<!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Sep 20 2003, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Sep 20 2003, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Umm, warheads don't have to be nukes. And this warhead was by no means a "nuke" or a "mini-nuke". Don't know where you got that piece of info. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know warhead doesn't equal nuke but it just reminded me of that. And now that you ask, I decided to do some googling, and behold:
<a href='http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/464/464_01_Nuclear.shtml' target='_blank'>Biased article but it's here just to prove that it's true</a>. You can find several other articles if you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->LAST WEEK, a group of 150 Pentagon scientists, weapons contractors, civil defense officials and Strategic Command insiders gathered at the Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Neb. Their mission? To build a "workable" nuclear weapon.
According to press reports, the discussion focused on the Bush administration plans to develop a new generation of "mini-nukes" and "bunker-buster" bombs. The maniacs at the Pentagon say that they need an arsenal of low-yield warheads to use against specific targets--to wipe out "rogue regimes" while keeping "collateral damage" to a minimum.
They don?t care that scientists say it?s impossible for such not to contaminate the environment with radioactive fallout. Or that civilian casualties would be inevitable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
USA's government is/has broken the non-nuclear weapon treaty...among other treaties.
Isolationism all the way. I'm tired of hearing people gripe about the US. We should leave all you people to work out your own problems and save millions in doing so. Bad always comes with the good. You can accept the bad or tell us to screw off. Either way it's not pretty
You can't show even a thread of support for your own country without being called a "blind patriot" or a "nationalist," especially if you're an American. I love America and I believe what it is going is the right thing so <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> you whining foreigners.
Bush's execution of the whole thing is what is wrong.
Well, I go into defense spending a bit because it is something not a lot of folks have a good grasp on. It is also what I do for a living. The percentage of budget in that respect between the U.S. and any other country is night and day. They are more along the lines of pocurement or development for foreign military sales in Russia's case.
I also benefited from gov't research grants out of DARPA, and at least two of the departments at my alma mater would not have existed without grants of that nature. Funding like that in other nations comes from the government in large amounts just for its own sake. Whether it is unfortunate or not, that is not largely the case with the U.S..
While keeping on topic is a noble effort, attempts to do so in areas of religion or politics is like herding cats. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now on topic I am totally against isolationism, even if everything we do gets strawberries (which is not the case). Whether it's trying to establish the "rich uncle" complex or not, many people depend on our international aid. It can be argued either way whether this aid should come in the form of social or political liberation by force, and in our case it's almost an even split politically. And that split is not down the party lines.
So we have folks who say we shouldn't have done x, or we should have done x but done it differently, or we didn't go far enough with x. And these types of statements come from within both political parties.
I am not sure how this split stands internationally, but other countries like things to be tidy and things do not always end up that way. The UN for instance, puts great weight on process and less on progress. Maybe the reason we "get away with things" is that the result is in line with the perceived result of process, it is just messy and embarassing sometimes.
Consideration for other leaders often wanders into the realm of not telling them their business regardless of what they are doing, so long as there is not some active complaint against them. Because complaints are brought by nations, not peoples, internal matters are kept under the rug and ignored unless or until they get out of hand.
I refuse to believe that it is just the U.S. alone that has their stomach turned over this type of thing occasionally. But there really is not a place someone on the outside of that proces can look in and see how other folks feel. The various councils are as much catty as they are set in the interest of others.
Well, bashing the UN for being too buereaucratic is easy - it was practically institutionalized to be that.
The big problem with the United States government (keep in mind that I'm not talking about 'you' Americans, but the administration) 'getting away with stuff' is a) that this government has overwhelming self interests (and don't bring the defense of relative dirt up here - just because most other governments consist of scumbags as well doesn't make it less problematic), and b) that the US' actions can easily be taken as 'examples'. Take Sharons current policy towards the Palestenian extremist groups. These actions make a further escalation of the conflict inevitable, as the American administration states on every given opportunity, but Sharon is capable of using the complete 'War on Terrorism' vocabulary as justification. Thus, they complicate the international landscape you fittingly describe as "kept under the rug" even more.
What this means in effect is that the United States, being the last remaining superpower, <i>should</i> set an example after which all other nations could operate - thus creating a morallic high ground on which much would be possible. Instead, the current government decides to flex its muscles and behave like a thirteen years old.
I think everyone is being a bit dishonest with themselves. If, say, Australia or Germany were in America's position, don't you think that the leaders in these countries would be making the very same decisions? And don't you think that if you were living in the States, you would have a slightly different view of its actions? I'm not sure whether most people dislike America because it's popular to do so, or whether the existence of a hegemony that they are not part of makes them insecure.
<!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 20 2003, 12:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 20 2003, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--DarkDude+Sep 20 2003, 07:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkDude @ Sep 20 2003, 07:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Umm, warheads don't have to be nukes. And this warhead was by no means a "nuke" or a "mini-nuke". Don't know where you got that piece of info. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I know warhead doesn't equal nuke but it just reminded me of that. And now that you ask, I decided to do some googling, and behold:
<a href='http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/464/464_01_Nuclear.shtml' target='_blank'>Biased article but it's here just to prove that it's true</a>. You can find several other articles if you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->LAST WEEK, a group of 150 Pentagon scientists, weapons contractors, civil defense officials and Strategic Command insiders gathered at the Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Neb. Their mission? To build a "workable" nuclear weapon.
