|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On October 22 2016 05:12 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? As does everyone else who has been paying attention. Let me ask you another thing: Do you think that at some point in the future World War 3 will happen, or do you think it will never happen? I'm not talking in your lifetime or even this century. I understand that right now it is the only way to effectively maintain peace, but I don't think it is something sustainable in the long term. Oh well, maybe we'll develop anti-matter weapon technologies before anyone bothers getting rid of nukes, and then it won't matter anymore.
Wars only matter if there's something left over to win. Without that, the war won't happen.
For example, if we become a society that lives entirely underground except to travel (say because of sunlight radiation or blah blah frozen winter) then I 100% believe we will immediately start going to war with each other even with Nukes around. Because if a society can keep going after both sides have used their biggest weapons, then there is something you can win.
There's a reason the wars happening have been primarily poorer countries without nukes.
|
On October 22 2016 05:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 04:08 LegalLord wrote:On October 22 2016 04:05 Dan HH wrote:
Uhm, does no one next to him dare tell him? I have to admit, the first thing I checked was whether or not it was a parody account. I'll have to check this out when twitter is reachable for me again >< Russians proving their internet might again or something?
Didn't know twitter still had trouble when I posted that, it was a tweet by Trump saying "The results are in on the final debate and it is almost unanimous, I WON! Thank you, these are very exciting times."
|
On October 22 2016 05:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:12 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? As does everyone else who has been paying attention. Let me ask you another thing: Do you think that at some point in the future World War 3 will happen, or do you think it will never happen? I'm not talking in your lifetime or even this century. I understand that right now it is the only way to effectively maintain peace, but I don't think it is something sustainable in the long term. Oh well, maybe we'll develop anti-matter weapon technologies before anyone bothers getting rid of nukes, and then it won't matter anymore. At some point someone will invent a way of stopping them effectively and then we may go back to the bad old days. But hopefully we'll have outgrown that by then. We'll see. Could go either way.
Feels a bit like a Pascal bet. Say WMD maintain the peace 99% of the time, the one percent it doesn't has such consequences it completely overshadows the rest.
|
On October 22 2016 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:12 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? As does everyone else who has been paying attention. Let me ask you another thing: Do you think that at some point in the future World War 3 will happen, or do you think it will never happen? I'm not talking in your lifetime or even this century. I understand that right now it is the only way to effectively maintain peace, but I don't think it is something sustainable in the long term. Oh well, maybe we'll develop anti-matter weapon technologies before anyone bothers getting rid of nukes, and then it won't matter anymore. Wars only matter if there's something left over to win. Without that, the war won't happen. For example, if we become a society that lives entirely underground except to travel (say because of sunlight radiation or blah blah frozen winter) then I 100% believe we will immediately start going to war with each other even with Nukes around. Because if a society can keep going after both sides have used their biggest weapons, then there is something you can win. There's a reason the wars happening have been primarily poorer countries without nukes.
That last one almost sounds like a reason for everyone to have nukes. Are you in support of NK getting nukes?
|
On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Trump supporters.
You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers?
|
On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head?
For better or for worse. MAD has kept the greater powers of the world at peace for over 70 years.
Despite all the conflicts going on around the world we are enjoying an almost unprecedented era of peace. And I would certainly say that nukes are a major reason for that.
|
On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Trump supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers?
I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that?
|
On October 22 2016 05:44 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? For better or for worse. MAD has kept the greater powers of the world at peace for over 70 years. Despite all the conflicts going on around the world we are enjoying an almost unprecedented era of peace. And I would certainly say that nukes are a major reason for that.
There's a lot of other factors there too though. Increased globalization & communication has probably helped a ton. We have both an unprecedented idea of what other nation's populations think of us & an incredible reliance on other nations economically (both in strict financials and resources like rare earth minerals).
