Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    because they want to live and they protect us. easy.
    If they wanted to do that they would call for global disarming of nuclear wepons as well as reducing the number that they have. While America still have a vast number or nuclear wepons I don't think it is fair for them to call for every other country that they want to not have nuclear wepons. Iran is a country which isn't as bad as many other countries in the world. It is unlikely to fire nuclear missiles at the USA so why can the USA say that they can't have these wepons? It isn't up to them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    While America still have a vast number or nuclear wepons I don't think it is fair for them to call for every other country that they want to not have nuclear wepons.
    There was some information on UKL regarding to the number of nukes certain countries have. I find it quite alarming how many the USA have actually. And they complain countries like Yemen and Iran having them. Better focus on China and North Korea.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    If they wanted to do that they would call for global disarming of nuclear wepons as well as reducing the number that they have. While America still have a vast number or nuclear wepons I don't think it is fair for them to call for every other country that they want to not have nuclear wepons. Iran is a country which isn't as bad as many other countries in the world. It is unlikely to fire nuclear missiles at the USA so why can the USA say that they can't have these wepons? It isn't up to them.
    Even if the US were to disarm tomorrow and call upon everyone else to do the same, what do you think would happen? Do you really think other states would disarm? During the Cold War a balance of power was established, it's thanks to that balance that we're still alive and to keep it, the US must keep nuclear weapons. They have a vast number, yes, but they got rid of a lot of them after the Cold War, as did most other nuclear powers.

    Which countries would you consider more dangerous?

    Iran could not fire weapons at the US, yet. But their latest missile, Shahab-3, can target Israel and that's where the interests of the US come into play. Besides, whether we like the US or not is irrelevant, they are the only nation powerful enough to stop Iran from acquiring those weapons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The argument about 'global disarmament' seems to have come up a number of times over this thread, so I think its worth addressing. You cannot 'de-invent' nuclear arms, global disarmament, whether disirable or not is actually impossible. When one considers it three things are required for a nation to build nuclear weapons. 1. Technical expertise, something which inevitably comes in any country with a highly educated scienfitic elite (i.e the West for example). 2. Infrastructure to build it - nuclear and industrial centres. 3. Radioactive material. Conventionally we think of the worlds nuclear powers to be USA, France, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel but in reality, as a result of having the above three things many nations are de-facto nuclear powers anyway, for instance many defence analysts have pointed out that Japan (as a result of being a highly industrailised country with a large number of heavy-water nuclear reactors) could build a sizeable nuclear arsenal in a week. As a result of this reality I fail to see how 'global disarmament' will actually achieve anything, all it will do, will mean no country has any active warheads, but very large numbers of countries will still have the ability to build them at increadibly short notice should they be required. Thus you argue that the USA should aim for global disarmament to make the world safer, this is disputable, what it not disputable is that it is actually in practice impossible - unless of course you were to take the West back to the 1930's...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    There was some information on UKL regarding to the number of nukes certain countries have. I find it quite alarming how many the USA have actually. And they complain countries like Yemen and Iran having them. Better focus on China and North Korea.
    Of course the US have a lot, but they have reduced their stocks and will continue to do so. It's not in their interests to keep masses of nukes who have to be looked after and guarded. I'm much more worried about them researching so-called "mini-nukes". I consider that extremely dangerous, that's where I disagree with the US.

