Report: Risk of nuclear warfare rising

[taranaki]

Is there anything that Muscletang can't cherrypick his way out of?

[taranaki]

I'LL MAKE THIS A LITTLE LARGER, THEN MAYBE MUSCLETANG MIGHT JUST NOTICE IT.

The world's top military powers are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms, but all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the risk of atomic warfare.....

They're talking about America [and her allies] here, Muscletang. A country that has used nuclear weapons.A country that has a history of developing increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons . A country that has spread depleted uranium across Iraq.A country that has been involved in military conflict around the world for most of the last 50 years.Until you are willing to face up to the faults of your crappy country, don't presume to tell me what you think is wrong with the rest of the world.Frankly, you've said it all before and it was boring old hat even then.

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by taranaki

I'LL MAKE THIS A LITTLE LARGER, THEN MAYBE MUSCLETANG MIGHT JUST NOTICE IT.

Why thank you. I don't have to put my glasses on now.

Originally Posted by taranaki

The world's top military powers are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms, but all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the risk of atomic warfare.....

Lets break this down shall we?

"The world's top military powers are gradually dismantling their stockpiles of nuclear arms"

So America and her allies are reducing their arms. How is this a bad thing now?

"all are developing new missiles and warheads with smaller yields that could increase the risk of atomic warfare"

So new missile technology is a risk? We could have destroyed the world ten times over in the 1960's if we launched everything. What does a newer missile do? Easier to transport? Easier to make? Easier to afford?

Originally Posted by taranaki

They're talking about America [and her allies] here, Muscletang.

Thanks for the reminder.

Originally Posted by taranaki

A country that has used nuclear weapons.A country that has a history of developing increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons . A country that has spread depleted uranium across Iraq.A country that has been involved in military conflict around the world for most of the last 50 years.

Ok here is the kicker.

"A country that has used nuclear weapons."
That was 60 years ago. Stay with me though on this.

"A country that has a history of developing increasingly sophisticated nuclear weapons"
Yes we've had missiles, bombs, and rockets for ages now with nothing more than a way to nuke every corner of the planet.

"A country that has been involved in military conflicts around the world for most of the last 50 years."

Ok we stop right here. As stated above, we've had nuclear weapons for 60 years and you just said we've been in conflicts all over the world for 50 years. Was there a risk of nuclear war? I'm sure. Did it happen? No.

So there has been a risk for 50 years of nuclear war, why now is it a big deal? What's different?

"A country that has spread depleted uranium across Iraq."

Ah yes, DU, even though the doses are so low it couldn't kill anybody and it's not even known if the doses are big enough to do anything. Yes in lab animals there were reproductive mutations. The thing is if ammunition made from DU hits you, you're dead. It's unknown whether it'll affect the surrounding environment to affect humans.

The thing is it's used in the armour plating of tanks and other vehicles. Shouldn't there be thousands of crew members coming forward with radiation sickness?

Originally Posted by taranaki

Until you are willing to face up to the faults of your crappy country

Oh I know we have faults, I'll admit that. Crappy country though? You said it not me.

Originally Posted by taranaki

don't presume to tell me what you think is wrong with the rest of the world.Frankly, you've said it all before and it was boring old hat even then.

Since when is Iran and North Korea the rest of the world? Did I miss something? Was there a meeting that I didn't hear about?

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

I think it paints a picture. If a country has all this crap going on then you worry if they're trying to get nuclear weapons. You can bring up Guantanamo bay for the U.S. Is it bad? Yes. The U.S. doesn't have concetration camps set up all over the place.

How can you bring up Guantanamo Bay and then assert that the USA does NOT have concentration camps?

And you keep avoiding my main point. So let me put it in the simplest writing:

Do you think it's unreasonable for a sovereign nation to obtain nuclear weapons when their sovereignty is being threatened?

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

How can you bring up Guantanamo Bay and then assert that the USA does NOT have concentration camps?

Read it again, I said the U.S. doesn't have concentration camps set up all over the place. I also said Guantanamo Bay isn't a good thing and it should be brought to light. Is it as bad as other concentration camps around the world? I highly doubt it.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

And you keep avoiding my main point. So let me put it in the simplest writing:

Do you think it's unreasonable for a sovereign nation to obtain nuclear weapons when their sovereignty is being threatened?

Whose sovereignty is being threatened? Iran? North Korea? North Korea for instance has been after nuclear weapons long before 9/11 or the "axis of evil" comment. They didn't start making these things because of Bush.

To answer your question though a country should have the ability to fight fire with fire.

With that said, would you agree it'd be ok for Israel then to aim several hundred ICBMs over at Iran since they're trying to get nuclear weapons after having publicly admited on wanting their destruction and launching them at the sign of trouble?

[Right_LiRrr]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Read it again, I said the U.S. doesn't have concentration camps set up all over the place. I also said Guantanamo Bay isn't a good thing and it should be brought to light. Is it as bad as other concentration camps around the world? I highly doubt it.