|
On October 22 2016 05:36 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 22 2016 05:12 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:10 KwarK wrote:On October 22 2016 05:07 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them. You really think that the best way to preserve peace is to hold the threat of imminent destruction over the world's head? As does everyone else who has been paying attention. Let me ask you another thing: Do you think that at some point in the future World War 3 will happen, or do you think it will never happen? I'm not talking in your lifetime or even this century. I understand that right now it is the only way to effectively maintain peace, but I don't think it is something sustainable in the long term. Oh well, maybe we'll develop anti-matter weapon technologies before anyone bothers getting rid of nukes, and then it won't matter anymore. Wars only matter if there's something left over to win. Without that, the war won't happen. For example, if we become a society that lives entirely underground except to travel (say because of sunlight radiation or blah blah frozen winter) then I 100% believe we will immediately start going to war with each other even with Nukes around. Because if a society can keep going after both sides have used their biggest weapons, then there is something you can win. There's a reason the wars happening have been primarily poorer countries without nukes. That last one almost sounds like a reason for everyone to have nukes. Are you in support of NK getting nukes?
My comment was not siding with or against nuclear proliferation. Just talking about what motivates war. People will die if there's something worth winning, people won't if there isn't anything worth winning.
As for who should or shouldn't have bombs, that's a different discussion entirely.
|
On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Drumpf supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that?
Actually im not sure what reasoning you think India has for getting Nuclear powers, but it has nothing to do with the reasoning North Korea is trying to get them.
I mean its nice being contrarian and all but its very clear you arent armed with enough knowledge about this subject to defend these positions at this point.
|
On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Trump supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that?
I refer you to your earlier staggering ignorance about North Korea, the regime of which isn't also doesn't share your worries about Trump. They do not need nukes to innocently defend against US nukes, it's a form of political leverage because the country has nothing else (except their way of life, imprisoning three generations of people), and the program would if anything make them more likely to get attacked.
|
On October 22 2016 05:58 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Drumpf supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that? Actually im not sure what reasoning you think India has for getting Nuclear powers, but it has nothing to do with the reasoning North Korea is trying to get them. I mean its nice being contrarian and all but its very clear you arent armed with enough knowledge about this subject to defend these positions at this point.
1946, Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India:
"As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal."
From that alone, it appears obvious to me that they built nuclear weapons because of what I said (others have them, and they want equal power). I may say "defense" or whatever, but its all the same thing. You want a defense that matches the offense in strength, etc.
I can't quickly find the quote from North Korea, but they've said similar things. You might put them in a different context, or you might not believe what NK says, but that is what was said.
Edit: "political leverage" is very much in line with having power and being able to defend yourself (except on a political level). You can't expect me to lay out the whole concept of these things in its entirety. I'm assuming that people have a basic understanding of this.
And whether or not NK supports or fears Trump is irrelevant, I was using him as an example of potential instability. If you are a Trump supporter then you will obviously not understand the argument I am trying to make in that case. I am sorry for that (on both accounts).
|
On October 22 2016 05:02 KwarK wrote:
flayer, WMDs stop wars, not start them.
I agree but in going to play some devils advocate.
While WMDs may stop conventional wars, they allow for nuclear wars to happen. One could easily argue that a single nuclear war is worse for humanity than ever war that has ever happened, combined. The same could be said for the wars the presence of WMDs are preventing now.
|
On October 22 2016 06:06 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:58 Rebs wrote:On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Drumpf supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that? Actually im not sure what reasoning you think India has for getting Nuclear powers, but it has nothing to do with the reasoning North Korea is trying to get them. I mean its nice being contrarian and all but its very clear you arent armed with enough knowledge about this subject to defend these positions at this point. Edit: "political leverage" is very much in line with having power and being able to defend yourself (except on a political level). You can't expect me to lay out the whole concept of these things in its entirety. I'm assuming that people have a basic understanding of this. And whether or not NK supports or fears Trump is irrelevant, I was using him as an example of potential instability. If you are a Trump supporter then you will obviously not understand the argument I am trying to make in that case. I am sorry for that (on both accounts).
No matter who I vote for I don't believe Trump is your caricature nuclear hothead. You started this by saying Trump made the pursuit of nuclear weapons by rogue states credible, but only after the fact, but actually that makes it valid anytime, but now Trump is irrelevant. It's true I have no idea what you're trying to say, but then that's because I maintain you just wanted to zing DJT and are now caught up in something you didn't mean to start.
|
But who wants a nuclear war?
