to know, what gives one country the right to dictate how another country carries out it's military armament. I just see it as bullying, and a case of do as we say and not as we do. Basically I don't see any of the world leaders wanting their country to be annhialated by a nuclear strike, but it is only fair and just that they have the means to retalliate, even if it is the last thing they ever do.

Why would they need to build secret ones if they already have them? And how would it help if they were destroyed in a retaliatory strike?
Show me where this right to have equally destructive weapons comes from? I think you're implying it's some kind of moral absolute, I can't agree.
You haven't answered the question I have posed twice.
Do you believe that allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place? I do not.
Fair is such a meaningless concept, especially when you're prepared to risk the life of everyone on the planet for your abstract fairness.

People seem to be overlooking the two jokers in the nuclear pack, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan in particular walks a tightrope of political stability and there is a realistic possibility that it's nuclear capability could fall into the hands of religious extremists at some time in the future.

Not overlooking them, just talking about the US and Iran because thats what Kingmaker asked about.

why does the USA have so many? - because everything has to be bigger and better there don't you know!!

Why would they need to build secret ones if they already have them? And how would it help if they were destroyed in a retaliatory strike?
Show me where this right to have equally destructive weapons comes from? I think you're implying it's some kind of moral absolute, I can't agree.
You haven't answered the question I have posed twice.
Do you believe that allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place? I do not.
Fair is such a meaningless concept, especially when you're prepared to risk the life of everyone on the planet for your abstract fairness.

1) If the country is given a quota of how many WMD they can hold by the UN, there is nothing stopping them stockpiling more.

2) What gives any country the right to have WMD? is that a moral right too ? or is it a deterrent to would be agressors?

3) I have answered your question several times by saying that every country has the right to defend its borders. If the agressor has WMD, then it is only right that the defender has WMD too.

4) Is the world a safe place with America's cache of WMD, I don't think so with GWB in charge, look at the mess in Iraq.

5) If a nuclear strike was launched on any of the small countries, then that small country would surely be annhialated, that is why I said they could retalliate, even if it was the last thing that they ever did. (They would have a certain amount of time after the incoming was confirmed)

6) If these answers are not good enough, then please show me where the right for some to have WMD and others not to have them is.

i can understand why countries like Iran want Nuclear Weapons.

they are next door neighbours with Iraq, and they could be thinking "look at what happened to them for no reason. maybe we need to defend our selves".

I would suggest, with the mess the USA & UK have made in Iraq, that the next time we fancy invading an occupied country, we may decide that sending the army in is just too much like hard work. Lets just let off a nuke.

MAD relies on sane people, not religious fruitcakes who believe that killing infidels guarantees a better place in the afterlife.
Not that GW isn't a fruitcake, but at least he's not prepared to use nukes in his holy crusade.
I think he is actually - he just doesn't have the time left in office to do so.

MAD relies on the ABM treaty being honoured, but GWB withdrew from it and signed SORT with Putin - an unverified arms limitation treaty that requires compliance to be met on the date the treaty expires.

The combination of the PNAC belief in the right of pre-emptive strike, and a missile defence system - means USA can deploy tactical and strategic nuclear weapons without much fear of significant nuclear reprisals. Rumsfeld's Nuclear Posture Review makes interesting reading:


This report establishes a New Triad, composed of:

* Offensive strike systems (both nuclear and non-nuclear);

* Defenses (both active and passive); and

* A revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities in a timely fashion to meet emerging threats.

.."DEFEAT” — "Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities)." (p. 12-13)

"Missile defenses could defeat small-scale missile attacks intended to coerce the United States into abandoning an embattled ally or friend. Defenses that provided protection for strike capabilities of the New Triad and for other power projection forces would improve the ability of the United States and its allies and friends to counterattack an enemy. They may also provide the President with an option to manage a crisis involving one or more missile and WMD-armed opponents." (p. 13)


The shift in the US stance on nuclear weapons has been towards using them, not away.

