Home Politics & Debate
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.
Options

Are nuclear weapons now the only defence against American imperialism?

Like most people with an ounce of common sense, I despise nuclear weapons and have supported nuclear disarment. Improbable as it is, I wish all nuclear nations destroyed their arsenal and the world was freed from that pestilence.

However that is not going to happen, and I regret to say that in view of recent events I have started to view nuclear weapons differently.

It is safe to state that the current US administration is one of the most dangerous, arrogant and unilateralist governments there have ever been (and that's saying something). The newly adopted policy of pre-emptive action against "threats" is a pathetic and lame excuse for bullying, blackmailing and ultimately imposing regime change on nations where the US have an interest, be financial, geographical or political. The Iraqi army turned out to be a piss-poor shambles that would not be a threat to an old folks home, let alone other nations. Iraqi WMDs existed only in the minds of the Bush administration. And yet, rather than giving France, Germany and the UN a full apology for this illegal and unjustified war, the US government now turns its sights on other sovereign nations as it continues its campaign for global geo-political control. Nothing matters to them. Other nations are scared or incapable of stopping them. And if anyone at home or abroad has doubts, scream "war on terror" and "threat to peace" a few times and the brainless brigade will rally their support.

So what is there to do? The only thing that might guarantee territorial integrity against the US government now is a nuclear deterrent. Who can blame the North Koreans or anyone else for trying to acquire them? If I were the Syrians I'd be trying get nukes double time. And as a matter of fact, I'm starting to wish they did have some. Seeing as nothing else can be done about it (unless Bush and like-minded Republicans are kicked out of office for all eternity), nuclear weapons will at least redress the balance of power and give the world some stability. Since the biggest threat to world peace can't be stopped, perhaps at least we can deter it.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the only real defense against american might is patience. george and his gang are bringing america to it's knees. europe and the un will be in charge soon. unfortunately not soon enough.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah I see your point but few newly developed Nuke countries will have the ability to fire Nukes so they hit Bush and even if they could reach Washington they'd only kill innocent people. Bearing in mind most don't have the ability to fire their missiles that far the only people who would suffer would be innocent people. Civilians and American troops - it's not their fault their government sends them to do their dirty work for them, as has been often said if Jenna Bush and Euan Blair had to fight for their countries how likely is it we'dve gone to war against Iraq? Also lets not forget that Dubya got his dad to get him a cushy posting so he could dodge the Vietnam draft. So while I can see your point about it being a deterrent, with the present occupant in the White House I can see the likelihood of nukes being used greater than ever. Also if Syria say fired one missile at the American troops Bush would respond with totally annihilating Syria which would be a relatively small proportion of the American arsenal - considering the Americans have enough nukes to destroy the world 63 times over or something like that.

    So although I would be in favour of it as a deterrent with the current occupant of the White House I would not be so certain that they would remain a deterrent. Still we could always hope that the Americans come to their senses and vote him out in 2004 - which they won't - but after 2008 and he'll be gone forever and hopefully we'll have a good Democrat President in Hillary Clinton.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    the only real defense against american might is patience.

    I agree. America will be well on its way to becoming an impoverished third world country twenty or thirty years down the road. Eventually America will overextend itself abroad and get its nose bloodied like the Soviet Union. This will shift America's attention to its own incoherent and rapidly transforming population. America will begin to dissolve just like the Soviet Union before it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Nuclear weapons? You are talking about Nuclear weapons.

    Yeah , well , good idea , apart from the fact that if u launch against America the next thing ull see is a mushroom cloud outside ur window when they retaliate.

    Jesus , what a stupid thing to say.

    'We should all build more nukes to challenge America'.

    Idiot
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Are you aware of an old little concept called Mutually Assured Destruction?

    Have you ever wondered why the US never conquered the Soviet Union? Or China?

    Idiot.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Are nuclear weapons now the only defence against American imperialism?
    Originally posted by Aladdin
    So what is there to do? The only thing that might guarantee territorial integrity against the US government now is a nuclear deterrent.

    Well,

    You could get your government (or even the EU) to spend sufficient funds to develop a military that is capable of competing on equal terms with that of America. Won't happen though.



    A lot of accusations in your questions, Aladdin. So let me ask you:

    When did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?