Aren't the examples the US has given the world enough for that to never happen? People just want nukes because it's some kind of global dick measuring contest in saying: "look, we have the power aswell to wipe your skylines, don't fuck with us."
|
On October 22 2016 06:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 06:06 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:58 Rebs wrote:On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Drumpf supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that? Actually im not sure what reasoning you think India has for getting Nuclear powers, but it has nothing to do with the reasoning North Korea is trying to get them. I mean its nice being contrarian and all but its very clear you arent armed with enough knowledge about this subject to defend these positions at this point. Edit: "political leverage" is very much in line with having power and being able to defend yourself (except on a political level). You can't expect me to lay out the whole concept of these things in its entirety. I'm assuming that people have a basic understanding of this. And whether or not NK supports or fears Trump is irrelevant, I was using him as an example of potential instability. If you are a Trump supporter then you will obviously not understand the argument I am trying to make in that case. I am sorry for that (on both accounts). No matter who I vote for I don't believe Trump is your caricature nuclear hothead. You started this by saying Trump made the pursuit of nuclear weapons by rogue states credible, but only after the fact, but actually that makes it valid anytime, but now Trump is irrelevant. It's true I have no idea what you're trying to say, but then that's because I maintain you just wanted to zing DJT and are now caught up in something you didn't mean to start.
I have only ever (in any of my posts regarding the nuclear threat) intended to use Trump as an example of potential instability. It doesn't matter if he's not, the fact of the matter is that the US has a huge nuclear stockpile and some countries are scared of that and are using that as an excuse to develop nuclear arms for themselves. I think that is a valid argument because it is entirely within the realm of possibilities that those weapons will end up in the hands of people who might misuse them (whether its Hillary, Trump, Hitler Jr or the flying spaghetti monster, I don't care). The fact of the matter is that countries will try to defend themselves against perceived threats, and building up a military force to attempt to match that of your enemy or building a weapon that serves as a deterrent are both ways to accomplish that. NK views the US and their nuclear weapons as a threat and thus in their reasoning they are justified to build nuclear weapons. I wouldn't do it myself, but I think it's a valid line of thinking.
Edit: you are right I did not want to start this. I want everyone to immediately recognize my enlightened views on the subject at hand as soon as I express it in the vague ways that I express myself. Why can't you make an effort to do so?
|
What would happen if the Americans were to kill Kim-Jong-Un? My dad says that it would just make things worse, and the regime would just move on with even more anger.
|
On October 22 2016 06:06 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 05:58 Rebs wrote:On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Drumpf supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that? Actually im not sure what reasoning you think India has for getting Nuclear powers, but it has nothing to do with the reasoning North Korea is trying to get them. I mean its nice being contrarian and all but its very clear you arent armed with enough knowledge about this subject to defend these positions at this point. 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India: "As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal." From that alone, it appears obvious to me that they built nuclear weapons because of what I said (others have them, and they want equal power). I may say "defense" or whatever, but its all the same thing. You want a defense that matches the offense in strength, etc. I can't quickly find the quote from North Korea, but they've said similar things. You might put them in a different context, or you might not believe what NK says, but that is what was said. Edit: "political leverage" is very much in line with having power and being able to defend yourself (except on a political level). You can't expect me to lay out the whole concept of these things in its entirety. I'm assuming that people have a basic understanding of this. And whether or not NK supports or fears Drumpf is irrelevant, I was using him as an example of potential instability. If you are a Drumpf supporter then you will obviously not understand the argument I am trying to make in that case. I am sorry for that (on both accounts).
Uhmm for starters in 1946 there was no India, Do you mean 1947?
Also Nehru had no security to worry about, that was bullshit, he envisioned India as a super power and most of his reforms were centered around his idea that they just need to do the same things super powers do so they can think they are one aswell. To his credit alot of that has borne fruit but Nehru's push for Nuclear technology was his idea of progress and India getting to sit at the big boys table.
None of that has to do with why North Korea wants nukes.
So no the personal security argument is bullshit and everyone knows it. Thats just the line everyone takes to justify proliferation because its an easy argument to sit behind. Just like a few gun nuts will tell you they need their hut loaded full of assault rifles and shit for protection. Its lazy logic, but its easy to sit behind and more importantly easy to sell to the public.
