Redbaron Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Just a question here, hypothetical...suppose there was only 1 Nuke in the world, who would you want to have it, the USA or Iran? don't give me any bullshit answer with a third country, or some dipshit philosophical crap, just tell me USA or Iran? Imagine if the choice was Israel or Iran. I'm no great Middle East expert but from what I read, if the Israeli powers that be had their way they'd willingly throw nukes at all and sundry in the region. Doubt Iran would (at the moment anyway - maybe tomorrow) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 12, 2010 Report Share Posted February 12, 2010 Most experts believe Israel already has nukes. Given to it by the U.S. is the most accepted theory. That said, the libertarian in me says no country or group of countries has the right to tell another country what it can acquire. It seems the U.S. and others picks and chooses and is judge and jury over whom can possess a nuclear bomb. Who gave the U.S. the authority? I'm just playing devils advocate. I hate the idea of Iran having the bomb. Not because I think it will use it on Israel (they know its mutual assured destruction if they do) but their providing dirty bombs or such similar device to terrorist groups. If Sweden or Switzerland announced they are working to acquire nuclear weapons would the world powers try and stop them? They are deemed 'responsible' nations aren't they? As far as Iran its pretty much a foregone conclustion that they will acquire it at some point if they don't have it already. Sh*t we can do about it. Sanctions won't work. I suspect we'll find that some european companies and even possible american ones profited from selling them certain things. The russians and chinese have little concern over who they sell certain things. N. Korea needs hard cash and they will sell their mothers for hard currency. I posted this once, but I read an article years ago that countries acquire nukes to guarantee they won't be invaded. Its why Israel has it. I've also read that when a country gets it, they feel this awesome responsibility that is even a burden at times. Its like an individual getting a gun. Seems cool when you think about getting one and when you do it becomes a burden of sorts because you worry about it getting stolen, in the wrong hands such as children and you are actually worried you may have to use the damned thing to defend yourself. I know it was on my mind. Any responsible gun owner worries about using it. Not that we won't but we pray we never have to be put in that situation. The same is said for countries. They worry about ever having to use it because of the repurcussions. The U.S. never used it in a losing war like Vietnam because of such repurcussions. We would have lost our standing in the world had we dropped one on Hanoi. We would also have possibly invited China and the USSR into it as well by doing so. The article said, all out, full scale war between Pakistan and India is actually LESS likely since both have the bomb. The M.A.D. (mutual assured destruction) theory was credited by some political scientists in averting a war between the U.S. and the former U.S.S.R. Also, one will notice that the USSR never dropped on Afghanistan even though it was losing the war. The article said the bomb is really not an offensive weapon but a defensive one. If its used, it is used to prevent being invaded. Intersting theory, wish I knew where I read it. I may try googling it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 When it looked like India and Pakistan might actually go at it, one restraining factor was that nuking the other's cities would also take out your own with the fall out. The dreaded scenario was that when India's forces began to prevail from sheer numbers, Pakistan might launch nukes in panic. I recall a lot of speculation about what would happen if the fallout started blowing east towards LOS! Also, don't overlook the "nutcase" possibility ... say if Pakistan's government fell into the hands of the Taliban. Osama and company would love Pakistan's nuclear arsenal to play with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 There is actually speculation that Pakistan couldn't get off a strike in time because its nuclear protocols to launch is actually a panel of folks. The head of state can not uniformally launch. If one of the members of the panel which include scientist(s) says no, it won't go. They allegedly have their own uique part of the launch codes. So, its a committee decision. I've also heard something kind of similar in the U.S. The president supposedly can not order a nuclear strike without 'confirmation' from the Defense sectretary, Joint cheifs, and others 'confirming his identity but may also question his sanity or mental capacity to launch alegedly. Not sure how true that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I recall years ago reading about how Israel would emply the "Masada Principal[le" if they were ever over run, basically they would blow their nukes if they were over run. This was the position of their hard liners. No idea what their current position is. Frankly, I consider the Israeli hardliners as nuts as the Muslim hard liners... NPR was discussing having the middle east become a Nike free zone...great idea, but how do you enforce it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 It is irrelevant, and misses the point, you allow the beast to rise, you pay the price ... you have proof of the assertion you make? The Israel race, as a nation financed the war? I am with OH on this one, to many cowards who seek appeasement to be noble hypocrites. We all know why Iran is building this, to scare the shit out of Isreal, to seek confrontation, to start some islamic blood bath ... well, that scenario is also possible. Read/Reference the book: The Creature from Jekyll Island By: G. Edward Griffin MOUNTAINS of facts, if you are brave enough!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 It is irrelevant, and misses the point, you allow the beast to rise, you pay the price ... you have proof of the assertion you make? The Israel race, as a nation financed the war? I am with OH on this one, to many cowards who seek appeasement to be noble hypocrites. We all know why Iran is building this, to scare the shit out of Isreal, to seek confrontation, to start some islamic blood bath ... well, that scenario is also possible. Read/Reference the book: The Creature from Jekyll Island By: G. Edward Griffin MOUNTAINS of facts, if you are brave enough!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 Thanks for the tip. I shall do. Not sure why i would be frighten though, but I can critique it. I am not jewish, or any form of jewish sympathizer - I just grow tired of cow-towelling to people, granted, a small minority of islamic people telling me how to live ... that is how nazi germany started - a small minority but the race was easily swayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted February 14, 2010 Report Share Posted February 14, 2010 Same in Russia, a small majority (Lenin and Trotsky), with backing $$$ from...you will see in the book. The history is soooo repetitive, same, same over and over and over... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 14, 2010 Report Share Posted February 14, 2010 How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president. George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany. The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism. His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy. The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. ... Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.