According to press reports, the discussion focused on the Bush administration plans to develop a new generation of "mini-nukes" and "bunker-buster" bombs. The maniacs at the Pentagon say that they need an arsenal of low-yield warheads to use against specific targets--to wipe out "rogue regimes" while keeping "collateral damage" to a minimum.
They don?t care that scientists say it?s impossible for such not to contaminate the environment with radioactive fallout. Or that civilian casualties would be inevitable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
USA's government is/has broken the non-nuclear weapon treaty...among other treaties. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow, I live in Bellevue.... right next to Offutt. Scary. Anyways, yea, you've got a point there, but those are in development and they, and hopefully will never be used in acctually warfare. A nuke is a nuke; mini, low-yield, or "clean", they will all cause horrible things to happen. I've never even heard about this happening... you'd think I would living right next to Offutt but nothing on the news or any thing. Hmm, maybe there IS a cover-up going on. *shifty eyes*
[Edit] Btw, most heavly biased articles can't be trusted. This one looks like anoher conspiracy theorist thing. I'll look this one up and if it looks legit, I'll trust it. [Edit]
[Edit] Looked into it, seems true enough. But would Bush really plan to use these? Hopefully he wont get another 4 years and we wont find out. [Edit]
Well, another possibility is that the folks at the nuclear weapons research labs are getting nervous at all the cuts they're getting. So they are lobbying to get another industry they can contribute to in order to justify their budgets still being bloated to almost Cold War levels.
I'm not quite sure what happened to that legislation, but I know there's a lot of resistance to development of tac nukes by the higher ups at the Pentagon. As far as I can see technologically it is a matter of just building them and the infrastructure to maintain them. Our arsenal of small ones was always much smaller than large ones.
From a tactical standpoint, nukes don't make much sense unless you're talkin' about using them against massed infantry, armor, or large warships. Even then, several other shock type weapons are more useful because you can actually roll in or walk them forward ahead of you. A deep bunker can be countered by just fusing the surface shut and letting 'em rot. Commo lines are easily cut and unless they have some sort of weapon they can launch (and you can just seal the launch tubes as well) it's not that much of a threat.
Collapsing the tunnel system the North Koreans have dug over to South Korea could also be done conventionally without too much trouble. As I see it, mini-nukes just don't have a utility we don't already possess.
And, all governments are self-interested. It is almost a force of nature. In America it's, in my opinion, more of a problem to joe citizen than the world at large. The perception of morality is difficult to maintain when folks are expected to be held to some standard that no one else chooses to maintain. Everyone in the international scene has dirt on 'em, and mainly because they choose it to be so. It's almost a tradition. Things have kinda gotten too far out of hand to bring scope back to a high ground, because starting to hold people to what is right is viewed itself as wrong. Those who make policy and have the largest say in the way of things tend to prefer the status quo. A change in it would require a shift in the leadership in so many areas I can barely fathom it. Barring that, I seriously doubt we can wrangle them. Just in dealing with governments you have to make a lot of compromises to morality because that is how they work.
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Sep 18 2003, 12:29 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 18 2003, 12:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--Dread+Sep 18 2003, 12:23 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dread @ Sep 18 2003, 12:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Sep 18 2003, 07:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Sep 18 2003, 07:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "We can't police the world. They are their own country, let them be.". What if that was the US response to everything "We are our own country and we do what we want, so f**k off.". Doesn't quite work the same way does it?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is a difference between interfering with some nations internal business and interfering with nation that attacks other nations. You should realize that.
Also besides USA's aggressive policy against mid-east, it has done other things as well. Like giving a finger to the international law and breaking several treaties. USA's current government is doing stuff that their former governments didn't even dream of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again your generalizing, what treaties did they break, which countries wouldnt' dream of doing it?
If you are referring to France they had several billion dollars comming to them from Iraq that they won't see a penny of now, if you are talking about Russia they had a steady arms trade going with both Iran and Iraq, If you are talking about the UN they would rather sanction a country that just invaded it's neighbor because they think not being able to export or import goods is a good deterant for a dictator that just stole 300 million dollars.
Wait the US former goverments didn't do any of this stuff. Former goverments, dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilians, desrupted over 30 goverments around the world through unauthorized assissinations, prolonged a war for 20 years because they were stealing heorine from the country they were fighting, firebombed a european city during ww2 that had more casualties than heroshima and nagasaki combined. And each of those actions probably got less bad press than what is going on today.
This isn't new, this is how politics works. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Dr. D you truely are the voice of reason sometimes.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 19 2003, 12:50 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 19 2003, 12:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Now where in the UN charter does it say: "All nations must agree to support the US in all of it's foreign wars, even those that are being launched illegally, without substantial evidence to show that said nation is a threat to anyone.". France, Russia and Germany did what they thought was the right thing to do, both in their national interests and their personal views. Thanks to the Europe-bashing these nations coped from Bush, most Americans now think that these nations didn't support the war just to annoy the US. Anyone else think that the fact that 95% of the French population were against the war had something to do with their leader's refusal to back the war? Or that no convincing evidence had been submitted to the UN that showed that Saddam had WMD and was planning to use them? The nations that opposed the war (and might I add that a large majority of the world opposed the strike, not just 4 nations) didn't see a reason to invade Iraq, and they still don't because the US has found absolutly nothing to back up it's pre-war claims.