    It always depends what kind of country acquires nuclear weapons, where that country is, how it's ruled, what its interests are and most importantly, what its nuclear doctrine is.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B00kwOrm)
    It always depends what kind of country acquires nuclear weapons, where that country is, how it's ruled, what its interests are and most importantly, what its nuclear doctrine is.
    I agree.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    The argument about 'global disarmament' seems to have come up a number of times over this thread, so I think its worth addressing. You cannot 'de-invent' nuclear arms, global disarmament, whether disirable or not is actually impossible. When one considers it three things are required for a nation to build nuclear weapons. 1. Technical expertise, something which inevitably comes in any country with a highly educated scienfitic elite (i.e the West for example). 2. Infrastructure to build it - nuclear and industrial centres. 3. Radioactive material. Conventionally we think of the worlds nuclear powers to be USA, France, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel but in reality, as a result of having the above three things many nations are de-facto nuclear powers anyway, for instance many defence analysts have pointed out that Japan (as a result of being a highly industrailised country with a large number of heavy-water nuclear reactors) could build a sizeable nuclear arsenal in a week. As a result of this reality I fail to see how 'global disarmament' will actually achieve anything, all it will do, will mean no country has any active warheads, but very large numbers of countries will still have the ability to build them at increadibly short notice should they be required. Thus you argue that the USA should aim for global disarmament to make the world safer, this is disputable, what it not disputable is that it is actually in practice impossible - unless of course you were to take the West back to the 1930's...
    I agree. But countries can also acquire the technology and know-how in other ways. The network North Korea-Pakistan-Iran, for example. The North Koreans benefited from Soviet and Chinese expertise and then gave it to Pakistan and Iran.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Iran gets nukes the region and the world would face massive danger. We cannot allow that to happen. The US will take out the Nuclear Plant if it comes to operation there is little doubt of that. But I doubt it would invade
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Imagashead)
    The argument about 'global disarmament' seems to have come up a number of times over this thread, so I think its worth addressing. You cannot 'de-invent' nuclear arms, global disarmament, whether disirable or not is actually impossible. When one considers it three things are required for a nation to build nuclear weapons. 1. Technical expertise, something which inevitably comes in any country with a highly educated scienfitic elite (i.e the West for example). 2. Infrastructure to build it - nuclear and industrial centres. 3. Radioactive material. Conventionally we think of the worlds nuclear powers to be USA, France, UK, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel but in reality, as a result of having the above three things many nations are de-facto nuclear powers anyway, for instance many defence analysts have pointed out that Japan (as a result of being a highly industrailised country with a large number of heavy-water nuclear reactors) could build a sizeable nuclear arsenal in a week. As a result of this reality I fail to see how 'global disarmament' will actually achieve anything, all it will do, will mean no country has any active warheads, but very large numbers of countries will still have the ability to build them at increadibly short notice should they be required. Thus you argue that the USA should aim for global disarmament to make the world safer, this is disputable, what it not disputable is that it is actually in practice impossible - unless of course you were to take the West back to the 1930's...
    Good points Paul, as usual.

    Everyone should just except that nuclear weapons exist, and any talk about disarmament is dangerous and deeply irresponsible. I don't just think that the USA should keep its nuclear weapons, I think that they should enhance them; in a world where nuclear bombs exist I am relieved that the trigger to the world's strongest arsenal is held by a democratically elected leader of a liberal country.

    It's sad that there is so much anti-americanism in this post, America is a tremendous force for good in the world, and I think that people should consider the amount of work that it does to uphold democracy before they launch into a wholly critical assessment of US foreign policy.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomhitchings)
    Everyone should just except that nuclear weapons exist, and any talk about disarmament is dangerous and deeply irresponsible. I don't just think that the USA should keep its nuclear weapons, I think that they should enhance them; in a world where nuclear bombs exist I am relieved that the trigger to the world's strongest arsenal is held by a democratically elected leader of a liberal country.

    It's sad that there is so much anti-americanism in this post, America is a tremendous force for good in the world, and I think that people should consider the amount of work that it does to uphold democracy before they launch into a wholly critical assessment of US foreign policy.
    This will be criticised beyond belief.

    I tell you what hand all your nukes over to the United Kingdom. Something to consider.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Allowing Iran to develop Nuclear weapons is like allowing a 3 year old kid play with an M-16. The scary thing is that the americans have only realised that the former is dangerous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    This will be criticised beyond belief.

    I tell you what hand all your nukes over to the United Kingdom. Something to consider.
    Incidentally, I'm British!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NDGAARONDI)
    This will be criticised beyond belief.