    What evidence do you have of imperialism or of the US destroying any territorial boundaries?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Are nuclear weapons now the only defence against American imperialism?
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    Well,

    You could get your government (or even the EU) to spend sufficient funds to develop a military that is capable of competing on equal terms with that of America. Won't happen though.



    A lot of accusations in your questions, Aladdin. So let me ask you:

    When did you stop beating your wife/girlfriend/boyfriend?


    What evidence do you have of imperialism or of the US destroying any territorial boundaries?
    greenhat you have missed your medication.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    No need for medication when the other party is dilusional.:D
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont think any state should own any type of weapon of mass destruction. Thses weapons are dangerous and in the wrong hands would kill many innocent people.

    However the point that it was the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction which stopped the cold war from turning 'hot' is valid.

    Also if states such as Syria or Iraq had weapons which were capable of hitting the United States then i dont think the US government would not be actting the way it is now. It is thr fact that can overwhelme these smaller states that the US is acting aggressivly.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    your av is actualy a picture of you then marv ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Re: Are nuclear weapons now the only defence against American imperialism?
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    greenhat you have missed your medication.

    I think you need to stop smoking that weed.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If there were less nukes, they'd be more war.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    If there were less nukes, they'd be more war.

    Within a specific set of parameters, I sort of agree with this.

    Would Egypt, Jordan, Syria, etc. be more willing to try again to overrun and destroy Israel if they didn't know that Israel had nuclear weapons?

    Then again, Israel had nuclear weapons in 1973, didn't seem to stop the Arabs then.

    What would the status of war between Pakistan/India be if both were not nuclear powers?

    Of course, China is a nuclear power. Vietnam is not. They've waged war despite this.

    France is a nuclear power. And they are busy conducting unilateral action in the Ivory Coast.

    Does it make any difference if the United States has 30,000 nuclear weapons (as they once did) or the less than 10,000 that they currently have? Did the US having more weapons make the world less likely to have wars? Obviously not, as any research into the wars of the '50s, '60s and '70s will illustrate.

    Nuclear weapons serve as a deterrence against a limited range of military options. They are not a cure all. The number of weapons is not as important as that the countries that hold them, and their leaders, reason and consider consequences in the manner of the west.

    Anyone think that Idi Amin having nuclear weapons would have been a good thing?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    During the Cold War, what was stopping the USA and USSR from going to war? If nuclear deterrents had not been in place, then they WOULD have gone to war.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    During the Cold War, what was stopping the USA and USSR from going to war? If nuclear deterrents had not been in place, then they WOULD have gone to war.

    So glad that you are an expert on what people would have done... :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The Yankees need to be taught a lesson alright. Don't be fooled however by the American war against Iraq. Boycott all products made in Israel.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Greenhat
    So glad that you are an expert on what people would have done... :rolleyes:

    Whose to say what would have occured? I just don't see anything inherently wrong with nuclear weapons.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't either. And I think that nuclear weapons do have a deterrent effect on certain types of conflict. I just don't believe they stop war or reduce war in all its forms. The number of wars that occurred in the last half of the 20th Century make it rather clear that isn't true. The Soviets may not have fought us in the Fulda Gap because of nuclear weapons, but there was no shortage of conflicts between those supported by the Soviet Union and those supported by the United States.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think monocrat's point was that a full scale conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact (Soviet tanks rolling into West Germany, etc.) would have been substantially more likely without the threat of MAD. Small wars continue to happen because nukes are something of an all or nothing response; in other words, the use of them to stop a relatively small war is probably not worth the risk of escalation to full scale Global Thermonuclear War, and both sides know it. They know roughly how much they can get away with before the other side gets tempted to push the button, and they know that supporting their enemy's enemies will not result in any major retaliation (whereas a direct attack very well might do).

    I also believe they're not as great an evil as some people believe, because no sovereign nation is likely to use them unless it feels it has no choice, because they know the repercussions could be catastrophic. The only issue is keeping them out of the hands of terrorist groups, who won't give a damn about any repercussions, and will use them anyway as a way of striking out at the Great Imperialist Satan™.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Welcome back Greenhat!

    There's no such thing as American imperialism so it's not a valid question. In fact, the US is too quick to pull out.

    Welcome back to you too Aladdin.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    There's no such thing as American imperialism so it's not a valid question. In fact, the US is too quick to pull out.

    Remember the Maine! :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.