What makes one concentration camp worse than the other? And what makes having 2 worse than having 1? Who cares about not "having them all over the place" when you've got ONE already.

Originally Posted by Muscletang

Whose sovereignty is being threatened? Iran? North Korea? North Korea for instance has been after nuclear weapons long before 9/11 or the "axis of evil" comment. They didn't start making these things because of Bush.

To answer your question though a country should have the ability to fight fire with fire.

Why did you bring Bush into this? The sovereignty of N.Korea has been under threat long before Bush. That's not the point, the point is it's under threat. And you're damn right they're gonna fight fire with fire.

Please don't take this as my endorsement for N.Korea. Quite to the contrary! I'm only trying to point out that one should understand why they act the way they do.

If you want a good example, look at China. China back in the 60s and 70s was not much different to how we view N.Korea today. What can be seen is that with some understanding and trade enticements, China is gradually coming back towards the centre. Their human rights records is gradually (albeit slowly) getting better. In 50 years China will be a moderate, productive member of the global community. And I can tell you that will be because we are not threatening to invade or calling them a rogue nation.

Originally Posted by Muscletang

With that said, would you agree it'd be ok for Israel then to aim several hundred ICBMs over at Iran since they're trying to get nuclear weapons after having publicly admited on wanting their destruction and launching them at the sign of trouble?

Would you agree that Israel aiming hundreds of ICBMs at Iran to be a "sign of trouble" for Iran and be the excuse they need to retaliate?

Violence just begets more violence. I totally agree Israel being a soveriegn nation has a right to defend itself from attack. But foreign policy is a bit more complicated than: I bomb you and you'll bomb me.

Would you agree with me that Iran only wants to have nukes because Israel has a giant defence force and widely believed to possess nuclear weapons?

Who started the arms race, who cares! Because when you want to stop the cycle of the chicken and the egg, it's not which you stop first that matters; what matters is that to stop the cycle, you must destroy both.

[stieh2000]

Muscletang, going back to my EMP bomb suggestion, the idea was to knock out North Korea's and/or Iran's nuke program without invading, blowing up the whole country or making the place uninhabitable for decades, like a regular nuke would do.

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by taranaki

I get awfully tired of self-righteous Americans trying to tell us that the biggest threat to peace is someone else. So far, only one country has used nukes, ever.

Yes- and I would argue that not one surviving member of the 2NZE would have whined and complained about it after suffering the highest soldier casualty/population ratio in the Commonwealth by war's end.

What of the "self-righteous" foreigners who piss about the way in which the war was won while enjoying the free existence it provided? It's far simpler to play the armchair general long after the fact when you are comfortable, safe and far removed from any threat of harm.

The U.S. (unfortunately) brought the technology into being. I think we have a responsibility and a critical interest in seeing it disseminated and protected the way we see fit- in a manner that serves our national interest and assures the safety and security of our people. Naturally, non-Americans will disagree.

Furthermore- how do you respond to the charge of blatant and continual hypocrisy? Railing furiously against judgement and generalization when it comes to ANY other issue brought forth on this board unless it involves the United States in any context. Listen- I don't pretend to love my government at present. I certainly didn't vote for Bush. I don't agree with the administration's policies in the least- but nonchalantly calling the United States a "crappy country" smacks of bitterness...as if New Zealand was the model of Eden. The Maori might beg to differ.

Do you truly hold ALL Americans in such low regard or are you simply being inflammatory in an effort to rile up the semi-retarded right wing robots for an easy kill? Hardly a challenge...wouldn't you agree?

[03cavPA]

I don't feel the slightest bit of remorse for the nuking of Japan, nor do I see a need for apologies. War is war. The idea of a "nice" war is complete and utter BS. War is a shitty process and lots of people die. It would be damned nice to be able to do away with war in its entirety, but I don't see that happening in our lifetime.

Personally, I doubt that Hitler would have withheld the use of nucear weapons against the US and the UK if he had won the race to develop the technology. We'd all be typing and reading this in German, then. IF we had the freedom to do so at all.

I don't see a whole lot of difference between "self-righteous" Americans and "self-righteous" Kiwis.

[RSX-S777]

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Why did you bring Bush into this? The sovereignty of N.Korea has been under threat long before Bush. That's not the point, the point is it's under threat. And you're damn right they're gonna fight fire with fire.

Like giving a gun to a baby. Kim Jong is an unpredictable lunatic. North Korea is suffering the consequences of their actions. Why should we feel compassion for him. Feel for the people suffering under his inept rule.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Please don't take this as my endorsement for N.Korea. Quite to the contrary! I'm only trying to point out that one should understand why they act the way they do.

