Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    WW2 is OVER the cold war is OVER.
    After WW1 it was believed that no war would occur again, certainly nothing on the scale that had been seen. Then came WW2.
    After WW2 everybody wanted that to be an end to wars, the nuclear weapons that had brought about the final surrender horrified the world and we all wanted to stop.
    The Cold War lasted basically from then right the way to the fall of communism, with many proxy wars going on in between.
    Small conflicts and wars have erupted on an almost yearly basis ever since.

    The notion we live in an entirely peaceful world where every little thing is calculated, expected, known in advance and goes according to a plan is fanciful, foolish and naive.

    Right now we've got 2 nations working towards having nuclear weapons, neither of whom seem particularly decent or trustworthy - it is getting easier and easier to create and deploy these weapons. While we work on ways for everyone to have less of them and for the weapons themselves to be rendered redundant it makes no sense for ourselves not to be similarly armed when we cannot predict what will happen next.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    So you'd like to be involved in genocide so somebody else can pay fir your security.

    you do know both of those nations were trying to develop nuclear weapons that they would've used.

    incidentally. Germany operates nuclear weapons on behalf NATO.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
    1) Japan did not participate in genocide despite being part of the axis.
    2) We didn't even know genocide was happening till after the war.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    After WW1 it was believed that no war would occur again, certainly nothing on the scale that had been seen. Then came WW2.
    After WW2 everybody wanted that to be an end to wars, the nuclear weapons that had brought about the final surrender horrified the world and we all wanted to stop.
    The Cold War lasted basically from then right the way to the fall of communism, with many proxy wars going on in between.
    Small conflicts and wars have erupted on an almost yearly basis ever since.

    The notion we live in an entirely peaceful world where every little thing is calculated, expected, known in advance and goes according to a plan is fanciful, foolish and naive.

    Right now we've got 2 nations working towards having nuclear weapons, neither of whom seem particularly decent or trustworthy - it is getting easier and easier to create and deploy these weapons. While we work on ways for everyone to have less of them and for the weapons themselves to be rendered redundant it makes no sense for ourselves not to be similarly armed when we cannot predict what will happen next.
    Possible Englishman says "it's okay for nations like Iran and North Korea to possess nuclear weapons because there is no way for them to predict what will happen next" sorry if I don't want to live in a world where we give justification for rogue states to possess these weapons.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Possible Englishman says "it's okay for nations like Iran and North Korea to possess nuclear weapons because there is no way for them to predict what will happen next" sorry if I don't want to live in a world where we give justification for rogue states to possess these weapons.
    Nope. Admittedly this is where the nuclear weapons argument becomes sketchier. I don't believe those countries should have them in the slightest. I don't believe they can be trusted. But if they are going to, I don't want to be without.

    If it were possible, the best thing to do would be to un-invent the things in their entirety, but that's fantasy. As long as they exist, we should always talk softly and carry a big stick.



    But, that's it, we're going round and round in circles, no point carrying on with this. You make your point, we counter, you make your point again but have rephrased it. It's not going anywhere. As you started the thread with the heading yourself, the debate is over, Trident will be renewed because it's the best system to do the job. You don't like what the job is, but here's the big secret: nobody does. It's just that some of us begrudgingly accept the job is a necessary one and this is the best way of doing it.
    And with that, I'm out.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    1) Japan did not participate in genocide despite being part of the axis.
    2) We didn't even know genocide was happening till after the war.

    Read up on your history books sparky.

    japan.

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    germany.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../36quest2.html


    Seeing as you're so wrong on these two points do you feel that you shouldn't really be having a debate about nuclear deterrence.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Read up on your history books sparky.

    japan.

    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

    germany.

    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/.../36quest2.html


    Seeing as you're so wrong on these two points do you feel that you shouldn't really be having a debate about nuclear deterrence.
    Do you read your own sources? Those weren't examples of genocide...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    Do you read your own sources? Those weren't examples of genocide...

    Er. Yes they were.

    japan. Upto 6 million civilian deaths.
    allies knew about the final solution from 1942.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Nope. Admittedly this is where the nuclear weapons argument becomes sketchier. I don't believe those countries should have them in the slightest. I don't believe they can be trusted. But if they are going to, I don't want to be without.

    If it were possible, the best thing to do would be to un-invent the things in their entirety, but that's fantasy. As long as they exist, we should always talk softly and carry a big stick.



    But, that's it, we're going round and round in circles, no point carrying on with this. You make your point, we counter, you make your point again but have rephrased it. It's not going anywhere. As you started the thread with the heading yourself, the debate is over, Trident will be renewed because it's the best system to do the job. You don't like what the job is, but here's the big secret: nobody does. It's just that some of us begrudgingly accept the job is a necessary one and this is the best way of doing it.
    If all countries used your argument though every nation will have nukes all aimed at each other all the times. Think about it what if North korea uses your argument

    1) Enemy NK doesn't trust has nuclear weapons.
    2) They don't believe their enemies should have nuclear weapons.
    3) If they have them though they want to have them too.

    Thus now North Korea acquires nuclear weapons. I am willing to bet that if we all scrapped nuclear weapons none of these states would try to get them.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    If all countries used your argument though every nation will have nukes all aimed at each other all the times. Think about it what if North korea uses your argument

    1) Enemy NK doesn't trust has nuclear weapons.
    2) They don't believe their enemies should have nuclear weapons.
    3) If they have them though they want to have them too.

