"Time passes, but they're always five to seven years from the bomb."

[Puppycow]

The problem we have is the same interests who benefit from the sinking - the Western military-industrial complex - are the ones that are telling us NK did it, yet fail to supply any convincing motivation for NK's actions.

Of course! It was an 'inside job'! Why didn't I think of that?

 

[JJM 777]

We are nearly 2011. Are the Iranians any closer?

No but USA is already there, so we should politically isolate them with crippling sanctions.

 

[dtugg]

No but USA is already there, so we should politically isolate them with crippling sanctions.

You are free to try. Good luck with that.

 

[Mirrorglass]

You are free to try. Good luck with that.

Are you honestly giving this as an argument for why it's okay for the US to have nukes? Because they'll beat up everyone who complains about it?

 

[dtugg]

Are you honestly giving this as an argument for why it's okay for the US to have nukes? Because they'll beat up everyone who complains about it?

No, I was simply pointing out that any countries who don't like the fact that the US has nuclear weapons can try to make us get rid of them through sanctions if they like, but it wouldn't turn out well for them.

If you want some arguments why it is OK for the US to have nuclear weapons as opposed to Iran, here are a few:

The US is not in violation of any treaties by possessing nuclear weapons.
The President of the US isn't a madman who wishes that one of his neighbors be wiped off the map.
The US doesn't support terrorists who attack and wish to commit genocide against said neighbors.

 

[Mirrorglass]

No, I was simply pointing out that any countries who don't like the fact that the US has nuclear weapons can try to make us get rid of them through sanctions if they like, but it wouldn't turn out well for them.

The point is that the idea displays an identical attitude to North Korea and Iran. If anything, it makes one think perhaps the US shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

If you want some arguments why it is OK for the US to have nuclear weapons as opposed to Iran, here are a few:

The US is not in violation of any treaties by possessing nuclear weapons.

True, but only because it has refused to enter into such treaties, not because it hasn't been asked to.

The President of the US isn't a madman who wishes that one of his neighbors be wiped off the map.
The US doesn't support terrorists who attack and wish to commit genocide against said neighbors.

Those are true, but I'd hardly say they are a sufficient reason to allow nukes. They apply to dozens of other nations as well. Do you believe all those other nations should have the right to nukes?

 

[dtugg]

The point is that the idea displays an identical attitude to North Korea and Iran. If anything, it makes one think perhaps the US shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

Iran and North Korea lack the power to respond in kind to sanctions. The US does not.

True, but only because it has refused to enter into such treaties, not because it hasn't been asked to.

The US (and its enemies) had nuclear weapons before the NPT was even thought of (obviously). Why should we give them up just because we were asked to?

Those are true, but I'd hardly say they are a sufficient reason to allow nukes. They apply to dozens of other nations as well. Do you believe all those other nations should have the right to nukes?

Sure, if they hadn't already agreed not to. I can't think of any state that doesn't already have them that this does not apply to.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Iran and North Korea lack the power to respond in kind to sanctions. The US does not.

Of course. But just because someone is weak does not mean you can do whatever you want to them, and conversely, just because someone is strong doesn't mean they have the right to do whatever they please.

That is a moral viewpoint, of course; in practice, the strong do often rule. But do you really want to be known as a nation that doesn't care about anyone's opinions, because it can just hurt people who try to do something about it?

The US (and its enemies) had nuclear weapons before the NPT was even thought of (obviously). Why should we give them up just because we were asked to?

Because there's no upside to having them, unless you want to kill millions of people. And if you don't want to kill millions of people, you don't need nukes.

Sure, if they hadn't already agreed not to. I can't think of any state that doesn't already have them that this does not apply to.

Did the leaders of North Korea agree to a treaty that forbids nukes? And why should they care, anyway? You can try to make them give them up, but you will pay in human lives for that.

No, I don't really think it's a good argument. I'm making it because I think it's equally bad, whoever makes it.

 

[dtugg]

Of course. But just because someone is weak does not mean you can do whatever you want to them, and conversely, just because someone is strong doesn't mean they have the right to do whatever they please.

That is a moral viewpoint, of course; in practice, the strong do often rule. But do you really want to be known as a nation that doesn't care about anyone's opinions, because it can just hurt people who try to do something about it?

I imagine that a lot of people in the world already think of the US that way. Doesn't bother me one bit.

Because there's no upside to having them, unless you want to kill millions of people. And if you don't want to kill millions of people, you don't need nukes.

The upside is that you can kill millions of people if you feel you need to. So your enemies will think twice about attacking you. The US would be fools to give up its nuclear weapons unless everybody else did also. I'm sure other countries feel the same. Sure, the world might be a better place without nuclear weapons (although I am of the opinion that they may have prevented WWIII), but it just isn't going to happen any time soon. Doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to try and prevent countries like Iran from getting them.

Did the leaders of North Korea agree to a treaty that forbids nukes? And why should they care, anyway? You can try to make them give them up, but you will pay in human lives for that.

No, I don't really think it's a good argument. I'm making it because I think it's equally bad, whoever makes it.

I believe they did. It isn't worth invading the country to get rid of the nukes although if I was the POTUS and I had it on good authority where the warheads and the production facilities are, I wouldn't hesitate to get rid of that problem via B2 bomber.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I imagine that a lot of people in the world already think of the US that way. Doesn't bother me one bit.

I know. And that is a large part of the reason why so many people think Americans are arrogant jerks.

Yes, I know that doesn't bother you either. That's another part of it.

