To nuke or not? That is the question!

[Simonemendez]

So, I watched on my TV news the other day, my President making this agreement with Russia, to begin a process of, I guess, doing away with nukes. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121748&sectionid=351020602
At least, major reductions. And who can be against that? But this whole thing is hard for me to understand. Will Israel, Packistan and India, ( etc.,) go along with that? In this forum, I have made mentions of my disaproval against certain world leaders threatenning Iran with sanctions if they are seeking nuke status. I ---also--- had said that I agreed with Iran's persual of strengthening it's defense. With formidable ( well okay,...) nukes. This is NOT because I wish to see that country have WMD just for that sake of having them, or because I agree with Islamic fundamentalist rule over a country, or Jihadists in posession of WMD. I DO NOT. It's ---precisely--- because, I always imagined that, what-if Saddam Hussein had the same defense that the US, Russia, Israel India and Pakistan did, ---before--- the Bush admin. went there? I believe that such a place of strength would have been a ---deterrent--- from attack by 'US'.
My question to you fellow forumers is, Is the US and Russia's plan realistic, or does it even make sense, or is some kind of........'conspiracy' afoot? I -do- know that these world leaders are a lot smarter and more educated that lil ol me.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 PM ----------

By-the-way, I know I'm a terrible speller. Thanks at this Forum so far, for no one jumping down my throat about it ( so far. ) Over at ATS, I got royally clobbered for mispelling a word. B******s over there........

 

[dyingsun]

So, I watched on my TV news the other day, my President making this agreement with Russia, to begin a process of, I guess, doing away with nukes. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=121748&sectionid=351020602
At least, major reductions. And who can be against that? But this whole thing is hard for me to understand. Will Israel, Packistan and India, ( etc.,) go along with that? In this forum, I have made mentions of my disaproval against certain world leaders threatenning Iran with sanctions if they are seeking nuke status. I ---also--- had said that I agreed with Iran's persual of strengthening it's defense. With formidable ( well okay,...) nukes. This is NOT because I wish to see that country have WMD just for that sake of having them, or because I agree with Islamic fundamentalist rule over a country, or Jihadists in posession of WMD. I DO NOT. It's ---precisely--- because, I always imagined that, what-if Saddam Hussein had the same defense that the US, Russia, Israel India and Pakistan did, ---before--- the Bush admin. went there? I believe that such a place of strength would have been a ---deterrent--- from attack by 'US'.
My question to you fellow forumers is, Is the US and Russia's plan realistic, or does it even make sense, or is some kind of........'conspiracy' afoot? I -do- know that these world leaders are a lot smarter and more educated that lil ol me.

---------- Post added at 09:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 PM ----------

By-the-way, I know I'm a terrible speller. Thanks at this Forum so far, for no one jumping down my throat about it ( so far. ) Over at ATS, I got royally clobbered for mispelling a word. B******s over there........

It isn't, and it has been done by presidents before.This is a stalemate that won't be resolved in our lifetime. I think.

 

[paraschtick]

Its a toughie. I don't know if anyone has any answers to your questions Simone. As the Middle East goes, the real problem really is ... and people will probably jump down my throat for saying this again ... Israel. Seymour Hersch (the well known journalist) discovered something many years ago. And that is something called the "Samson Option". It is said that if Israel got to a point where it's survival was in total jeopardy then it would ... and this is quite scary I think you'll agree ... take everyone else out with it

Yes ... it would fire off all its nuclear bombs and take everyone out at the same time. Now I don't really call that particularly rational but its another one of those little things that shows that Israel really is more of a problem than somewhere like Iran who are just trying to get a nuclear power programme working (and I've yet to see ANY evidence that they're trying to get the bomb).

So do nuclear deterrents work?? Well we've had no WW3 ... yet ... so maybe ... maybe not. I think if everyone could get rid of them and somehow put the cork back on the nuclear bottle then that would be a good thing. Unfortunately I don't think thats possible ... so we're stuck with them.