The same could be said of the countries that already have them. They too could be building more secretly, and fire a few off at random countries. There is nothing to say that the leaders of these countries are not planning to attack, and as I keep repeatedly saying, every country has the right to defend its borders, and if the threat is nuclear, then they should have the right and means to retalliate with nuclear weapons. I would really like to know, what gives one country the right to dictate how another country carries out it's military armament. I just see it as bullying, and a case of do as we say and not as we do. Basically I don't see any of the world leaders wanting their country to be annhialated by a nuclear strike, but it is only fair and just that they have the means to retalliate, even if it is the last thing they ever do.

its all to do with how stable the country is!! middle east is far from stable so why let them us them? pakistan will be taken over by rouge religious groups. when this takes place they'll have all the nukes they need. pakistan is about 10 years away rom breaking up.. there was a programme on it the other week, and i was amazed how this isn't general knowledge and how the islamic groups are forming and taking on the pakistan amy. my my no wonder we need nukes siting in the big mens gardens!!

i can understand why countries like Iran want Nuclear Weapons.

they are next door neighbours with Iraq, and they could be thinking "look at what happened to them for no reason. maybe we need to defend our selves".

I would suggest, with the mess the USA & UK have made in Iraq, that the next time we fancy invading an occupied country, we may decide that sending the army in is just too much like hard work. Lets just let off a nuke.


HELLO!! wake up it's a world force!! not just US & UK as it's a world force this is why we have the right!!

It's because world leaders are all chickenhawk idiots who strut round with their chests out picking fights and starting wars to massage their own egos. Most of them would never dream of going to the front line themselves or putting their children there, but they're more than happy to send children of the ordinary people there as cannon fodder.

It's pretty much a universal truth that countries (especially developed western countries) spend far too much on defence, at the same time as there are huge wealth differentials amongst their own populations. Arms industries have governments in their pockets and war is good for business.

:(

The USA has proven that it has managed to avoid nuclear conflict for over 60 years so the presence of nuclear weapons in its arsenals is a mere statement of fact. It matters not if the standards are double or dodecahedron.

Do you see a need for anyone else to have them? Especially as the 2 countries that you name have appalling records and an inability to manage themselves properly.. even by the American standards that you so dislike!
Iran has as clear a ‘need’ for Nuclear weapons as anybody.

First of all they live in a rough neighbourhood with hostile and unstable neighbours and near neighbours, some of whom are already nuclear powers, and many of whom aren’t at all keen on a Shia dominated country.

Secondly the west & Israel have had it in for the current regime ever since it toppled our puppet the Shah in 1979 and has never made a secret of its desire to destroy the ‘Islamic Republic’, an intention which has become all the more likely to take from under the current US administration..

The above two factors combined in the 80s for Iraq to launch a brutal war against Iran with the support of the West and most of the Sunni powers.

Given all of the above Iran has extremely good reasons to seek to develop nukes which would be about as near to a guarantee of Iran’s territorial integrity and against open attempts at ‘regime’ change as there is.

I don’t want Iran or anyone else develop nuclear weapons but I can see that it is clearly in their national interest to do so and I see no reason to think that the Iranian regime if/when it acquires Nukes will use them unless faced with a massive conventional invasion or an attack by WMD.

I think he is actually - he just doesn't have the time left in office to do so.

MAD relies on the ABM treaty being honoured, but GWB withdrew from it and signed SORT with Putin - an unverified arms limitation treaty that requires compliance to be met on the date the treaty expires.

The combination of the PNAC belief in the right of pre-emptive strike, and a missile defence system - means USA can deploy tactical and strategic nuclear weapons without much fear of significant nuclear reprisals. Rumsfeld's Nuclear Posture Review makes interesting reading:


The shift in the US stance on nuclear weapons has been towards using them, not away.
Indeed the development of missile defences which allow the US military to think that it can ‘win’ a nuclear war in combination with changes in policy which seem to make a 1st strike by the US increasingly possible are very worrying. Especially when you consider just how keen many high-ranking US military types were to turn the Cold War hot.

