No Nukes is good nukes?

[MaineMan]

Hey all-

I was listening to the BBC yesterday on my way in to work and they were interviewing South Koreans about whether or not they felt threatened by North Korea's nuclear program. I found one comment especially interesting, something like this: "If North Korea develops a nuclear weapons program, then I don't see this as such a bad thing because when the Korean peninsula reunites, South Korea will benefit by gaining this weapons system as well. Therefore we will be able to protect ourselves with the same level of protection that American and much of the rest of the world has."

All improbabilities of the Korean Peninsula reuniting aside, it got me thinking about those towns where everyone is required to own a gun, for safety's sake...

So my question is, If a community is supposedly safer when everyone owns a gun, is the world community safer when every country owns a nuke? Wouldn't It would be much harder to justify a pre-emptive strike on a soveriegn nation if we knew we might get the bomb in the process?

[The Irish One]

North Korea doen't need the nuke. They have the equivelant pointed at Seoul and that's one of the main reasons we haven't attacked. In less than an hour at least one million people in Seoul will be dead and of course N. Korea will be long gone. I won't rule out an attack, if for any reason the US has decided to move its forces south of Seoul. Just think about why, it's not because they want to make nice with N.K.

is the world community safer when every country owns a nuke?

My opinion is absolutely not! I think the more people that own nukes the higher the probability that we are going to have a nuclear confrontation. I would argue that if nuclear proliferation isn't controlled within 20 years, our survival as a species is at risk.

Wouldn't It would be much harder to justify a pre-emptive strike on a soveriegn nation if we knew we might get the bomb in the process?

If it's a state like Russia or China, sure. But a one nuke wonder,I think pre-emption is still an option. How about a region, states are less likely to launch an attack because that's the end of their existense. So I like to think regionally about this stuff, for instance say from West Asia to South East Asia, where many people have the capabilities and now the materials to do the unthinkable. I hear centrifuges are selling like hotcakes these days.

[el Guapo]

The Nazis learned that you could only kill about 7 people on average with one 9mm bullet. The world learned that you could kill MILLIONS with one nuke after testing H Bombs. That is a VAST difference of scale. We are all safer when everyone has the will, means and desires to defend themselves and their families. On the other hand when a nuke gets lost a city could vanish. Your Korean Dude is the biggest freaking moron I have ever heard quoted.

The moron is not taking into account the actions of the madmen, zealots, or the suicidal...these people now have the ability to take out 10's to 100's with conventional bombs, machineguns and what not. Once pocket Nukes are more widespread in their ownership the world becomes a vastly more dangerous place. A nuke will go off again, there is no getting away from that. Some zealot will get one a do a lot of damage. The key will be will there be any punishment of the country that lost the nuke. They need to suffer the flames of Armageddon (just a bit) as a motivator to other countries to make keeping their nuclear weapons secure their number one national policy.

Also, when a nut job decides to kill a bunch of people before he kills himself, in an armed society the citizens have chance to stop him. In an unarmed society the citizens die like sheep and in greater numbers. An armed society is a polite and courteous society.

My best guess is that far fewer innocent people would die a violent death in a uniformly armed society that has higher expectations of civil conduct for its citizens, than would die in today’s America.
- el Guapo (b. 1963)

Policemen so cherish their status as keepers of the peace and protectors of the public that they have occasionally been known to beat to death those citizens or groups who question that status.
-- David Mamet (b. 1947)

Here is the best argument against neutering my fellow citizens
Read this: http://www.house.state.tx.us/members...4/bio/hupp.htm

I was in Killeen Texas that day. My wife, son and I had dinner there a week before he killed everyone. He lived two miles from our apartment.

The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t extend to nukes, it stops just shy of guided missiles.

Gun Control: The theory that black people will be better off when only the Mark Fuhrman's have guns.

[JNL]

Answer: NO! The world is not safer if everyone has nukes.

My country is proudly nuclear-free and I hope it stays that way.

[The Irish One]

The key will be will there be any punishment of the country that lost the nuke. They need to suffer the flames of Armageddon (just a bit) as a motivator to other countries to make keeping their nuclear weapons secure their number one national policy.

This is where I question the survival of our species. The what if's? It's a Russian nuke delivered by a Pakistani's for Osama Inc.? A Chinese Nuke? an israeli nuke? Any nuclear response to Russia would be the end of the world, to China -the end of China and North America.

I'm purposefully ignoring the gun topic because I think it's a poor analogy in the first place, imho.