Yes it takes 2 to tango. But the differance here is that most of the world's nations opposed the strike and voted accordingly, completly within the boundaries of the UN. Bush though, instead of working with the UN and accepting the vote, did the diplomatic equivilant of giving the UN and the rest of the world the middle finger and invaded anyway. Now he's crawling back to the UN and asking them for help to govern the mess that the US created for themselves! I hope Kofi does to Bush what Bush did to Kofi: tell him to shove off. So before we start blaming this whole fiasco in the French, Germans and Russians lets look at who trampled over the UN. That's right, Bush. Everyone else acted in full accordance with the UN charter and international law. Bush is to blame for the death of the UN. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Um dude, how about reading the last weapons inspections done under Clintons adminstration, the U.N clearly stated Saddam had WMD then, what do you think they did, throw it in the ocean because they suddenely turned a new leaf?
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Sep 19 2003, 02:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Sep 19 2003, 02:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Let's all jump on the super-patriotic bandwagon!
The USA has become the biggest bully in the playground, plain and simple. Muscle and size lets you get away with a lot of things. We pretty much destroyed the U.N., we're hurting NATO, we're moving back to Isolationism.
Ryo-Ohki already said the points I was gonna make. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If anything we're moving further away from isolastionism.
I don't understand how you can think we bully other countries, yet keep to ourselves?
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 19 2003, 07:57 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 19 2003, 07:57 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's also ok to have an opinion that isn't necesarily based on fact. But, drifting into the land of make believe tends to push people away from taking you seriously. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well I take it you believe that the war on Iraq was justified. Give reasons. If you believe it was justified because Saddam was "evil", then it is you who are in the land of make believe without facts. If you believe it was justified because Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the US, then again, you have no facts to back that up. The facts ARE that no weapons have been found nor any links to terrorist groups. I don't take the view that the war on Iraq was justified seriously. Take my views on Osama's war as you will, but unless you have proof for your arguement that the invasion was justified, it is no more a legitimate arguement than yours. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Whoa, now your flat out wrong.
Once again, READ THE REPORTS OF PAST WEAPONS INSPECTIONS BEFORE YOU GO BLAMING OTHERS FOR IGNORANCE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AND ONLY EXCISTS IN YOU.
<!--QuoteBegin--Ryo-Ohki+Sep 20 2003, 10:04 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ryo-Ohki @ Sep 20 2003, 10:04 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->spends its entire budget on military, with the civilians in poverty, lacking basic health support and food, while the Rich live in splendour and give money to terrorists,<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ah Dread beat me to it but anyways:
Us spends a very large amount of it's budget on it's military. Proportionatly more than many "trash" nations.
Many US civilians live in poverty.
The US does not provide it's citizens with health care, and many Americans do go hungry.
The gap between rich and poor in the US is very large, and it's worth mentioning that US citizens give money to organisations like the IRA.
Thus does the US have to fear itself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are not democratic, then you teeter on the edge of being a "dodgy" nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For almost all of human history, the governments have have existed have been non-democratic and oppressive. Are we thus to conclude that almost every government has been "wrong" or "dodgy"? It depends very much on one's point of view; An American looks at China and sees oppression, a Chinese person looks at America and sees anarchy and disorder. It's wrong for us to simply classify one government type as the only legitimate form of government that can exist. Not everyone wants to be a democracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> US civilian "poverty" means living in a trailer home. Then compare that to mainland Asian and Middle-Eastern poverty. They are living like kings in comparision.
The US spends large amounts of money on defence because it HAS large amounts of money to spend. Its not a case of "clean water for our people to have basic sanitation - or more tanks..... we'll take the tanks thanks". And yes the Americans are behind in health care thats true, but I would wager that the majority does have some form of health cover.
I'm trying to back away from my claim of "unlegit", because these are soveign and recognised nations, but I will call them "dodgy" because they slaughter their own people, suppress their basic human rights. Some are better than others thats true, but I cant accept that "hey they're happy living under a despot, watching their loved ones starve while he masses the army, thats just the goverment that they chose." They didnt get to chose, and if they did, they sure as hell would have selected Kim or Hussain.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once again, READ THE REPORTS OF PAST WEAPONS INSPECTIONS BEFORE YOU GO BLAMING OTHERS FOR IGNORANCE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AND ONLY EXCISTS IN YOU.
You sicken me sometimes. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey f*** you. Leave personal insults out of this.
I never said that Iraq didn't used to have WMD. The whole world knows Iraq used to have them. What I said was that Saddam got rid of them. Now who knows what his reasons were for kicking out the inspectors. One of his aides commented after the war that Saddam liked to maintain the illusion that he had WMD because he thought it made him look strong. Saddam miscalculated however. We know that the Iraqis were destroying their WMD after the First Gulf War. We also know that no WMD were used against invading US troops in the Second Gulf War. And we also know that no WMD or production facilities have been found in Iraq. Those are FACTS. To me, they say "Iraq destoryed it's WMD and had none when the US invaded". Interpret them as you will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->what do you think they did, throw it in the ocean because they suddenely turned a new leaf? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then answer me why Saddam would have them? He knows that if he uses them, he would instantly be invaded and destroyed. Thus they serve no offensive purpose. He knows that if he holds onto them, they increase the chance of a foreign invasion. It made sense for Saddam to get rid of them. Had he turned over a new leaf? Hell no, but he did understand that in the current world political situation, having WMD wasn't a wize idea. Prior to Gulf War One he could get good use from his WMD, but post conflict he couldn't. Hence he got rid of them. Just because a guy slaughters his civilians doesn't make him illogical.