Nuclear weapons are a great force for peace so long as all those who possess them believe in MAD, the potential results of what could happen if that belief is lost are quite terrifying.

WHY (UN ,US, EU) they dont make any pressure on ( pakistan,india,israel) to give up or to stop NW??

LOGIC ANSWER PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

We went to war over them and yet the US are the worst offenders for having weapons of mass destruction. The US is still the ONLY country to have used nuclear weapons against another country.
Why is it then that the US finds it so objectionable for other countries like Iran or North Korea to get hold of them.

Probably because both regimes are sufficiently anti-US as to consider using nukes against them.

Some have cited the Non Proliferation Treaty as the reason why a firm stand should be taken against Iran, but that doesn't really explain why it's okay for certain countries to keep their current stockplie of weapons and even renew them and others are frowned upon.

One justification - based on the NNPT - would be that the five Nuclear Weapons States (France, People's Republic of China, Soviet Union, UK, US - all signatories to the NNPT) agreed not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I).

Unfortunately all 5 of the NWS aren't above a spot of hypocrisy when it suits them - all 5 NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). Article II also makes provision for disarmament - how curious that particular provision seems to be being overlooked.

Also - seeing as 'renewing' one's stockpile involves re-manufacturing it, it breaches the NNPT (Article II).

IMO the most probable reasons for the persistence of nukes are:

1) We got there first;
2) We found out they're bloody dangerous;
3) We wanted to stop other people using them;
4) We wanted to keep them for ourselves

(it's a kind of national form of older sibling 'everything is mine' syndrome - if we really thought they were that bloody dangerous we'd get rid of the lot straightaway in just the same way as someone who's handed a live grenade tends to throw it away from themselves - the fact that we still have them indicates that someone somewhere doesn't think they're /that/ dangerous)

And the most probable reasons for not wanting others to use them are:

1) We think they might use them against us;
2) We believe banning them gives us some moral high-ground in the area of nukes and/or actually has some effect on regimes who aren't signatories to the NNPT

Mind you - if the Yanks hadn't been aiming their missiles at North Korea for 32 years maybe the North Koreans wouldn't be quite so ****** off with the Yanks, no?

WHY (UN ,US, EU) they dont make any pressure on ( pakistan,india,israel) to give up or to stop NW??

LOGIC ANSWER PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Go here and read the section on India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_non-proliferation_treaty) (et al)

In brief it's because the US wants to sell nuclear technology to India.

1) If the country is given a quota of how many WMD they can hold by the UN, there is nothing stopping them stockpiling more.

2) What gives any country the right to have WMD? is that a moral right too ? or is it a deterrent to would be agressors?
No right, but some places have them, we should try to ensure that more countries don't join that club

3) I have answered your question several times by saying that every country has the right to defend its borders. If the agressor has WMD, then it is only right that the defender has WMD too.Are you a politician, this is a non answer, or an answer to a different question at best

4) Is the world a safe place with America's cache of WMD, I don't think so with GWB in charge, look at the mess in Iraq.The question is would it be safer, not safe, so just take the current level of safety as the base level

5) If a nuclear strike was launched on any of the small countries, then that small country would surely be annhialated, that is why I said they could retalliate, even if it was the last thing that they ever did. (They would have a certain amount of time after the incoming was confirmed)
This is assuming that they have a capable delivery system, the means of detecting the attack, and the ability to respond in time and to evade anti missile systems currently being deployed.

6) If these answers are not good enough, then please show me where the right for some to have WMD and others not to have them is.
I haven't mentioned rights, you keep mentioning it, strawmanning me I believe is the term?


Let me make it easy, answer yes or no. Would arming Iran with nuclear weapons make the world a safer place. Just yes or no please.

WHY (UN ,US, EU) they dont make any pressure on ( pakistan,india,israel) to give up or to stop NW??