[el Guapo]

Answer: NO! The world is not safer if everyone has nukes.

My country is proudly nuclear-free and I hope it stays that way.

While I love you and the Kiwi's dearly, you are living under a delusuion that being nuke free keeps you somehow safe. You are not part of greater China, or the former USSR, or even a modern Japan because the US and UK have these nukes and have made the choice to risk our lives to stop the spread of totalitarian governments. Sorry.

[JNL]

While I love you and the Kiwi's dearly, you are living under a delusuion that being nuke free keeps you somehow safe. You are not part of greater China, or the former USSR, or even a modern Japan because the US and UK have these nukes and have made the choice to risk our lives to stop the spread of totalitarian governments. Sorry.

That's one way of viewing it, but no I don't believe it keeps us safe at all. Especially as we have a depleted, under-resourced defence system. What I'm proud of is the fact that we are not succumbing to the pressure of 'well they've got some so we should have some too'. So we're vulnerable. But we stand up for what we believe in.

[JNL]

eG, I'm enjoying this debate and I look forward to your response In the meantime, may I share some lyrics from a song by my aunty who is a reasonably well-known singer here.

Neutral and Nuclear Free

They can flex those muscles of seventy years
Call me juvenile and naive
I’ll pay no ransom for my life
It’s only fools who fight that fight

So I’m going after a brighter day
Sense of self it just fades away
Sense of country, me and mine
It’s getting better, s’gonna be fine

Coz I’m
Neutral and nuclear free
Flicked the fear out of the family
I got natural friends who are naturally
Neutral and nuclear free

It’s a dangerous way, the path of peace
Way beyond all imagining
Besieged and battered, no U-turn
Well they might want to but we don’t
Want to burn

So we’re
Neutral and nuclear free
Flicked the fear out of the family
I got natural friends who are naturally
Neutral and nuclear free

Freezing, we could be freezing
No babies being born
A child’s reason
It’s their world we’re stealing
Let the lamb see
The sheep shorn

Let them be
Neutral and nuclear free
Flicked the fear out of the family
I got natural friends who are naturally
Neutral and nuclear free

[nerudite]

While I love you and the Kiwi's dearly, you are living under a delusuion that being nuke free keeps you somehow safe. You are not part of greater China, or the former USSR, or even a modern Japan because the US and UK have these nukes and have made the choice to risk our lives to stop the spread of totalitarian governments. Sorry.

I totally agree (but then, I'm an American too). I have had numerous debates with people since I've been living here about the American military and defense spending/actions. Canadians are proud of their image of peacekeepers/facilitators and their use of their military for peacekeeping missions. My answer to those types of statements is usually, "well yeah you can be peacekeepers, because you don't really have to defend yourselves. If anyone invaded or threatened Canada, the US would be on them in a millisecond due to the undefended border between us." I have yet to hear a good response to this... maybe Tran, donk, or others could sway my perspective. I was going to post this originally in the thread about Canada's military, but I didn't want to seem like I was trolling (not that I think you were trolling Guap...).

[Rem]

While I love you and the Kiwi's dearly, you are living under a delusuion that being nuke free keeps you somehow safe. You are not part of greater China, or the former USSR, or even a modern Japan because the US and UK have these nukes and have made the choice to risk our lives to stop the spread of totalitarian governments. Sorry.

I think this argument misses the point in the nuclear debate slightly. The US and UK would never allow NZ to develop a nuclear capability, even if NZ wished to. Australia embarked on a then secret quest for The Bomb in the late 50's - through US/UK pressure the program was abandoned. The policy issue for NZ and the US to work out is access to NZ waters and airspace of nuclear powered and/or armed craft that may one day be used to defend NZ. Nuclear arming of NZ is neither economically feasible nor likely to increase regional security. I believe the proudly nuclear free rhetoric is just what it seems - marketing BS.

A friend of mine has written a book about the Australian program if you want to know more about it. (Australia’s Bid for the Atomic Bomb, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 2000. Dr Wayne Reynolds.)

[JNL]

The proudly nuclear free rhetoric is just what it seems - marketing BS.

Do you want to qualify that statement with "I believe..." at the start?

[el Guapo]

eG, I'm enjoying this debate and I look forward to your response In the meantime, may I share some lyrics from a song by my aunty who is a reasonably well-known singer here.