Will Australia be the next target? Watch this space <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Ryo have a look at my post in the Off-topic forum, Saddam is negotiating surrender to the US atm, or so it says, so we might get some really solid answers soon.
I doubt Australia is worth going after, but it would be hilarious if Little Johnny was making nukes. I still cant see the value in coming after Australia when you have big, fat, juicy America to attack. All the arabs know about America, probably only a few have just heard us tagged onto a list of nations involved in the Iraq war. We arent worth it.
Problem is Marine, say Saddam surrenders and says "Look, I really don't have any WMD" then Bush isn't going to believe him. The US administration is convinced that there are weapons to be found, and as such they won't accept no for an answer.
The question of Australia nukes does raise an interesting conundrum. Australia has signed the International Non-Proliferation treaty and claimed that Australia will remain a non-nuclear power. But say "Honest John" did decide to get some nukes. We would be breaking an international treaty. Could this be grounds for invading Australia? It all comes back to the central question: why can some nations have WMD and not others? Personally, I think that if Iran or North Korea gets invaded, then so should Australia if we do make nukes. All those countries would have broken the same rules.
Ehehehe yeah I know. The only answer the American government is going to accept from Saddam is "Yes, I do have nukes, here's where I hid em".
Well in this little ol world we live in, there happens to be a sherrif, and that self appointed justice happens to be the US. As we like to style ourselves as the deputy sherrif, I dont think we'll be in too much strife if we do start building nukes.
Fact is that the Americans would trust us with nukes waaaayyyyy before they let Kim or Iran have them. We dont need to extort money from the US, we dont need foreign aid, and we are generally well inclined towards the nations that count (in the US govts eyes).
We are a stable nation with a democratic government, elected by people who dont really support the nuking of anyone, and to do so would be political suicide. We arent going to do anything with these nukes if we get them, other than tuck them away as a security blanket.
Iran, Nth Korea? I dont trust them with string, let alone nuclear weapons. These weapons would be in the control of dictators, who would use it to try and threaten other nations into aid money. Aid money which would then be spent on more weapons.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These weapons would be in the control of dictators, who would use it to try and threaten other nations into aid money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But that's just it: all they can do is threaten. The US isn't going to bow to North Korean or Iranian pressure because the US knows it's all just a bluff. "Give us money or we nuke you" doesn't work because the US is simply going to say "Listen mate if you even think about launching one missile we are going to rename your country to SmokingHoleIntheGroundistan". North Korea and Iran won't get squat from the US because they can't use their weapons if the US does call their bluff. Hence I see nothing to fear.
Hrrrrmmmmm I can see I am in serious danger of being the first forumite to ever be swayed by the oppositions arguement.......
Must .... grab.... flag.... need.... wave......
AHAH - But what about the classic I'm an insane dictator who wants to go out with a bang theory. Just like the Israeli's. I have a suspicion that if they ever thought they were in danger of being overrun by the Muslims that they would let loose with the Nukes.
Similarily, I think Kim might be tempted to do the same if he had his nation crumbling around him.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->AHAH - But what about the classic I'm an insane dictator who wants to go out with a bang theory. Just like the Israeli's. I have a suspicion that if they ever thought they were in danger of being overrun by the Muslims that they would let loose with the Nukes.
Similarily, I think Kim might be tempted to do the same if he had his nation crumbling around him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any nation with a nuclear stockpile will go out with a bang. Thats why they have them. The Israelis would devestate most of the Middle East if they were over-run. The US would launch a strike of apocalypic proportions if they were going down. This is why nuclear powers don't get attacked: the attacker knows that they would have to neutralise their opponants entire nuclear capabilities at the very start of the conflict, and no-one's figured out a way to do that.
Now if Kim was invaded hell yes he would go nuclear. What's he got to lose? If you invade a nuclear power expect the defender to be a little annoyed about this and use everything in their arsonal to oppose you. But like I've said, Kim and whoever rules Iran arn't going to launch a war because it would be suicide. These men might be power-hungry, but they're not suicidal. Hence, if we just leave these nations alone, they won't do anything. North Korea and Iran have nothing to gain and everything to lose by using their nukes or starting a conflict. Any possible benefits would be overshadowed by an immediate counter-response that would devestate their respective countries. Nuclear deterrance has worked for over 50 years. Why do we suddenly think things have changed? Mao was a fruit-loop by the end of his reign but he never used nukes. India and Pakistan hate each other about as much as any two nations can hate one another, and they've never used their nukes. The US has seen Presidents like Nixon and Reagan who could be considered unstable individuals. Again, since WWII, no nukes. The USSR was ruled by some interesting characters, and again, no nukes. I honestly can't see what makes North Korea or Iran differant to any other power with nukes.
Well what about the event of a coup. The North Koreans get sick and tired of putting up with this oppresion BS. So they start running riot. They capture several cities, half the army is looking like its about to join them and they are all chanting Death to Kimmy.
