Thread: Stop them?

Originally Posted by Conservative15

Should we stop countries we do not trust from getting certain weapons?

Yes, of course.

Originally Posted by Inkslinger

Trying to be the world police and globalist imperialists is what got us where we are today.
Certainly not.

Not quite the same question. "National security" is at issue. That's different from "reckless and meddlesome interventionism".

Originally Posted by Ausinus

Certainly, if the country has proved itself irresponsible and a threat to global security then preventing them from gaining access to such weaponry is justified.

Hmm... an entire COUNTRY "proving" itself irresponsible? That's an interesting concept....

It is true, that there have been points and places in history, where a leader has held so much sway with the people in his country, that he is able to "foist" a model of reality onto them.

An example, would be Hitler's nationalist socialist model.

Another example, might be Kim Jong Il and the North Koreans.

Or..... Bushie and the Republi-Cons!

Originally Posted by Bourne

It would depend on why we don't want a country to acquire a particular weapon and the threat posed by that country if it acquires that weapon.

Yes, exactly.

My take is, HOW you do it, is important.

And, I believe in the concept of "defense in depth", and I also believe in the concept of "force in depth" (or, what the defense types call "graduated" force).

So, here's the order I might try doing things in:

1. Send in James Bond. That would be my FIRST effort, 'cause that's exactly what the CIA is for. Use 'em. And, I'll just be they'd LOVE the job!

2. Do a surgical strike, kind of like the Israeli air stike on the Syrian reactor. Apparently Israel has already asked for permission TWICE, and we said "no" both times. Hmm.... wonder why....

3. Remove the government, in the enemy country, kind of the same way we did to Saddam. Only, get OUT after five days, once "mission" has been accomplished. Once again, I know for a FACT that our CIA has relationships with all KINDS of dissident elements in rogue countries, and I have no doubt WHATSOEVER that at least one of them could be found, that has some reasonable level of credibility with the people of the country in question, to where they could be put in charge of a "caretaker" government while they figure out their new Constitution or whatever.

4. Only as a LAST resort, bomb the shit out of 'em. Threaten it first, have a face-to-face with Ol' Ahmed over there, and explain the facts of life to him. And if he still too stupid to play ball, do an Iraq on 'em - take apart their ENTIRE infrastructure, and make 'em start all over again. I mean, that's a HELL of a thing to do to a population of people, it's right up there with Hiroshima, but, if the threat in question is REAL and of a sufficient magnitude, that's what'll happen.

Originally Posted by Freedom for All

No. I see no need for me to illustrate your ignorance when you're doing an excellent job of that without any help.

I do so try to encourage a sense of accomplishment in my socialist friends, no matter how small the achievement. They've usually never done anything for themselves before at all.



See what I mean?

Like I said, you have nothing to contribute on the subject. Simple contrariness is not a useful contribution. The Cold War is over. The world does not need nukes. They were developed and thus created the need for percieved superiority in an exchange which would have been the end of the world as we know it for everyone. The US led the way in the development of the two most potentially lethal vectors of weapons production, nuclear and biologics. Were others doing it? Yes. Do they need to stop? Yes. Nukes cannot and will not be used. Not by Iran, not by Pakistan, not by India, not by Russia, etc. The use of a thermonuclear device would be suicide for any nation. Nukes have become effectively a paper lion. A very expensive paper lion.

Originally Posted by dbelkau

Like I said, you have nothing to contribute on the subject. Simple contrariness is not a useful contribution. The Cold War is over. The world does not need nukes. They were developed and thus created the need for percieved superiority in an exchange which would have been the end of the world as we know it for everyone. The US led the way in the development of the two most potentially lethal vectors of weapons production, nuclear and biologics. Were others doing it? Yes. Do they need to stop? Yes. Nukes cannot and will not be used. Not by Iran, not by Pakistan, not by India, not by Russia, etc. The use of a thermonuclear device would be suicide for any nation. Nukes have become effectively a paper lion. A very expensive paper lion.

Do you really believe that there is no country on Earth that would use a nuclear weapon?

Originally Posted by Bourne

We used WMDs as an excuse to invade Iraq. It was a complete fabrication. After Iraq how do you prevent a repeat of the misuse of self preservation as an excuse to invade another country?



Is there such a missle defense system? No. The cost of developing such a system would be incredibly prohibitive, not to mention that no missle defense system could ever be expected to be effective 99.9% of the time.

The answer lies in maintaining global alliances and engaging in effective and respectful diplomacy.

**Bourne**; Just want to correct you on your WMD statement. Iraq had chemical weapons, and full capability of making more. Several tons were moved to Syria. In addition, 500 tons of yellow cake were removed from hidden bunkers, BTW that is uranium. AND can be a dirty bomb or converted into low yield with correct equipment or have a country do it for you. Funny how the first link that is older DOWN PLAYS it saying yes you could make a NUCLEAR WEAPON, but not with the little amount. While the second says 550 TONS, like its no big deal and doesn't report it could be refined and sold to others who wish to make a NUKE.

USATODAY.com - IAEA confirms yellowcake found in Rotterdam likely from Iraq

500 tons of uranium shipped from Iraq, Pentagon says - CNN.com


The problem with most online Forums, most people spout BS thinking it is LAW. Hope you can accept this.

KB

Originally Posted by Engine-Ear

Do you really believe that there is no country on Earth that would use a nuclear weapon?

Unless backed into a lose/lose scenario, no. I believe there are factions who would if given the opportunity. I realize that the world at large waking up to the sheer idiocy of nuclear weapons right now is wishful thinking. So far, only one country has proven willing to light the fuse. They have not done so since.