Neutral and Nuclear Free

....Let them be
Neutral and nuclear free
Flicked the fear out of the family
I got natural friends who are naturally
Neutral and nuclear free

Catchy Tune, I'm surprised our Barbara hasn't done a cover yet. Yes it is the path of Gandhi, enlightenment and good Karma.... but it is easy to be nuclear free when you are living under another's defense umbrella. When Kiwis start dieing in large numbers in the homeland because no one nuked the Chinese invasion fleet headed your way, well I guess you’d be Ok with that? You would have your principles, well those left alive would.

May I ask you this question? What would you do if tomorrow the US and the UK unilaterally disarmed and announced positions of neutrality? Let’s say everyone gave up their nukes except…oh…let’s say China. Yes, we all decided to take your nation’s path. We are all very peaceful and neutral. We just don’t want to get involved. It is none of our business. We have beaten our nukes into radioactive plowshares. The doves live large. The US has pulled out of all foreign ports and taken its soldiers home. We now maintain an army equal to Canada’s because we don’t want to seem aggressive.

What happens to New Zealand in the next ten years? What happens to the world? How much of the world’s population no longer has the option of being pacifistic because they are too busy working for the Chinese Hegemony in the ore mines?

You’re living a fictional world enabled by leaders that can’t make the distinction between right and wrong. You have lost your ability to use judgment. Why is it western societies are the only ones so seemingly suicidal and self-immolating? Why the self-loathing?

While I love a protest singer singing a protest song I also know that the man with a knife is king in a world of pacifists. Everything I needed to learn about geopolitics comes from a gentleman who hails from NYC.

Would you be comfortable if the US declared it our official policy to never come to the aid of a neutral country? If not why not?

“If you think a weakness can be turned into a strength, I hate to tell you this, but that's another weakness.”
-Jack Handy

“I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.”
-Jack Handy

“If I was the head of a country that lost a war, and I had to sign a peace treaty, just as I was signing I'd glance over the treaty and then suddenly act surprised. "Wait a minute! I thought WE won!"
-Jack Handy

“Probably to a shark, about the funniest thing there is is a wounded seal, trying to swim to shore, because WHERE DOES HE THINK HE'S GOING?!”
-Jack Handy

[img] http://www.fish-house.org/berlin74/i...ort%201974.jpg [/img]

America – Keeping people free since 1716

[el Guapo]

eG, I'm enjoying this debate and I look forward to your response In the meantime, may I share some lyrics from a song by my aunty who is a reasonably well-known singer here.

Neutral and Nuclear Free

....Let them be
Neutral and nuclear free
Flicked the fear out of the family
I got natural friends who are naturally
Neutral and nuclear free

Catchy Tune, I'm surprised our Barbara hasn't done a cover yet. Yes it is the path of Gandhi, enlightenment and good Karma.... but it is easy to be nuclear free when you are living under another's defense umbrella. When Kiwis start dieing in large numbers in the homeland because no one nuked the Chinese invasion fleet headed your way, well I guess you’d be Ok with that? You would have your principles, well those left alive would.

May I ask you this question? What would you do if tomorrow the US and the UK unilaterally disarmed and announced positions of neutrality? Let’s say everyone gave up their nukes except…oh…let’s say China. Yes, we all decided to take your nation’s path. We are all very peaceful and neutral. We just don’t want to get involved. It is none of our business. We have beaten our nukes into radioactive plowshares. The doves live large. The US has pulled out of all foreign ports and taken its soldiers home. We now maintain an army equal to Canada’s because we don’t want to seem aggressive.

What happens to New Zealand in the next ten years? What happens to the world? How much of the world’s population no longer has the option of being pacifistic because they are too busy working for the Chinese Hegemony in the ore mines?

You’re leaders are living a fictional world enabled by leaders that can’t make the distinction between right and wrong. Your leaders have lost their ability to use judgment. Why is it western societies are the only ones so seemingly suicidal and self-immolating? Why the self-loathing?

While I love a protest singer singing a protest song I also know that the man with a knife is king in a world of pacifists. Everything I needed to learn about geopolitics comes from a gentleman who hails from NYC.

Would you be comfortable if the US declared it our official policy to never come to the aid of a neutral country? If not why not?

“If you think a weakness can be turned into a strength, I hate to tell you this, but that's another weakness.”
-Jack Handy

“I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it.”
-Jack Handy

“If I was the head of a country that lost a war, and I had to sign a peace treaty, just as I was signing I'd glance over the treaty and then suddenly act surprised. "Wait a minute! I thought WE won!"
-Jack Handy

“Probably to a shark, about the funniest thing there is is a wounded seal, trying to swim to shore, because WHERE DOES HE THINK HE'S GOING?!”
-Jack Handy



America – Keeping people free since 1776
You want us on that wall, you need us on that wall.

