Thread: Who & how is taking charge.

Originally posted by Alric
As for nuclear bombs, I think the US is the least likely to ever use one. Infact I think we are one of the only counties that could take a hit by a bomb and still wouldn't fire one back. I don't think anyone wants to shoot one though. Since WW2, people know what they can do, and people don't like it. Back then the US got away with it because they didn't really know the damage it would do. Yea they knew it was a big bomb but they weren't sure what it could really do.

The effects of nuclear weapons is not the only thing WW2 taught us. It also clearly demonstrated the disastrous effects, on invaded and invaders, of millitary invasion and occupation.

Terrorists suicide bomb a building in the heart of new york city. America responds by invading and occupying a small third-world nation with little or no connection to the attacks.

Unlike most of the rest of the civilised world, then, America seems to have learned little from WW2. I have no trouble whatsoever in believing that, if nuked, America under its current leadership would have no problem unleashing its nuclear arsenal in response.

Nuclear war isn't likely to start with the United States. As much as some people would testify otherwise, we remain a democratic society, at least at some level. If the President okayed a nuclear strike, the vast majority of the US would riot in the streets in protest. The riots wouldn't be contained to just the citizens, either. A large portion of the armed forces would rebel as well, along with most of the police forces. The riots would be uncontainable, and the government would very rapidly have to comply with the wishes of the people, or be reduced to a government without a nation. [/b]

Though I disagree with you in respect to America being a democracy, I agree with you about America not starting a nuclear war. It wouldn't happen. HOWEVER, if nuked first, I believe the American people, just after 911, would be shocked and outraged. And just as with 911, which created a general feeling of outrage and demand for vengeance, I believe that it would result in a demand for a response whch, under normal conditions, they would hesitate to support.

Originally posted by The Blue Meanie

Though I disagree with you in respect to America being a democracy, I agree with you about America not starting a nuclear war. *It wouldn't happen. *HOWEVER, if nuked first, I believe the American people, just after 911, would be shocked and outraged. *And just as with 911, which created a general feeling of outrage and demand for vengeance, I believe that it would result in a demand for a response whch, under normal conditions, they would hesitate to support.

you make the mistake of assuming it's the american people that hold the reins. the american people would support whatever they were told to support...although i guess it's always possible nuking back would be profitable to the 15 people in charge.

The US is big enough where it doesn't have to send a nuke back though. I am not saying we wouldn't but its less likely. Theres really two reasons I think that. One being US is large in land mass, and unlike say russia the population is spread over the entire country. And two, we have enough military we could do as much damage as a nuke without having to use a nuke.

you make the mistake of assuming it's the american people that hold the reins. the american people would support whatever they were told to support...although i guess it's always possible nuking back would be profitable to the 15 people in charge.

Oops. I feel I may have been misunderstood. To clarify:

Nuclear war isn't likely to start with the United States. As much as some people would testify otherwise, we remain a democratic society, at least at some level.

I disagreed with THIS statement. I do not believe America to be a democracy. I concur with you, mongreloctopus, that the will of the American public is largely controlled by those in power.

Sorry if I've been misunderstood...[/quote]

Originally posted by Howetzer
We do have them, yes. But we created a non nuclear proliferation treaty to try & keep things in order.

Yeah right. The recent Bush nuclear deal with India directly violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, although it seems like this treaty only applies to countries that America doesn't like. Article 1 of the NPT forbids any signatory country from assisting another country in developing a nuclear bomb in any way, including supplying them with uranium in any way at all. The problem here is not just what India may or may not do with the uranium, but the fact that it encourages other countries such as Iran to push the envelope - if America can pick and choose what laws and treaties they adhere to, why can't others?

The real nuclear threat these days is not Russia's huge nuclear stockpile, but America actively allowing select countries to develop and maintain nuclear weapons, therefore encouraging other surrounding and less trustworthy countries to do the same. This is the whole reason the non-proliferation treaty was established - to stop any other countries from building a nuclear arsenal, because the only real defence against a nuclear stockpile is to build one yourself.

Originally posted by Roller


Yeah right. The recent Bush nuclear deal with India directly violates the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, although it seems like this treaty only applies to countries that America doesn't like. Article 1 of the NPT forbids any signatory country from assisting another country in developing a nuclear bomb in any way, including supplying them with uranium in any way at all. The problem here is not just what India may or may not do with the uranium, but the fact that it encourages other countries such as Iran to push the envelope - if America can pick and choose what laws and treaties they adhere to, why can't others?

The real nuclear threat these days is not Russia's huge nuclear stockpile, but America actively allowing select countries to develop and maintain nuclear weapons, therefore encouraging other surrounding and less trustworthy countries to do the same. This is the whole reason the non-proliferation treaty was established - to stop any other countries from building a nuclear arsenal, because the only real defence against a nuclear stockpile is to build one yourself.

The nations you speak of use that as a facade. They want nuclear capacity for power, and not electric either.
And it is the dissolving stockpile of Russia that most of these nations are getting their scientist and supplies. So you in essence say it yourself. You just say it is our responsibility to Not let the other nations to not get them. Heaven forbid we would do such a thing. Us tyrants, bullies, suppressors.
It is difficult to take a unilateral approach with no backing.
So if & when the surrounding countries of India have or obtain nuclear capabilities which could threaten that country we do um mm what?
We can't restrict rogue nations from getting them without getting everyone in an an uproar.
Nobody has the fortitude to stick together / (UN) - So we go it alone and we are bullies.
We let India get invaded and we are thoughtless and looked down upon for not taking any action.
What do you propose we do?