So, seeing he has nothing to lose, he nukes one of their captured cities. It doesnt even need the event of an invasion to trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Now a country like the US is stable. It is HIGHLY unlikely that it will have an armed revolution any time soon. Same as with France, Germany, Australia, and just about any other Western democratic nation. However, I think that civil unrest is FAR more likely in the dodgy nations, and that could trigger the use of nuclear arms. Eagerly awaiting a reply,
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So, seeing he has nothing to lose, he nukes one of their captured cities. It doesnt even need the event of an invasion to trigger the use of nuclear weapons.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At this point Kim will be in more trouble than he could imagine. China is just across the border and they're not going to like radioactive fallout spreading over their land. What would very likely happen is that either China, Russia or the US would immediatly bomb Kim's nuclear silos and storage facilities. They might stop short of actually invading, but they would certainly want to neutralise Kim's ability to turn the region into a radioactive zone.
It's almost certain that a similar thing would occur if Israel ever went nuclear in the event of a massive invasion. If Israel was falling and decided to go out with a bang (extreamly likely) the US would almost certainly take out the Israeli missile silos to prevent the entire region from being devestated.
At the end of the day I find the event of an uprising triggering the use of nuclear weapons as a remote scenario. Kim would likely find that in the event of a serious enough uprising his orders wouldn't be obeyed and if the rebellion wasn't serious he wouldn't have to resort to nukes. I admit that it's a possibility, but a remote one. As for western countries being free from revolutions, arn't there millions of Americans who claim that they have guns to prevent the government from becoming despotic?
Well it is a remote situation I'll admit, but it still is a possibility. Akin to the n00b in CS when FF is on - hes just about to quit, so before he goes he tks half his team. He's leaving anyway, so why not.
I still think that its more than worthwhile trying to stop them from getting nukes. I dont think that this "stopping" should extend to a full scale invasion though.
<!--QuoteBegin--Marine01+Sep 22 2003, 09:26 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 22 2003, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well it is a remote situation I'll admit, but it still is a possibility. Akin to the n00b in CS when FF is on - hes just about to quit, so before he goes he tks half his team. He's leaving anyway, so why not. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not a reason to play only ff off. Risks are still being taken and people like to believe in human kindness. Some times tkilling idiots come but turning ff off would take away a big part of the suspense. Hence sometimes you just have to take those bullets from the llamer like a man to keep the game better in whole.
You started the CS-comparison so don't say "You can't take risk in real life even if you can in CS" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Comments
I know warhead doesn't equal nuke but it just reminded me of that. And now that you ask, I decided to do some googling, and behold:
<a href='http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/464/464_01_Nuclear.shtml' target='_blank'>Biased article but it's here just to prove that it's true</a>. You can find several other articles if you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->LAST WEEK, a group of 150 Pentagon scientists, weapons contractors, civil defense officials and Strategic Command insiders gathered at the Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Neb. Their mission? To build a "workable" nuclear weapon.
According to press reports, the discussion focused on the Bush administration plans to develop a new generation of "mini-nukes" and "bunker-buster" bombs. The maniacs at the Pentagon say that they need an arsenal of low-yield warheads to use against specific targets--to wipe out "rogue regimes" while keeping "collateral damage" to a minimum.
They don?t care that scientists say it?s impossible for such not to contaminate the environment with radioactive fallout. Or that civilian casualties would be inevitable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
USA's government is/has broken the non-nuclear weapon treaty...among other treaties.
Bush's execution of the whole thing is what is wrong.
I also benefited from gov't research grants out of DARPA, and at least two of the departments at my alma mater would not have existed without grants of that nature. Funding like that in other nations comes from the government in large amounts just for its own sake. Whether it is unfortunate or not, that is not largely the case with the U.S..
While keeping on topic is a noble effort, attempts to do so in areas of religion or politics is like herding cats. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Now on topic I am totally against isolationism, even if everything we do gets strawberries (which is not the case). Whether it's trying to establish the "rich uncle" complex or not, many people depend on our international aid. It can be argued either way whether this aid should come in the form of social or political liberation by force, and in our case it's almost an even split politically. And that split is not down the party lines.
So we have folks who say we shouldn't have done x, or we should have done x but done it differently, or we didn't go far enough with x. And these types of statements come from within both political parties.
I am not sure how this split stands internationally, but other countries like things to be tidy and things do not always end up that way. The UN for instance, puts great weight on process and less on progress. Maybe the reason we "get away with things" is that the result is in line with the perceived result of process, it is just messy and embarassing sometimes.
Consideration for other leaders often wanders into the realm of not telling them their business regardless of what they are doing, so long as there is not some active complaint against them. Because complaints are brought by nations, not peoples, internal matters are kept under the rug and ignored unless or until they get out of hand.
I refuse to believe that it is just the U.S. alone that has their stomach turned over this type of thing occasionally. But there really is not a place someone on the outside of that proces can look in and see how other folks feel. The various councils are as much catty as they are set in the interest of others.
The big problem with the United States government (keep in mind that I'm not talking about 'you' Americans, but the administration) 'getting away with stuff' is a) that this government has overwhelming self interests (and don't bring the defense of relative dirt up here - just because most other governments consist of scumbags as well doesn't make it less problematic), and b) that the US' actions can easily be taken as 'examples'. Take Sharons current policy towards the Palestenian extremist groups. These actions make a further escalation of the conflict inevitable, as the American administration states on every given opportunity, but Sharon is capable of using the complete 'War on Terrorism' vocabulary as justification. Thus, they complicate the international landscape you fittingly describe as "kept under the rug" even more.