JESSEP
(continuing)
Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have
to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You?
You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than
you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you
curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the
luxury of not knowing what I know: That Santiago's death,
while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while
grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
(beat)
You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you
don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You NEED
me there.
(boasting)
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words
as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You
use 'em as a punchline.
(beat)
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself
to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very
freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I
provide it. I'd prefer you just said thank you and went on
your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and
stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you
think you're entitled to.

KAFFEE
(quietly)
Did you order the code red?

JESSEP
(beat)
I did the job you sent me to do.

KAFFEE
Did you order the code red?

JESSEP
(pause)
You're goddamn right I did.

[JNL]

I thought this was a forum where we could share opinions without resorting to personal attack?

[el Guapo]

I thought this was a forum where we could share opinions without resorting to personal attack?

Point to where I got personal and I'll retract it. Let me look again.

There -I've tweaked my language abit. Sorry. I just had my eyes dialted by the doc about an hour ago and I can't see ####. My nose id almost touching the screen.

I'm not trying to get mean or personal, just jingoistic. If I got personal I am TRULY Sorry.

[Rem]

Do you want to qualify that statement with "I believe..." at the start?

Fair call - I've added the words. Do you challenge the truth of it though?

[JNL]

Fair call - I've added the words. Do you challenge the truth of it though?

Re-reading your post, I agree that when the statement comes from the country's leaders, your comment may hold true. But surely you cannot question it as a personally held belief?

If I said, instead, that I am glad I live in a nuclear-free country, is that different from saying I am proud of NZ's nuclear free status? I think it is slightly different and the former is what I intended to say, while the latter..... to be honest I've sort of been playing devil's advocate to provide an alternative viewpoint and get some discussion going :d:

[Rem]

Re-reading your post, I agree that when the statement comes from the country's leaders, your comment may hold true. But surely you cannot question it as a personally held belief?

My comments relate to NZ's foreign policy position. I've not thought too much about it from the perspective of an individual living in NZ. I think should give it some thought before launching in - I don't want to peeve you any more than I have already today.

[Tranplanner]

NZ, Canada, and other countries fully participated during the cold war when the threat communist world domination was real. Since the end of the cold war, these countries (and many others) have chosen to step back and downsize their armed forces, as has the U.S., to a certain extent. Why not enjoy the peace dividend? I think the U.S. has been forced, as the winning superpower, to maintain its position of dominance. It'd look pretty bad for the U.S. to all of a sudden go home and isolate itself again - and yes, it could potentially allow certain aggresive countries to move on weaker neighbours. However, if the U.S. decided tomorrow to "give up" and go home, I'm not so sure the world would necessarily fall apart overnight. Especially if the the democratic nations of the world, through the UN, finally decide to create a standing force capable of responding to crises around the globe. Until that happens, we are reliant on the U.S., as the only nation with global-reach capability, to maintain "order".

EG - While I don't personally like the communist Chinese government, I don't fully share your view of China as an imminent threat to world security. They're too busy becoming capitalists to worry about taking over the world by force. Yes, they maintain the world's largest standing army, but their nuke capability is largely marginal. I'd say the USSR...err Russia, a supposedly "democratic", friendly nation which is for some reason developing and bringing into service new nuclear weapons platforms (while at the same time accepting vast sums of western $$ to decommision the rusting, obsolete nuclear deterrant) is a bigger threat. What happens when President Vlad decides to extend his mandate after the next "free" elections?

I honestly don't think there is one country out there actively plotting world dominance at this very moment. The only nation with that capability right now, is the U.S.

To answer Maineman's original question - I don't think the world would be a safer place if every country had a nuclear capability (just as I don't think the world would be a safer place if everyone packed heat). If every country had the same capacity and same safeguards in place as the US/UK/France, maybe. As it is, while N. Korea may be able to lob a missile or three at Japan and perhaps Alaska/W. Coast USA (sorry west coasters), the American retalitory capability would be devastating. The principle of Mutual Assured Destruction (the idea that both opposing sides had the capability to utterly destroy one another) helped prevent nuclear armaggedon, strange as that may seem.

Personally, I applaud NZ's stance. It's their right as a nation to decide if they want to be nuclear-free. Plently of Kiwi blood has been spilled in the conflicts of the 20th Century for them to earn that right.