LOGIC ANSWER PLEASEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

You can't stop someone developing nuclear weapons that already has them.
India and Pakistan suffered long periods of economic sanctions in order to stop them developing nukes, they failed, it's too late now so the sanctions were eventually lifted.

the fact that we still have them indicates that someone somewhere doesn't think they're /that/ dangerous)

And the most probable reasons for not wanting others to use them are:

1) We think they might use them against us;
2) We believe banning them gives us some moral high-ground in the area of nukes and/or actually has some effect on regimes who aren't signatories to the NNPT

Mind you - if the Yanks hadn't been aiming their missiles at North Korea for 32 years maybe the North Koreans wouldn't be quite so ****** off with the Yanks, no?

If grenades existed and I had one, I wouldn't be all that scared of it. I certainly wouldn't just go around letting the local neighbourhood thug make his own though.

?

Do you believe that allowing Iran to gain nuclear weapons will make the world a safer place? I do not.

Well if it stops the US from going on any further Middle Eastern adventures then it just might.

i can understand why countries like Iran want Nuclear Weapons.

they are next door neighbours with Iraq, and they could be thinking "look at what happened to them for no reason. maybe we need to defend our selves".


Well it may be that it was due to the fact that the US knew that Saddam didn't really have any operational weapons of mass destuction that they decided to invade in the first place.
Looking at how the American administration took a completely different line with North Korea, I totally agree with former Secretary of State Madeline Albrights comment:

"the message out of Iraq is the wrong one."

"The message out of Iraq is that if you don’t have nuclear weapons, you get invaded. If you do have nuclear weapons, you don’t get invaded,"..Madeline Albright

On Iran she says " It is very hard to say that they can't have a peaceful nuclear program. The grand bargain which was part of the NPT has broken down -- there hasn't been enough disarmament among those that have nuclear weapons as the treaty calls for. Instead, there has been discussion of a new generation of nuclear bunker busters by the US."..Madeline Albright




Unfortunately all 5 of the NWS aren't above a spot of hypocrisy when it suits them - all 5 NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive," "manufacture" or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). Article II also makes provision for disarmament - how curious that particular provision seems to be being overlooked.


Exactly!

This is an interesting article that Tony Benn wrote a couple of years ago about his dealings with the Shah of Iran when he was Britain's SEC State for Energy. In it he says:

"Most astonishing of all, in the light of the present discussions, is that the problem of Iran developing such a huge nuclear capacity caused no problems for the Americans because, at that time, the Shah was seen as a strong ally, and had indeed been put on the throne with American help.

There could hardly be a clearer example of double standards than this, and it fits in with the arming of Saddam to attack Iran after the Shah had been toppled, and the complete silence over Israel's huge nuclear armoury, which is itself a breach of the non-proliferation treaty"..Tony Benn

The full Tony Benn Aticle :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1653668,00.html

Originally Posted by Cyclone: Let me make it easy, answer yes or no. Would arming Iran with nuclear weapons make the world a safer place. Just yes or no please.

I just simply can't answer yes or no, for the following reasons:-

1) we have a tyrant Vs idiot situation.
2) Iran do have nuclear capability.
3) Iran could make the world a safer place by having its nuclear capability, it will make GWB think twice about invading, and creating another Iraq.
4) Iran's military is obliged to protect its borders from aggressors.
5) Iran could launch its WMD indiscriminately, but I would have thought that they would have done so before now.
6) Once the coalition forces have left the middle east, then that is another kettle of fish.

So you see it is food for thought and one of those things that makes you say hhhmmmmmm :)

Seems like a pretty straight forward question to me. You are choosing not to answer it because it makes you argument weaker.
The answer is quite clearly, no, the world would become less safe, and thus my single point for why Iran should be denied nuclear weapons is supported and the thread is resolved.

Seems like a pretty straight forward question to me. You are choosing not to answer it because it makes you argument weaker.
The answer is quite clearly, no, the world would become less safe, and thus my single point for why Iran should be denied nuclear weapons is supported and the thread is resolved.