What this means in effect is that the United States, being the last remaining superpower, <i>should</i> set an example after which all other nations could operate - thus creating a morallic high ground on which much would be possible.
Instead, the current government decides to flex its muscles and behave like a thirteen years old.
I know warhead doesn't equal nuke but it just reminded me of that. And now that you ask, I decided to do some googling, and behold:
<a href='http://www.socialistworker.org/2003-2/464/464_01_Nuclear.shtml' target='_blank'>Biased article but it's here just to prove that it's true</a>. You can find several other articles if you want.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->LAST WEEK, a group of 150 Pentagon scientists, weapons contractors, civil defense officials and Strategic Command insiders gathered at the Offutt Air Force Base in Bellevue, Neb. Their mission? To build a "workable" nuclear weapon.
According to press reports, the discussion focused on the Bush administration plans to develop a new generation of "mini-nukes" and "bunker-buster" bombs. The maniacs at the Pentagon say that they need an arsenal of low-yield warheads to use against specific targets--to wipe out "rogue regimes" while keeping "collateral damage" to a minimum.
They don?t care that scientists say it?s impossible for such not to contaminate the environment with radioactive fallout. Or that civilian casualties would be inevitable.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
USA's government is/has broken the non-nuclear weapon treaty...among other treaties. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wow, I live in Bellevue.... right next to Offutt. Scary. Anyways, yea, you've got a point there, but those are in development and they, and hopefully will never be used in acctually warfare. A nuke is a nuke; mini, low-yield, or "clean", they will all cause horrible things to happen. I've never even heard about this happening... you'd think I would living right next to Offutt but nothing on the news or any thing. Hmm, maybe there IS a cover-up going on. *shifty eyes*
[Edit] Btw, most heavly biased articles can't be trusted. This one looks like anoher conspiracy theorist thing. I'll look this one up and if it looks legit, I'll trust it. [Edit]
[Edit] Looked into it, seems true enough. But would Bush really plan to use these? Hopefully he wont get another 4 years and we wont find out. [Edit]
I'm not quite sure what happened to that legislation, but I know there's a lot of resistance to development of tac nukes by the higher ups at the Pentagon. As far as I can see technologically it is a matter of just building them and the infrastructure to maintain them. Our arsenal of small ones was always much smaller than large ones.
From a tactical standpoint, nukes don't make much sense unless you're talkin' about using them against massed infantry, armor, or large warships. Even then, several other shock type weapons are more useful because you can actually roll in or walk them forward ahead of you. A deep bunker can be countered by just fusing the surface shut and letting 'em rot. Commo lines are easily cut and unless they have some sort of weapon they can launch (and you can just seal the launch tubes as well) it's not that much of a threat.
Collapsing the tunnel system the North Koreans have dug over to South Korea could also be done conventionally without too much trouble. As I see it, mini-nukes just don't have a utility we don't already possess.
And, all governments are self-interested. It is almost a force of nature. In America it's, in my opinion, more of a problem to joe citizen than the world at large. The perception of morality is difficult to maintain when folks are expected to be held to some standard that no one else chooses to maintain. Everyone in the international scene has dirt on 'em, and mainly because they choose it to be so. It's almost a tradition. Things have kinda gotten too far out of hand to bring scope back to a high ground, because starting to hold people to what is right is viewed itself as wrong. Those who make policy and have the largest say in the way of things tend to prefer the status quo. A change in it would require a shift in the leadership in so many areas I can barely fathom it. Barring that, I seriously doubt we can wrangle them. Just in dealing with governments you have to make a lot of compromises to morality because that is how they work.
There is a difference between interfering with some nations internal business and interfering with nation that attacks other nations. You should realize that.
Also besides USA's aggressive policy against mid-east, it has done other things as well. Like giving a finger to the international law and breaking several treaties. USA's current government is doing stuff that their former governments didn't even dream of. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again your generalizing, what treaties did they break, which countries wouldnt' dream of doing it?
If you are referring to France they had several billion dollars comming to them from Iraq that they won't see a penny of now, if you are talking about Russia they had a steady arms trade going with both Iran and Iraq, If you are talking about the UN they would rather sanction a country that just invaded it's neighbor because they think not being able to export or import goods is a good deterant for a dictator that just stole 300 million dollars.
Wait the US former goverments didn't do any of this stuff. Former goverments, dropped 2 atomic bombs on civilians, desrupted over 30 goverments around the world through unauthorized assissinations, prolonged a war for 20 years because they were stealing heorine from the country they were fighting, firebombed a european city during ww2 that had more casualties than heroshima and nagasaki combined. And each of those actions probably got less bad press than what is going on today.
This isn't new, this is how politics works. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dr. D you truely are the voice of reason sometimes.
Now where in the UN charter does it say: "All nations must agree to support the US in all of it's foreign wars, even those that are being launched illegally, without substantial evidence to show that said nation is a threat to anyone.". France, Russia and Germany did what they thought was the right thing to do, both in their national interests and their personal views. Thanks to the Europe-bashing these nations coped from Bush, most Americans now think that these nations didn't support the war just to annoy the US. Anyone else think that the fact that 95% of the French population were against the war had something to do with their leader's refusal to back the war? Or that no convincing evidence had been submitted to the UN that showed that Saddam had WMD and was planning to use them? The nations that opposed the war (and might I add that a large majority of the world opposed the strike, not just 4 nations) didn't see a reason to invade Iraq, and they still don't because the US has found absolutly nothing to back up it's pre-war claims.