And understand why the U.S. must treat Kim Jong as they do.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

If you want a good example, look at China. China back in the 60s and 70s was not much different to how we view N.Korea today. What can be seen is that with some understanding and trade enticements, China is gradually coming back towards the centre. Their human rights records is gradually (albeit slowly) getting better. In 50 years China will be a moderate, productive member of the global community. And I can tell you that will be because we are not threatening to invade or calling them a rogue nation..

Appeasement always works. Just ask Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain...

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Would you agree that Israel aiming hundreds of ICBMs at Iran to be a "sign of trouble" for Iran and be the excuse they need to retaliate?

Israel would have no need to do so if Iranians and other Arabs in the region were not hell bent on the destruction of all Jews. The Jews use nukes as a deterrent- to ensure survival. Iran would ostensibly desire nuclear weapons to destroy Jews. So let's allow them to obtain them...in the interest of fairness.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Violence just begets more violence. I totally agree Israel being a soveriegn nation has a right to defend itself from attack. But foreign policy is a bit more complicated than: I bomb you and you'll bomb me.

Only thing I agree with in this post so far...

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Would you agree with me that Iran only wants to have nukes because Israel has a giant defence force and widely believed to possess nuclear weapons?.

Iran backs anti-Israeli Shiite factions. They called for the destruction of Jews. Israel has never, to date, attacked Iran and clearly needs a large defense force given the less than hospitable neighbors. I see no reason why Iran would need to obtain nukes, other to back up their disgusting rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Right_LiRrr

Who started the arms race, who cares! Because when you want to stop the cycle of the chicken and the egg, it's not which you stop first that matters; what matters is that to stop the cycle, you must destroy both.

A noble sentiment, but until the world can join arms, sing a song and share a frosty cold Coke together, we have to use common sense and caution.

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by RSX-S777

Furthermore- how do you respond to the charge of blatant and continual hypocrisy? Railing furiously against judgement and generalization when it comes to ANY other issue brought forth on this board unless it involves the United States in any context. Listen- I don't pretend to love my government at present. I certainly didn't vote for Bush. I don't agree with the administration's policies in the least- but nonchalantly calling the United States a "crappy country" smacks of bitterness...as if New Zealand was the model of Eden. The Maori might beg to differ.

Do you truly hold ALL Americans in such low regard or are you simply being inflammatory in an effort to rile up the semi-retarded right wing robots for an easy kill? Hardly a challenge...wouldn't you agree?

Glad you spotted this, and I am amused by your description of my opponent in this debate.I'm sure that your United States is a far better country than the crappy version that Muscletang chooses to promote. New Zealand is a great place, hardly a model of Eden, but there's room for anyone to live the life that they want to. I'll ask the guys that I work alongside if being Maori is a disadvantage,but they get the same terms and conditions as I do, and we all make well above the national average wage. We have the lowest unemployment in the western world, universal public health and universal pension rights, a democratic system of government and robust and credible foreign policy.If anyone chooses to tell me that I live in a crappy country,I'll laugh at their ignorance. A country defined by the narrow prejudices of a bitter young grocery bagger as being plagued by nasty immigrants and living in fear of foreign powers and irate terrorists sounds pretty crappy to me, and not the kind of place that I'd want to call home.


Thankfully, my American partner draws a much more realistic picture of the US than the scared and angry xenophobes who do their best to be its main representatives on this board. She's a Republican and a Christian from Kansas, and we have a lot of intelligent discussions on politics and lifestyle.Her America sounds like the kind of place that I'd like to visit. Muscletang's crappy little version sounds more and more like the kind of backward shit hole that he purports to despise.

[Muscletang]

Well I'm sorry for taking so long on this, busy weekend. Anyway, RSX-S777 pretty much responded to Right_LiRrr as I would of so I won't double post.

Originally Posted by taranaki

Glad you spotted this, and I am amused by your description of my opponent in this debate.

Care to going into more details on how he described me?

Originally Posted by taranaki

I'm sure that your United States is a far better country than the crappy version that Muscletang chooses to promote.

Oh care to go into details about this as well? What crappy version am I promoting?

Originally Posted by taranaki

A country defined by the narrow prejudices of a bitter young grocery bagger as being plagued by nasty immigrants and living in fear of foreign powers and irate terrorists sounds pretty crappy to me, and not the kind of place that I'd want to call home.

You forgot good looking

Originally Posted by taranaki

Muscletang's crappy little version sounds more and more like the kind of backward shit hole that he purports to despise.

Care to go into details on this again? I'd like to see where I promoted a "backwards shit hole".

[YogsVR4]

From the original post

.S. military spending grew from $505 billion in 2005 mainly because of the "costly military operations" in Iraq and Afghanistan, SIPRI said. "This massive increase in U.S. military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the U.S. economy since 2001," it said.

Do some people just swollow this crap?
http://www.agecon.purdue.edu/extensi...es/us_economy/
http://www.house.gov/jec/publications/109/rr109-25.pdf

So now the world is less safe because Russia and the US are reducing stockpiles but changing missle technology....

There's this bridge in New York that I have for sale