Latest word from El Presidente. 48 replies

Please wait...

Adrian Ţrumpeş Forum Mod

I LOVE TRUMP

261,076 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,712 Posts

1,753 Threads

#1 8 years ago

Obama states in his latest appearance at the UN that we need a world without nuclear weapons. It seems he's still living in Obamaland where everything he says just makes sense. Ok, I agree nuclear weapons are bad, and that they pose a threat to the world itself, but the problem is: not everyone wants to give up their nukes. What is he going to do about North Korea, China, and Russia? Does he, or do you, honestly think for a second that they will willingly give up their nuclear weapons? Thoughts anybody?


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 8 years ago

No, of course not, but thats his goal, if you haven't kept up with the new situation in Iran, you know he isn't politely asking them to hand over there weapons, more like puffing up our chest against them with them knowing we won't do anything.




Adrian Ţrumpeş Forum Mod

I LOVE TRUMP

261,076 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,712 Posts

1,753 Threads

#3 8 years ago

Yeah, I have noticed that.


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



Cheese!

Son. I am dissapoint.

50 XP

8th August 2007

0 Uploads

3,495 Posts

0 Threads

#4 8 years ago

My plan: get the U.N. to sanction the countries that own nukes. That'll get em to give the weapons up.




Adrian Ţrumpeş Forum Mod

I LOVE TRUMP

261,076 XP

10th September 2007

4 Uploads

21,712 Posts

1,753 Threads

#5 8 years ago

Yeah, that'll work :lol:


"I'd shush her zephyr." ~ Zephyr.



TodtheWraith

the exception

50 XP

3rd March 2008

0 Uploads

263 Posts

0 Threads

#6 8 years ago

computernerd;5020331Obama states in his latest appearance at the UN that we need a world without nuclear weapons. It seems he's still living in Obamaland where everything he says just makes sense. Ok, I agree nuclear weapons are bad, and that they pose a threat to the world itself, but the problem is: not everyone wants to give up their nukes. What is he going to do about North Korea, China, and Russia? Does he, or do you, honestly think for a second that they will willingly give up their nuclear weapons? Thoughts anybody?[/QUOTE]

I believe they would give up their nukes if they knew all other countries would as well. Problem is; you can never be sure.

Another problem is; the recipe would be nearly impossible to make completely lost, & it could always be reinvented. If a terrorist organization managed to save up enough drug money this could pose a problem.

A third problem; North Korea. I forgot about them when I typed the first problem. Not a chance in hell they would give up their nukes. Worst of all, they have the only person in the world (besides NiteStryker) that would use them if there were no fear of retaliation.

[QUOTE=Warforger;5020341]No, of course not, but thats his goal, if you haven't kept up with the new situation in Iran, you know he isn't politely asking them to hand over there weapons, more like puffing up our chest against them with them knowing we won't do anything.

Even if they know nothing will happen, people still respect confidence. I rather he give an empty order than ask them to, "Please give up your nukes...if you want, but if not...oh well."




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,262 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,138 Posts

5 Threads

#7 8 years ago

Since nations armed themselves with nukes there has never been a major war between like armed powers. WMDs are our once chance to end major warfare forever, we should be keeping a healthy supply of them around - not hundreds of thousands but enough to kill a good percentage of the world's population.

It's difficult to trust altruism, I mean if other countries started disarming their nukes and I was in charge I'd get out the red ink and my compasses and start drawing nice red circles around anyone that would be likely to get in the way of my conquering armies. The ICBM fields would stretch an awful long way, and then there'd be the biological and chemical weapons. It would be a glorious day; provided you were living in the right country of course. And I'm not naive enough to think that people who've lied and cheated their way into power are any nicer than I. Chances are they're considerably worse, I mean I just don't care enough to make a play for power - when it's offered it's nice, when I've something to accomplish it's necessary - but they're fucked up enough to think it's actually a reasonable use of their time to go after power just for the sake of power.

Fear on the other hand is very easy to trust.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#8 8 years ago
Nemmerle;5020460Since nations armed themselves with nukes there has never been a major war between like armed powers. WMDs are our once chance to end major warfare forever, we should be keeping a healthy supply of them around - not hundreds of thousands but enough to kill a good percentage of the world's population.

Though you are right, I disagree that holding onto nukes is a good thing. For one thing, warfare was an important population control. Secondly, there is alwaqys the chance that something will go wrong, that someone will make a mistake, or what have you and the world as we know it would end. I remember hearing about one instance in the 80s where Russia had it's system on standby, their President just had to give the final go ahead and the world would have ended, all because they mistook a Swedish space rocket that went off course as a missile being launched at their shores.

Not to mention there will also always be people who want to detonate a nuke. Could be islamic terrorists or just an even more ambitions unibomber, but the spectre of a small nuclear weapon or dirty bomb always lurks in the shadows.

All of that said it is unreasonable to expect any nation to disarm itself once they already have nukes. The best we can do is keep everyone from getting them. The fewer the people that have them the less likely it is someone will make a mistake.




Nemmerle Forum Mod

Voice of joy and sunshine

298,262 XP

26th May 2003

0 Uploads

28,138 Posts

5 Threads

#9 8 years ago

Afterburner;5020514Though you are right, I disagree that holding onto nukes is a good thing. For one thing, warfare was an important population control.[/QUOTE]

Eh, I wonder about that. People have wars, come home, are relatively poor, and thus make like horny bunnies. Population control is a function of the availability of food as compared to other forms of wealth.

Afterburner;5020514Secondly, there is always the chance that something will go wrong, that someone will make a mistake, or what have you and the world as we know it would end. I remember hearing about one instance in the 80s where Russia had it's system on standby, their President just had to give the final go ahead and the world would have ended, all because they mistook a Swedish space rocket that went off course as a missile being launched at their shores.

Do you really think the Russians would have interpreted the launch of one missile as the opening move in a nuclear war? It seems more likely to me that they got ready incase others were going to follow it and there was never really any intent to commit to an exchange. A key component of any deterent is fear, keeping your enemy thinking that shit is going to go down if people push it. It's the same with the civil defence crap back during the cold war. Instructions for surviving a nuclear blast:

Real instructions for surviving a nuclear war: You're fucked, it's over. If you're lucky you die in the initial exchange.

[QUOTE=Afterburner;5020514]Not to mention there will also always be people who want to detonate a nuke. Could be islamic terrorists or just an even more ambitions unibomber, but the spectre of a small nuclear weapon or dirty bomb always lurks in the shadows.

These are people who can't even manage to blow up an airport properly. Either some government gives them a bomb - which I can't see being too likely to happen, governments tend to be a bit worried about nutters running around with nukes - or they get together and try making on themselves, in which case they're going to need some very specific components which'll show up in lots of places.

Besides one or two cities getting nuked every so often is a small price to pay for no major wars.




Roaming East

Ultima ratio regum

50 XP

7th November 2005

0 Uploads

4,770 Posts

0 Threads

#10 8 years ago

Every President since Reagan has been pushing the whole 'reduction in nuclear arsenal' policy. Get over it.