Yes it takes 2 to tango. But the differance here is that most of the world's nations opposed the strike and voted accordingly, completly within the boundaries of the UN. Bush though, instead of working with the UN and accepting the vote, did the diplomatic equivilant of giving the UN and the rest of the world the middle finger and invaded anyway. Now he's crawling back to the UN and asking them for help to govern the mess that the US created for themselves! I hope Kofi does to Bush what Bush did to Kofi: tell him to shove off. So before we start blaming this whole fiasco in the French, Germans and Russians lets look at who trampled over the UN. That's right, Bush. Everyone else acted in full accordance with the UN charter and international law. Bush is to blame for the death of the UN. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Um dude, how about reading the last weapons inspections done under Clintons adminstration, the U.N clearly stated Saddam had WMD then, what do you think they did, throw it in the ocean because they suddenely turned a new leaf?
Bullcrap. Read reports first man.
The USA has become the biggest bully in the playground, plain and simple. Muscle and size lets you get away with a lot of things. We pretty much destroyed the U.N., we're hurting NATO, we're moving back to Isolationism.
Ryo-Ohki already said the points I was gonna make. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If anything we're moving further away from isolastionism.
I don't understand how you can think we bully other countries, yet keep to ourselves?
Well I take it you believe that the war on Iraq was justified. Give reasons. If you believe it was justified because Saddam was "evil", then it is you who are in the land of make believe without facts. If you believe it was justified because Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the US, then again, you have no facts to back that up. The facts ARE that no weapons have been found nor any links to terrorist groups. I don't take the view that the war on Iraq was justified seriously. Take my views on Osama's war as you will, but unless you have proof for your arguement that the invasion was justified, it is no more a legitimate arguement than yours. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Whoa, now your flat out wrong.
Once again, READ THE REPORTS OF PAST WEAPONS INSPECTIONS BEFORE YOU GO BLAMING OTHERS FOR IGNORANCE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE AND ONLY EXCISTS IN YOU.
You sicken me sometimes.
Ah Dread beat me to it but anyways:
Us spends a very large amount of it's budget on it's military. Proportionatly more than many "trash" nations.
Many US civilians live in poverty.
The US does not provide it's citizens with health care, and many Americans do go hungry.
The gap between rich and poor in the US is very large, and it's worth mentioning that US citizens give money to organisations like the IRA.
Thus does the US have to fear itself?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you are not democratic, then you teeter on the edge of being a "dodgy" nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For almost all of human history, the governments have have existed have been non-democratic and oppressive. Are we thus to conclude that almost every government has been "wrong" or "dodgy"? It depends very much on one's point of view; An American looks at China and sees oppression, a Chinese person looks at America and sees anarchy and disorder. It's wrong for us to simply classify one government type as the only legitimate form of government that can exist. Not everyone wants to be a democracy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
US civilian "poverty" means living in a trailer home. Then compare that to mainland Asian and Middle-Eastern poverty. They are living like kings in comparision.
The US spends large amounts of money on defence because it HAS large amounts of money to spend. Its not a case of "clean water for our people to have basic sanitation - or more tanks..... we'll take the tanks thanks". And yes the Americans are behind in health care thats true, but I would wager that the majority does have some form of health cover.
I'm trying to back away from my claim of "unlegit", because these are soveign and recognised nations, but I will call them "dodgy" because they slaughter their own people, suppress their basic human rights. Some are better than others thats true, but I cant accept that "hey they're happy living under a despot, watching their loved ones starve while he masses the army, thats just the goverment that they chose." They didnt get to chose, and if they did, they sure as hell would have selected Kim or Hussain.
You sicken me sometimes.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey f*** you. Leave personal insults out of this.
I never said that Iraq didn't used to have WMD. The whole world knows Iraq used to have them. What I said was that Saddam got rid of them. Now who knows what his reasons were for kicking out the inspectors. One of his aides commented after the war that Saddam liked to maintain the illusion that he had WMD because he thought it made him look strong. Saddam miscalculated however. We know that the Iraqis were destroying their WMD after the First Gulf War. We also know that no WMD were used against invading US troops in the Second Gulf War. And we also know that no WMD or production facilities have been found in Iraq. Those are FACTS. To me, they say "Iraq destoryed it's WMD and had none when the US invaded". Interpret them as you will.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->what do you think they did, throw it in the ocean because they suddenely turned a new leaf?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then answer me why Saddam would have them? He knows that if he uses them, he would instantly be invaded and destroyed. Thus they serve no offensive purpose. He knows that if he holds onto them, they increase the chance of a foreign invasion. It made sense for Saddam to get rid of them. Had he turned over a new leaf? Hell no, but he did understand that in the current world political situation, having WMD wasn't a wize idea. Prior to Gulf War One he could get good use from his WMD, but post conflict he couldn't. Hence he got rid of them. Just because a guy slaughters his civilians doesn't make him illogical.
Btw: <a href='http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,7329787%255E2,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0...7%255E2,00.html</a>
Will Australia be the next target? Watch this space <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
I doubt Australia is worth going after, but it would be hilarious if Little Johnny was making nukes. I still cant see the value in coming after Australia when you have big, fat, juicy America to attack. All the arabs know about America, probably only a few have just heard us tagged onto a list of nations involved in the Iraq war. We arent worth it.