    I tell you what hand all your nukes over to the United Kingdom. Something to consider.
    I'm begging you to criticise my argument! Come on...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomhitchings)
    I'm begging you to criticise my argument! Come on...
    Why me? I just told you that it will be criticised, not necessarily myself. But since you so wish I will do when I have a clear mind. It's rather late now
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The reason the United States has nuclear weapons is to be used as a deterrence against aggression from nations such as North Korea, China, and to a lesser extent Russia. Mutually assured destruction is a strong way to bring people to the negotiating table.

    Iran should NOT be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons...one would think that this would be common sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NY_Patriot)
    The reason the United States has nuclear weapons is to be used as a deterrence against aggression from nations such as North Korea, China, and to a lesser extent Russia. Mutually assured destruction is a strong way to bring people to the negotiating table.

    Iran should NOT be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons...one would think that this would be common sense.
    Is that not special treatment or discrimination or biased? Surely if Iran can't then neither should the US or both should. US is not above international conventions or laws. How can we trust that the US will not agress? Because the US says so? So if china says the same, then that should be good enough too right?

    What it expects of it's fellow countries, it should do itself. Personally I don't see the use of Nuclear weapons. Enough with the wars and blood shedding. I am sure the money could be put towards better use. Say poverty, medical care, employment, deficits, etcs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Outrageous)
    Is that not special treatment or discrimination or biased?
    of course. for the reasons laid out in the preceeding posts.

    Surely if Iran can't then neither should the US or both should. US is not above international conventions or laws. How can we trust that the US will not agress? Because the US says so?
    we cant trust anyone, but the US is the lesser of our evils and we trust them more than we can trust Iran. its realpolitik.

    What it expects of it's fellow countries, it should do itself. Personally I don't see the use of Nuclear weapons. Enough with the wars and blood shedding. I am sure the money could be put towards better use. Say poverty, medical care, employment, deficits, etcs.
    thats an amiable view, but one evil leaders will not hold. for our safety we have to prevent the use of Nuclear weapons by holding more of them. you dont see the use of nuclear weapons because no-one is willing to use them while the US continues to produce them. Europe doesnt have any because we know the US feel obliged to protect us. that is a far more scandalous position.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    of course. for the reasons laid out in the preceeding posts.


    we cant trust anyone, but the US is the lesser of our evils and we trust them more than we can trust Iran. its realpolitik.


    thats an amiable view, but one evil leaders will not hold. for our safety we have to prevent the use of Nuclear weapons by holding more of them. you dont see the use of nuclear weapons because no-one is willing to use them while the US continues to produce them. Europe doesnt have any because we know the US feel obliged to protect us. that is a far more scandalous position.
    It wouldn't take more than a dozen nuclear missiles to destroy this world! There is no excuse or sane reasoning for any nuclear armed country to be producing any more than they already have. It's madness!!

    Individual European countries have their own nuclear arsenals including IBM carrying nuclear submarines. We are not being protected by the US, we are being dominated by them!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomhitchings)
    Good points Paul, as usual.

    Everyone should just except that nuclear weapons exist, and any talk about disarmament is dangerous and deeply irresponsible. I don't just think that the USA should keep its nuclear weapons, I think that they should enhance them; in a world where nuclear bombs exist I am relieved that the trigger to the world's strongest arsenal is held by a democratically elected leader of a liberal country.

    It's sad that there is so much anti-americanism in this post, America is a tremendous force for good in the world, and I think that people should consider the amount of work that it does to uphold democracy before they launch into a wholly critical assessment of US foreign policy.
    My only point to do with disarmenment was that if America have such a problem with nuclear wepons then they would call for mutual disarmenment or atleast a reduction in the number. I agree that in the past America have done a lot to uphold word security. My main problem with their foreign policy at the moment is that what they are doing is costing thousands of innorcent lives on both parts. I don't think that the aftermath of the Iraq war was well planned for which has lead to more deaths. I think that Iran is a country with problems but these problems could be better solved with aid than with violence. There are more worrying countries that have nuclear wepons than Iran, noth korea has been mentioned as an example.

    I hope that it never comes to a time when a nuclear bomb is used, however it is a possibility and the actions of the Bush administration have not been helping. Does anyone know if Israel have nuclear bombs?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Does anyone know if Israel have nuclear bombs?
    Yes they do.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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