I mean the only reason we got nukes was because India was getting them so we just HAD to get them. No one was ever going to use them. No one will use them. They will stick to their border skirmishes, proxy attacks, grand standing and shit talking from across the border so the current Indian govt can maintain its nationalistic agenda and on our side the army can maintain control over the govts budget and foreign policy by dangling the sword that is a perceived Indian threat.
Again these are things with nuances you have no clue about so just randomly throwing a Nehru quote out there without understanding the relationships and ground realities in the region is incredibly ignorant.
|
On October 22 2016 06:42 Howie_Dewitt wrote:
What would happen if the Americans were to kill Kim-Jong-Un? My dad says that it would just make things worse, and the regime would just move on with even more anger.
I would think it would lead to outright war or an unstable leadership crisis, which isn't good either way. Cutting the head off the proverbial snake also means you have to remove the generals who are really in control of NK.
|
On October 22 2016 06:43 Rebs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 22 2016 06:06 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:58 Rebs wrote:On October 22 2016 05:48 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:42 oBlade wrote:On October 22 2016 05:30 a_flayer wrote:On October 22 2016 05:18 oBlade wrote:
So you wouldn't be saying you want the Third Reich to have nuclear weapons, but you understand they're right and somewhat justified by pursuing the bomb when foreign countries are working to undermine them and liberate the concentration camps, and also America is pursuing the bomb too which is just as bad. The Japanese Empire was saying the same things a few years ago even before someone like Truman was so close to power. I'd say the Third Reich would be solid on their reasoning in that respect, yes. I wouldn't say they're "right" (more like far-right, huk huk huk), but the reasoning is pretty much valid. I get the feeling people are horribly incapable of viewing this kind of situation from the other side, the side where you feel threatened by the existence of vast military power on your borders or feel that your existence and way of life is being undermined. You know, the kind of thing that drives Drumpf supporters. You get that the point of non-proliferation is it's in everyone's best interest not to have more nuclear powers? I get that. And I don't want more nuclear powers, believe me. I just also have this thing where I can see the validity in reasoning that may not match my own beliefs, and that just happens to be the kind of reasoning that India and North Korea apply to the situation regarding nuclear weapons. Do you get that? Actually im not sure what reasoning you think India has for getting Nuclear powers, but it has nothing to do with the reasoning North Korea is trying to get them. I mean its nice being contrarian and all but its very clear you arent armed with enough knowledge about this subject to defend these positions at this point. 1946, Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India: "As long as the world is constituted as it is, every country will have to devise and use the latest devices for its protection. I have no doubt India will develop her scientific researches and I hope Indian scientists will use the atomic force for constructive purposes. But if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal." From that alone, it appears obvious to me that they built nuclear weapons because of what I said (others have them, and they want equal power). I may say "defense" or whatever, but its all the same thing. You want a defense that matches the offense in strength, etc. I can't quickly find the quote from North Korea, but they've said similar things. You might put them in a different context, or you might not believe what NK says, but that is what was said. Edit: "political leverage" is very much in line with having power and being able to defend yourself (except on a political level). You can't expect me to lay out the whole concept of these things in its entirety. I'm assuming that people have a basic understanding of this. And whether or not NK supports or fears Drumpf is irrelevant, I was using him as an example of potential instability. If you are a Drumpf supporter then you will obviously not understand the argument I am trying to make in that case. I am sorry for that (on both accounts). Uhmm for starters in 1946 there was no India, Do you mean 1947? Also Nehru had no security to worry about, that was bullshit, he envisioned India as a super power and most of his reforms were centered around his idea that they just need to do the same things super powers do so they can think they are one aswell. To his credit alot of that has borne fruit but Nehru's push for Nuclear technology was his idea of progress and India getting to sit at the big boys table. None of that has to do with why North Korea wants nukes. So no the personal security argument is bullshit and everyone knows it. Thats just the line everyone takes to justify proliferation because its an easy argument to sit behind. Just like a few gun nuts will tell you they need their hut loaded full of assault rifles and shit for protection. Its lazy logic, but its easy to sit behind and more importantly easy to sell to the public.
He said it before he became the first prime minister of India.
And while the argument I am presenting wouldn't convince me to make nuclear weapons or even have any kind of firearm in my house, I can see how it may be convincing for some. Saying that is invalid because you disagree with doesn't make it less valid. Especially not for the people who do agree with it (people, again, who are not me).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