The question of Australia nukes does raise an interesting conundrum. Australia has signed the International Non-Proliferation treaty and claimed that Australia will remain a non-nuclear power. But say "Honest John" did decide to get some nukes. We would be breaking an international treaty. Could this be grounds for invading Australia? It all comes back to the central question: why can some nations have WMD and not others? Personally, I think that if Iran or North Korea gets invaded, then so should Australia if we do make nukes. All those countries would have broken the same rules.
Well in this little ol world we live in, there happens to be a sherrif, and that self appointed justice happens to be the US. As we like to style ourselves as the deputy sherrif, I dont think we'll be in too much strife if we do start building nukes.
Fact is that the Americans would trust us with nukes waaaayyyyy before they let Kim or Iran have them. We dont need to extort money from the US, we dont need foreign aid, and we are generally well inclined towards the nations that count (in the US govts eyes).
We are a stable nation with a democratic government, elected by people who dont really support the nuking of anyone, and to do so would be political suicide. We arent going to do anything with these nukes if we get them, other than tuck them away as a security blanket.
Iran, Nth Korea? I dont trust them with string, let alone nuclear weapons. These weapons would be in the control of dictators, who would use it to try and threaten other nations into aid money. Aid money which would then be spent on more weapons.
But that's just it: all they can do is threaten. The US isn't going to bow to North Korean or Iranian pressure because the US knows it's all just a bluff. "Give us money or we nuke you" doesn't work because the US is simply going to say "Listen mate if you even think about launching one missile we are going to rename your country to SmokingHoleIntheGroundistan". North Korea and Iran won't get squat from the US because they can't use their weapons if the US does call their bluff. Hence I see nothing to fear.
Must .... grab.... flag.... need.... wave......
AHAH - But what about the classic I'm an insane dictator who wants to go out with a bang theory. Just like the Israeli's. I have a suspicion that if they ever thought they were in danger of being overrun by the Muslims that they would let loose with the Nukes.
Similarily, I think Kim might be tempted to do the same if he had his nation crumbling around him.
Similarily, I think Kim might be tempted to do the same if he had his nation crumbling around him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Any nation with a nuclear stockpile will go out with a bang. Thats why they have them. The Israelis would devestate most of the Middle East if they were over-run. The US would launch a strike of apocalypic proportions if they were going down. This is why nuclear powers don't get attacked: the attacker knows that they would have to neutralise their opponants entire nuclear capabilities at the very start of the conflict, and no-one's figured out a way to do that.
Now if Kim was invaded hell yes he would go nuclear. What's he got to lose? If you invade a nuclear power expect the defender to be a little annoyed about this and use everything in their arsonal to oppose you. But like I've said, Kim and whoever rules Iran arn't going to launch a war because it would be suicide. These men might be power-hungry, but they're not suicidal. Hence, if we just leave these nations alone, they won't do anything. North Korea and Iran have nothing to gain and everything to lose by using their nukes or starting a conflict. Any possible benefits would be overshadowed by an immediate counter-response that would devestate their respective countries. Nuclear deterrance has worked for over 50 years. Why do we suddenly think things have changed? Mao was a fruit-loop by the end of his reign but he never used nukes. India and Pakistan hate each other about as much as any two nations can hate one another, and they've never used their nukes. The US has seen Presidents like Nixon and Reagan who could be considered unstable individuals. Again, since WWII, no nukes. The USSR was ruled by some interesting characters, and again, no nukes. I honestly can't see what makes North Korea or Iran differant to any other power with nukes.
So, seeing he has nothing to lose, he nukes one of their captured cities. It doesnt even need the event of an invasion to trigger the use of nuclear weapons. Now a country like the US is stable. It is HIGHLY unlikely that it will have an armed revolution any time soon. Same as with France, Germany, Australia, and just about any other Western democratic nation. However, I think that civil unrest is FAR more likely in the dodgy nations, and that could trigger the use of nuclear arms. Eagerly awaiting a reply,
Marine01
At this point Kim will be in more trouble than he could imagine. China is just across the border and they're not going to like radioactive fallout spreading over their land. What would very likely happen is that either China, Russia or the US would immediatly bomb Kim's nuclear silos and storage facilities. They might stop short of actually invading, but they would certainly want to neutralise Kim's ability to turn the region into a radioactive zone.
It's almost certain that a similar thing would occur if Israel ever went nuclear in the event of a massive invasion. If Israel was falling and decided to go out with a bang (extreamly likely) the US would almost certainly take out the Israeli missile silos to prevent the entire region from being devestated.
At the end of the day I find the event of an uprising triggering the use of nuclear weapons as a remote scenario. Kim would likely find that in the event of a serious enough uprising his orders wouldn't be obeyed and if the rebellion wasn't serious he wouldn't have to resort to nukes. I admit that it's a possibility, but a remote one. As for western countries being free from revolutions, arn't there millions of Americans who claim that they have guns to prevent the government from becoming despotic?
I still think that its more than worthwhile trying to stop them from getting nukes. I dont think that this "stopping" should extend to a full scale invasion though.
That's not a reason to play only ff off. Risks are still being taken and people like to believe in human kindness. Some times tkilling idiots come but turning ff off would take away a big part of the suspense. Hence sometimes you just have to take those bullets from the llamer like a man to keep the game better in whole.
You started the CS-comparison so don't say "You can't take risk in real life even if you can in CS" <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->