[oh, and I have a feeling that presstv.ir is a bit like the old Pravda and Tass newspapers ie mostly propaganda ... but I could be wrong. ]

{They never told you in school that the world was THIS complicated and scary did they??? }

(PS ... and don't worry about the spelling ... as long as we can understand what the heck you're blethering on about now ... you'll be fine )

pps ... so the ATSers are bastards are they??? Blimey ... that explains a lot

 

[dyingsun]

Its a toughie. I don't know if anyone has any answers to your questions Simone. As the Middle East goes, the real problem really is ... and people will probably jump down my throat for saying this again ... Israel. Seymour Hersch (the well known journalist) discovered something many years ago. And that is something called the "Samson Option". It is said that if Israel got to a point where it's survival was in total jeopardy then it would ... and this is quite scary I think you'll agree ... take everyone else out with it

Yes ... it would fire off all its nuclear bombs and take everyone out at the same time. Now I don't really call that particularly rational but its another one of those little things that shows that Israel really is more of a problem than somewhere like Iran who are just trying to get a nuclear power programme working (and I've yet to see ANY evidence that they're trying to get the bomb).

So do nuclear deterrents work?? Well we've had no WW3 ... yet ... so maybe ... maybe not. I think if everyone could get rid of them and somehow put the cork back on the nuclear bottle then that would be a good thing. Unfortunately I don't think thats possible ... so we're stuck with them.

[oh, and I have a feeling that presstv.ir is a bit like the old Pravda and Tass newspapers ie mostly propaganda ... but I could be wrong. ]

{They never told you in school that the world was THIS complicated and scary did they??? }

(PS ... and don't worry about the spelling ... as long as we can understand what the heck you're blethering on about now ... you'll be fine )

pps ... so the ATSers are bastards are they??? Blimey ... that explains a lot

Just a short note on ats, anyone coming out sane(if they were in the first place) of this 'bs pit' deserves a medal.

 

[ALPHA ROMEO UNIFORM]

Hi folks ,

When leaders talk of reducing nuclear weapons it mean they have other more horrible things up their sleeves. :frown:

I rather see chemical and biological weapons removed ask all those war veterans and their families who live with the side effects everyday.

In addition all the civilians who suffer from land mines injuries.
Peace not war,
blowfish

 

[Experiencer7]

If you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of tactical nukes?......

 

[Tom From Hong Kong]

As mentioned above, since the 1970s there have been multiple steps taken to reduce the number of nuclear warheads through several permutations of SALT. This most recent effort is another good step, but recognize that maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal is expensive and that warheads need to be maintained & replaced -- issues with which Russia is grappling. Besides, each side has more than enough to obliterate the earth, so communication and diplomacy are the key, not a marginal reduction in the number of weapons. Many question the current Russian administration's motivations (see the thread I posted on "The Next 100 Years" which includes video interviews of George Friedman of Stratfor) -- it takes two sides with the right motivations for diplomacy to work effectively.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and other sponsors of terrorism is problematic on most accounts (although most of the money supporting Hamas evidently comes from private individuals in Saudi Arabia). Given the demographics of Iran -- with a growing, more liberal globally oriented younger generation hopefully over time replacing the country's theocracy (most of whom are worth hundreds of millions of dollars, btw) -- the outlook to sit and wait for positive change is good. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the current ruling class is destabilizing, in the present, and security over those weapons will be an issue (witness Pakistan). We can't solve the Israeli/Arab conflict in this thread, but Israel with nuclear weapons prevents an attack just as a North Korea with nuclear weapons historically has prevented an assault from the U.S. & South Korea. If Iran is close to becoming nuclear capable, then Israel (and the U.S.) necessarily start gaming pre-emptive scenarios, which cannot be good. No one is happy about what happened in Iraq, but I suspect the underlying cause is more likely a lack of open, objective, critical thinking than anything else (doesn't most of the Iraqi oil go to China?).

Overall, the fewer nukes in fewer hands, the better . . . . generally speaking.