If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Why should be 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
The US and UK went to war to (supposedly) rid Iraq of nukes. But why can't Iraq have them? Because they are a supposed potential threat to the West?
Does a nation have any right to deprive others of nuclear weapons?
Does a nation have any right to deprive others of nuclear weapons?
0
Comments
Can you not see that?
So only nations that can be 'responsible' with nuclear weapons can have them? Why?
If Saddam was not an enemy of the US, would he be allowed to have nukes?
You dont just allow anyone to have nukes !
They can kill millions !
A further problem, of course, is the question of who gets to decide who is responsible and who isn't. For some reason, I'm not entirely sure I trust the US government (or any government, for that matter) to make that decision.
It's ironic that the US attempts to dictate how others can use nukes, but it's the only nation to have ever used them!
Even the IAEA confirmed that Saddam was nowhere near achieving nuclear capability. Moreover, his delivery systems were grossly exaggerated by the corporate media to pander to the Bush camp's intentions to invade Iraq even before 9/11 gave them the perfect smokescreen to pursue their warmongering agenda.
To suggest otherwise gives a fairly accurate indication that youre as gullible as pnj.
You people scare me more than the terrorists. At least they are driven by an idea. You're confused by a concept of equality and superiority that help creates an unrealistic liberal environment - "it's all good" that is exactly what terrorists need to operate in.
We picked up garbage last week that would have bombed the Brooklyn Bridge except that security was so tight.
Expect more attacks in the third world...which I now include Europe...for the ignorance.
We scare you more than terrorists
pnj, you yourself are the very definition of ignorance. Europe and Europeans have a much greater clue of what's going on, I suggest you go develop one quick!
One might as well say 'Do we have the right to deprive toddlers of razor blades?', but that's an imperfect analogy because it implies that there are nations that are 'adult' enough to handle the responsibility. America, at least, has too much to lose from nuclear proliferation, and whatever we think about it's foreigh policy, has the Bomb and did the hard work of making it a reality in the first place (and lack any pathological impulse to use it on living human beings, since they already have).
It's not a perfect situation, and we have to wonder who'll be next to follow Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea...
and George W Bush isnt mad? He could just as easily do it, he doesnt give a damn if it doesnt do anything bad to the United States
UJ, it can equally be argued that our US arms contractors have too much to gain from proliferation to allow any further nations to claim a share of the arms market.
Im sure you are well aware by now that the US and its merchants of death dwarf all other harshly villified "proliferators" in disseminating sophisticated armaments and weapons platforms to anyone who'll lay the money on the table. All this as well without moral rectitude ever entering the equation.
Just look how many of our newly proclaimed enemies are using US made conventional or nuclear weaponry (or their component elements) and the answer to Bush's pontifications is immediately clear, "Shut up and sit down hypocrite!".
To act like you're some superior human being because you'd allow radical Muslim-led countries to have nuclear weapons is blind. And I'm being nice. :crazyeyes
What you say about the big corporations Clandestine I'm sure is true...as well as many of the politicians. But the threat of Al Qaeda can't be denied or made to seem equal to a greedy, immoral multi-national.
Oh one person comes to America and u think America is all goody goody, there is probably something else behind his reason of coming to America, why would he come to america to feel protected whenever you and people like you (brainwashed narrow minded individuals) think Al Qaeda are the main suspects for attacking american...how can your da's friend feel safe there?
So pnj do u think america should be allowed to have nukes?
He was not a direct target of terrorism in Pakistan. But people he loved were killed on the sidelines of it. He's also a true Muslim...not the nut cases who have turned the religion into a death cult.
How could you support Castro? He separated families, denies people of basic rights. Communism in theory sounds good...but the reality is worst than the unfairness in democracies. You have unfairness...and no rights.
People with your view of America...make me feel we need people like Bush in office to protect us.
Even kids his own age from targetted ethnic communities across America recognise the fascist and increasingly unjust crusade that Bush has given Ashcroft the blank check to conduct domestically.
Those Pakistanis who have fled already, have done so precisely because of the manner in which Ashcroft, Ridge and his DHS have plunged the nation back into the darkest days of McCarthyism in order to maintain the stranglehold of fear over feeble minded, gullible fools like pnj who close their eyes to the truth and question only those with the determination to keep hammering at them to open their eyes.
People with your view of America confirm the fact that unless Bush is thrown down next year all that has made our country great will be flushed complete down the toilet through wanton ignorance leaving us with power hungry elites free to pillage and rape the constitution until it isnt worth the paper its printed on.
You little boy are part of the problem and too blind to see it.
Is doing what? Explain please.
He separated familes-and bush hasnt? By sending thousands of troops to war for no cause,dont start about being a threat pnj, the only threat is BUSH right now.People need to stop him and not others stopping him, i would love to have a meeting with Bush and talk 2 him myself. Denies people of basic rights-okay you may be right there but i dont support that.
To protect you? I bet you live in the suburbs of some posh housing esate, you are never going to be in any danger at all, never, now just get your arguments right before talking shit to me.excuse the language.
No doubt he checks his closet for Al Qaeda operatives every night before bed just to make sure he's safe.
Would that be because under his bed is still filled with Communists?
All i see is this childish argument of if they can have them why cant we wah wah wah.
America are not going to drop a nuclear bomb unless it is absolutely necessary. Would you honestly grant the same confidence to countries such as Syria and Iran etc?
Not only this but in such countries there is a huge chance that such weapons would get into terrorist hands. Either by dodgy trades between parties or by security breaches.
Well they could hit america or britain with a bomb could they...they dont have the capability to hit it full on strike.
But hey lets wait 15 years, underestimate their nuclear powers and then do something about it when a major city is wiped out.
You think their governments are fanatical enough to want their countries turned into a large, glow in the dark glass floored car park? Given that the only targets they are likely to want to nuke (Israel, US, UK) have quite substantial nuclear arsenals of their own, that's exactly what would happen, and they know it. It's called MAD, and it worked quite well during the Cold War.
As for security breaches with WMDs, if the terrorists want a nice, portable nuke, capable of crippling a city, Russia has loads of them that they built during the Cold War, small enough to fit in a briefcase. Last I heard, most of them were unaccounted for. Or if they want to go for a chemical based approach, it's easy enough to make ricin without assistance from any government. And of course, there was Aum Shinryoko, who managed to get their hands on Sarin, and use it on the Tokyo subway system. In short, I doubt the terrorists need to wait for somewhere like Iran to develop WMDs. They may very well be able to get them already.
In my opinion no country has the "right" to nuclear weapons and there is never a "right" situation to justify their use. If you're defending your own country and attack another country, eventually the radiation is going to filter around the earth, so at the same time you're destroying your own country. Surely the emphasis should be on protecting the earth rather than just one country?
Same with any WMD. Actually if we look at the history of use of WMDs, is it not America who have done the most damage? Agent Orange? So surely that constitutes them as the largest threat.
Phew, I thought it was just me who did that. Can't forget to check under the bed too.