OH NO it isn't resolved, you have NOT given any substance to your claims that the world would not be a safer place. It is resolved purely and simply because I hold what I believe to be true, and do not agree with you. I have given my reasons as to why I can't give you a yes or no, now you convince me why I should agree with you.

Fair enough, but at least I had the courage to state my opinion, you've kept dancing around the answer to a simple question.

If you honestly think that we'd be safer with a nuclear armed Iran then we'll just have to disagree as that's the fundamental difference in our attitude towards the whole issue.

Fair enough, but at least I had the courage to state my opinion, you've kept dancing around the answer to a simple question.

If you honestly think that we'd be safer with a nuclear armed Iran then we'll just have to disagree as that's the fundamental difference in our attitude towards the whole issue.

Well my friend, you have your opinion and are entitled to such, and so am I. If Iran having WMD's keeps bush out of there, and the risk of the coalition forces getting annhialated, it is a good thing. But ask me again when the coalition forces are out of the middle east, Then I may think differently. :)

Fair enough, but at least I had the courage to state my opinion, you've kept dancing around the answer to a simple question.

If you honestly think that we'd be safer with a nuclear armed Iran then we'll just have to disagree as that's the fundamental difference in our attitude towards the whole issue.

But then you could turn that argument right around and ask would we be safer if the US didn't have any nuclear weapons at all.
Indeed if for some reason the US didn't develop any nuclear weapons after deploying Enola Gay to drop the atom bomb, then wouldn't it be very keen to get hold of some today?
What's your take on the Tony Benn article?

But then you could turn that argument right around and ask would we be safer if the US didn't have any nuclear weapons at all.
That's an entirely different and completely hypothetical argument. You're talking about unilaterally disarming one country, not preventing them from tooling up in the first place.

However if the US didn't have any nuclear weapons then the balance of nuclear power would be lost, and I don't think we would be any safer.

Preventing Iran from accessing nuclear weapons technology is a policy borne of realpolitik and a desire to be the only countries wielding the big stick.

That's an entirely different and completely hypothetical argument. You're talking about unilaterally disarming one country, not preventing them from tooling up in the first place.


Yes it is a hypotherical argument, but then again, the argument that Iran was going to build a nuclear weapon is also hypothetical.
Let's not forget that the ones doing the most hpothesising are the current US administration and we know just how accurate they are at hypothesising don't we?:suspect:

But then you could turn that argument right around and ask would we be safer if the US didn't have any nuclear weapons at all.
Indeed if for some reason the US didn't develop any nuclear weapons after deploying Enola Gay to drop the atom bomb, then wouldn't it be very keen to get hold of some today?
What's your take on the Tony Benn article?

You could, but one of the questions is based in reality (ie it is possible to stop Iran developing them) and the other is a dream (ie clicking my fingers and making nukes everywhere {or even just in the US} disappear).

If grenades existed and I had one, I wouldn't be all that scared of it. I certainly wouldn't just go around letting the local neighbourhood thug make his own though.

Would you sit up all night holding a grenade with the pin pulled out over his fence?

You could, but one of the questions is based in reality (ie it is possible to stop Iran developing them) and the other is a dream (ie clicking my fingers and making nukes everywhere {or even just in the US} disappear).

The dream that nuclear weapons will disappear is largely perpepetuated as a dream because of the US's reluctance to get rid of their own in the first place!
The true reality is that other countries WILL seek to and eventually aquire nuclear weapons just so long as other countries are allowed to keep theirs.
Notice that the US didn't put too much pressure on India, Pakistan or Isreal when they developed their nuclear arsenal, you have to agree about the hypocracy of the current situation at least.:suspect:

Would you sit up all night holding a grenade with the pin pulled out over his fence?

No, but in what way is that an analogy to current world affairs?