    Thus now North Korea acquires nuclear weapons. I am willing to bet that if we all scrapped nuclear weapons none of these states would try to get them.
    There was a reason it was called MAD, you know...

    And re your last sentence: hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    That is all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Er. Yes they were.

    japan. Upto 6 million civilian deaths.
    allies knew about the final solution from 1942.
    Read them the word genocide wasn't even mentioned.

    Genocide - the deliberate and systematic destruction of, in whole or
    in part, of anethnic, racial, religious, or national group

    these people in the sources weren't killed based on that they were killed simply because they were on the side of the enemy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    There was a reason it was called MAD, you know...

    And re your last sentence: hahahahahahahahahahaha.

    That is all.
    It is pure hypocrisy to go around saying to north Korea "We will place sanctions on you if you build nukes or test missiles" you really think North Korea doesn't see these double standards? Why are we even surprised that North Korea is getting aggressive? If our country was in their scenario of being told we can't do what other countries can do we would be acting the same way.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    It is pure hypocrisy to go around saying to north Korea "We will place sanctions on you if you build nukes or test missiles" you really think North Korea doesn't see these double standards? Why are we even surprised that North Korea is getting aggressive? If our country was in their scenario of being told we can't do what other countries can do we would be acting the same way.

    Not really. They signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty. And who cares if its hypocrisy. That's a mental regime that needs getting rid of for the sake if democracy. They're bat s**t crazy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    Not really. They signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty. And who cares if its hypocrisy. That's a mental regime that needs getting rid of fir the sake if democracy.
    There are plenty of undemocratic countries out there who if we actually did enough research into would be calling mental. Yet we say nothing because we only hate who the media wants us to hate this day.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    There are plenty of undemocratic countries out there who if we actually did enough research into would be calling mental. Yet we say nothing because we only hate who the media wants us to hate this day.

    And that's why the UN tries to stop them going nuclear capable
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you seem to be neglecting a certain fact, the world isnt a place where we **** rainbows and share all of our cupcakes all the time.

    if you have something somebody wants, or they just don't like something you said or did there is a very real chance they will use force against you. and i would much rather be pointing a gun at them than having to duke it out in fistycuffs.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    WW2 is OVER the cold war is OVER. If Japan and Germany get life long protection for losing the war the **** i wish i could go back in time and sign our country up to the axis.
    And after the first world war it was believed large scale war would never happen again, months before ww2 peace in our time was announced. Its the highest form of stupidity to think you can predict with any accuracy the future. Europe has been at war longer than it has been at peace why should we get rid of our ultimate deterrent when we do not know what threats we will face in the future?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MatureStudent36)
    You've quoted lifetime cost there, spread over about 50 years. It works out to about £1.5 Billion a year which is peanuts compared to what we spend on welfare, Health, interest payments etc. No country is too valuable to destroy unless you have huge amounts of raw materials which we don't have, and if you look at history passive successful nations tend to be ripe for the picking by hostile nations. Read up on the history of the cold war. The Soviets actually believed they could win a war with limited tactical exchanges.
    I'd say Switzerland have done pretty well for themselves passively.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tengo)
    I'd say Switzerland have done pretty well for themselves passively.
    Agreed. Mass Conscription, a defendable frontier with bridges going into the country already pre wired for demolition. And also an incredibly small landmass with no where to store, operate or deploy nuclear weapons from.

    Yes, Switzerland has done great for itself sitting on the side lines. Safe in the knowledge that during the Cold war, although not part of NATO, they still fell under NATO's nuclear umberella with a dubious history of collaboration with bad people to ensure it kept neutral.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rsplaya)
    If all countries used your argument though every nation will have nukes all aimed at each other all the times. Think about it what if North korea uses your argument

    1) Enemy NK doesn't trust has nuclear weapons.
    2) They don't believe their enemies should have nuclear weapons.
    3) If they have them though they want to have them too.

    Thus now North Korea acquires nuclear weapons. I am willing to bet that if we all scrapped nuclear weapons none of these states would try to get them.
    Power is a zero sum game; NK (correctly) recognises they are in danger from the US and possibly PRC, both of which have nuclear weapons. They therefore try to obtain nuclear weapons to preserve their current government. It's true that a nuclear North Korea is not a threat to its neighbours so long as it remains rational.

    How would things look if no one else had nuclear weapons? Well, they'd no longer feel threatened. But they wouldn't just sit down and do nothing. Instead they'd (correctly) recognise that if they obtained nuclear weapons they could conquer South Korea and possibly parts of China for themselves. This world would be even less stable and more dangerous!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Power is a zero sum game; NK (correctly) recognises they are in danger from the US and possibly PRC, both of which have nuclear weapons. They therefore try to obtain nuclear weapons to preserve their current government. It's true that a nuclear North Korea is not a threat to its neighbours so long as it remains rational.

    How would things look if no one else had nuclear weapons? Well, they'd no longer feel threatened. But they wouldn't just sit down and do nothing. Instead they'd (correctly) recognise that if they obtained nuclear weapons they could conquer South Korea and possibly parts of China for themselves. This world would be even less stable and more dangerous!
    It would be almost impossible for North Korea to develop nukes without anybody knowing. They would be annihilated if they tried anything.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.