The dream that nuclear weapons will disappear is largely perpepetuated as a dream because of the US's reluctance to get rid of their own in the first place!
The true reality is that other countries WILL seek to and eventually aquire nuclear weapons just so long as other countries are allowed to keep theirs.
Notice that the US didn't put too much pressure on India, Pakistan or Isreal when they developed their nuclear arsenal, you have to agree about the hypocracy of the current situation at least.:suspect:

India and Pakistan suffered economic sanctions for many years.

Explain how exactly the US getting rid of their nukes would stop others seeking them?

India and Pakistan suffered economic sanctions for many years.

Explain how exactly the US getting rid of their nukes would stop others seeking them?

Those economic sanctions on India and Pakistan didn't seem to do much good then. Isreal hasn't suffered any economic santions and none of the countries mentioned above have been targetted for possible millitary strikes by the US unlike Iran.

If the US got rid of all their nuclear weapons, it might just be the catalyst for other major players i.e China and Russia to do likewise. Then those counties would have a much stronger case in demanding that other states shouldn't go nuclear.
It is precisely this current imbalance and hypocracy that makes states like Iran and North Korea want to develop nuclear weapons so that they won't get pushed around by the super powers. Take this imbalance out of the equation and the desire to acquire nuclear weapons may well reduce.
Of course none of this can be proved as fact but as I mentioned before, just as long as some countries have them other countries will seek to acquire them whether we like it or not.

Or back in the real world, it might be the catalyst for them to start throwing around their nuclear backed weight with no similar sized world power left who could balance them out.
The sanctions failed yes, and Israel has never given any indication that it has nuclear weapons, although I expect that the US simply ignored any evidence that it was trying to develop them.

Targetted... now there's an interesting word. What does that mean.
The UK have battle scenarios for invading every country in the world, including allies, I expect the US have them as well.

I accept that other countries will seek to acquire them, and in turn we should seek to stop them.

Expecting America to get rid of it's nuclear weapons in the hope that other countries follow their example, isn't a realistic hope.

However the fact is that both the US and Russia have far more weapons than is needed for their national security. Both countries could take the lead in reducing stockpiles while remaining vigilant to external threats. It may give encouragement to others to put a halt on development. But some countries will seek to acquire these weapons regardless. Which is why they can't be scrapped entirely.

As for the Iranian bomb (if it does come off) won't be targeted on the West but will be used to intimidate neighbouring Islamic states.

Finally if countries like North Korea or Iran are deemed too unstable to be in possesion of WMD, what if other friendly countries had them. If the UK and France have them, why not say Italy or Australia.

Targetted... now there's an interesting word. What does that mean.
The UK have battle scenarios for invading every country in the world, including allies, I expect the US have them as well.


It means that the US have already targetted specific sites in Iran, I doubt whether any such targetting was applied to India,Pakistan and certainly not Isreal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

Expecting America to get rid of it's nuclear weapons in the hope that other countries follow their example, isn't a realistic hope.


But then again stopping countries getting nuclear weapons whilst the US and others still have so many is also an unrealistic hope. Case in point, the Non Proliferation Treaty hasn't managed to stop India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons nor has it stopped countries like the UK renewing theirs.
If the International community is serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, then there really can't be one rule for one country and another rule for another country. The US is in no position to dictate exactly which countries are allowed to develop them and which countries are not.

here (http://statusmessage.blogspot.com/2007/04/42607-gun-week.html) is the problem :)

Unfortunately the US is in a position to do just that. Obviously it's the wrong attitutude but they know they can get away with it. What they don't realise is that it is this attitude which encourages other countries to want WMD. That was my point about reducing stockpiles. If the US used it's influence for the good and was showing the world it was moving away from WMD, this may at least give some hope.

Also I would question the benefit of Britain's nuclear weapons. I cannot imagine a scenario where America would allow us to use them independently.

Unfortunately the US is in a position to do just that. Obviously it's the wrong attitutude but they know they can get away with it. What they don't realise is that it is this attitude which encourages other countries to want WMD. That was my point about reducing stockpiles. If the US used it's influence for the good and was showing the world it was moving away from WMD, this may at least give some hope.


I agree with you, my point about the US being in no position to dictate was meant to mean that they were in no position morally, as I accept that they are in a position millitarily to dictate terms.

It means that the US have already targetted specific sites in Iran, I doubt whether any such targetting was applied to India,Pakistan and certainly not Isreal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6376639.stm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

This is historical I know, but from a time when the US and UK were allies.

I expect that any serious world power has contingency plans 'targetting' every other country in the world. Including it's allies, and possibly even to the point of including portions of it's own territory in case they somehow fall into enemy hands or decide to secede.
The fact that the US has plans for attacks on every country in the middle east seems plainly obvious to me.

But then again stopping countries getting nuclear weapons whilst the US and others still have so many is also an unrealistic hope. Case in point, the Non Proliferation Treaty hasn't managed to stop India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons nor has it stopped countries like the UK renewing theirs.
If the International community is serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, then there really can't be one rule for one country and another rule for another country. The US is in no position to dictate exactly which countries are allowed to develop them and which countries are not.

You're basing that 'in no position' on some sort of moral absolute.
In which you might be correct, it's a little hypocritical. But as they say, that's life.
PS - I don't believe that there has been any conclusive proof that NK has even made a single nuke.

Unfortunately the US is in a position to do just that. Obviously it's the wrong attitutude but they know they can get away with it. What they don't realise is that it is this attitude which encourages other countries to want WMD. That was my point about reducing stockpiles. If the US used it's influence for the good and was showing the world it was moving away from WMD, this may at least give some hope.

Also I would question the benefit of Britain's nuclear weapons. I cannot imagine a scenario where America would allow us to use them independently.

Allow. :loopy:

i reckon the world could be a safer place if iran had nuclear weapons, GWB wouldn't want to invade Iran if they had a nuke

i reckon the world could be a safer place if iran had nuclear weapons, GWB wouldn't want to invade Iran if they had a nuke

You're either high, or lacking in an appreciation of the finer subtleties of the iranian administration.

Allow. :loopy:

Yes thats right allow.

Our missiles along with their guidance systems are built in the states. They operate on dual key technology and cannot be launched independently.

There was a discussion on BBC's "This Week" about three weeks ago on replacing Trident. On the programme Michael Portillo commented that it wasn't independent and he couldn't envisage a situation where the Americans would give permission for their use.

And this is from a former Conservative Defense Secretary in case anyone thought I was spouting lefty crap.

But then again stopping countries getting nuclear weapons whilst the US and others still have so many is also an unrealistic hope. Case in point, the Non Proliferation Treaty hasn't managed to stop India, Pakistan, Israel or North Korea from gaining nuclear weapons nor has it stopped countries like the UK renewing theirs.
If the International community is serious about stopping the spread of nuclear weapons, then there really can't be one rule for one country and another rule for another country. The US is in no position to dictate exactly which countries are allowed to develop them and which countries are not.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: Well said, this is what I have been saying, and got fed up of saying.
The USA its self is in breach of what it is trying to implement in other countries, so I would say IMO that the non-proliferation treaty is null and void, and whoever wants WMD should just go ahead and make/buy them. What is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Yes thats right allow.

Our missiles along with their guidance systems are built in the states. They operate on dual key technology and cannot be launched independently.

There was a discussion on BBC's "This Week" about three weeks ago on replacing Trident. On the programme Michael Portillo commented that it wasn't independent and he couldn't envisage a situation where the Americans would give permission for their use.

And this is from a former Conservative Defense Secretary in case anyone thought I was spouting lefty crap.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/uk/doctrine/sdr98/chapt04.htm

"The charts do not include United States systems formerly operated by the United Kingdom under dual key arrangements."

So, we operated some US owned systems under a dual key arrangement, certainly not our entire stockpile.