The upside is that you can kill millions of people if you feel you need to. So your enemies will think twice about attacking you. The US would be fools to give up its nuclear weapons unless everybody else did also. I'm sure other countries feel the same. Sure, the world might be a better place without nuclear weapons (although I am of the opinion that they may have prevented WWIII), but it just isn't going to happen any time soon. Doesn't mean that it isn't a good idea to try and prevent countries like Iran from getting them.

The first part is correct, and the bit about WW3 is a distinct possibility. However, I only conditionally agree with it being a good idea to prevent Iran from having nukes. Yes, it's a good idea if you can do it without destroying the nation, expending vast amounts of resources and killing tens of thousands. But does that seem likely to happen?

I believe they did. It isn't worth invading the country to get rid of the nukes although if I was the POTUS and I had it on good authority where the warheads and the production facilities are, I wouldn't hesitate to get rid of that problem via B2 bomber.

Yes, and that is why I think it's a bad thing that the US have nukes. When a nation's policy is to destroy everything it perceives as a threat, and ignore everything it does not, it does not inspire confidence.

But this is an oversimplification, of course. I am criticizing your attitude more than actual US policy. It is very sad that you don't think the opinions of people you share this world with are worth listening to.

 

[dtugg]

I know. And that is a large part of the reason why so many people think Americans are arrogant jerks.

Yes, I know that doesn't bother you either. That's another part of it.

OK.

The first part is correct, and the bit about WW3 is a distinct possibility. However, I only conditionally agree with it being a good idea to prevent Iran from having nukes. Yes, it's a good idea if you can do it without destroying the nation, expending vast amounts of resources and killing tens of thousands. But does that seem likely to happen?

I am in agreement with you here.

Yes, and that is why I think it's a bad thing that the US have nukes. When a nation's policy is to destroy everything it perceives as a threat, and ignore everything it does not, it does not inspire confidence.

Who said anything about using nukes. The B2 carries conventional weapons also.

But this is an oversimplification, of course. I am criticizing your attitude more than actual US policy. It is very sad that you don't think the opinions of people you share this world with are worth listening to.

I didn't say that it is not worth listening to opinions from people from other countries. They can and do have good ideas. It's more like if I don't like their opinions, so what, who cares what they think, what are they going to do.

 

[Mirrorglass]

OK.




I am in agreement with you here.



Who said anything about using nukes. The B2 carries conventional weapons also.

Fair enough, though it doesn't really change the bit about destruction.

I didn't say that it is not worth listening to opinions from people from other countries. They can and do have good ideas. It's more like if I don't like their opinions, so what, who cares what they think, what are they going to do.

Well, not to be a jerk, but you can't really say US hasn't been hurt by it's enemies in the past ten years.

 

[dtugg]

Fair enough, though it doesn't really change the bit about destruction.

What is wrong with destroying a threat?

Well, not to be a jerk, but you can't realy say US hasn't been hurt by it's enemies in the past ten years.

Yeah, they caught us off guard. Just means we need to kill them first so something like that won't happen again.

 

[Mirrorglass]

What is wrong with destroying a threat?

It's a double standard, of course. You are a threat to North Korea. Would the be right to destroy you, if they had the opportunity?

Yeah, they caught us off guard. Just means we need to kill them first so something like that won't happen again.

I'm not referring to just 9/11. The subsequent war has cost the US mind-boggling amounts, both in dollars, reputation and human lives. And what have you gained in response? The enemies are still out there, and the liberated countries are still in chaos.

 

[IDB87]

I'm not referring to just 9/11. The subsequent war has cost the US mind-boggling amounts, both in dollars, reputation and human lives. And what have you gained in response? The enemies are still out there, and the liberated countries are still in chaos.

Well isn't it obvious then? Leave them in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't make them mad. It's our fault anyway. We shouldn't be responsible for the messes we make.

What a great way to think, and an even better platform to build foreign policy on.

Ask us again why we (often times) don't care what you think?

 

[dtugg]

It's a double standard, of course. You are a threat to North Korea. Would the be right to destroy you, if they had the opportunity?

Who said anything about destroying a country. I just want to destroy the nukes (if it is feasible using an air strike). North Korea's nukes are only a threat because it is a totslitarian state run by a madman. If the US was a totalitarian state run by a madman, I wouldn't have any problems with any country trying to destroy its nukes by dropping some bombs if they thought they could.

I'm not referring to just 9/11. The subsequent war has cost the US mind-boggling amounts, both in dollars, reputation and human lives. And what have you gained in response? The enemies are still out there, and the liberated countries are still in chaos.

Iraq, we pretty much inflicted any harm that came from that on ourselves.

Afghanistan, a lot of the enemy is dead or captured, the rest disorganized and on the run. They defintely are not in a position to attack the US homeland any tine soon.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Well isn't it obvious then? Leave them in charge of Afghanistan and Iraq. Don't make them mad. It's our fault anyway. We shouldn't be responsible for the messes we make.

What a great way to think, and an even better platform to build foreign policy on.

Ask us again why we (often times) don't care what you think?

So you believe that the US policies that contributed to the escalation into war with Middle-Eastern countries were a good idea, since they couldn't do anything about it? Because that was the point. You are assigning to me a strawman position, because you don't care about what I actually think. It's a bit circular to say that is why you don't care.

 

[Mirrorglass]

Who said anything about destroying a country. I just want to destroy the nukes (if it is feasible using an air strike). North Korea's nukes are only a threat because it is a totslitarian state run by a madman. If the US was a totalitarian state run by a madman, I wouldn't have any problems with any country trying to destroy its nukes by dropping some bombs if they thought they could.

But that is special pleading. It's not a matter of North Korea being a totalitarian dictatorship; it's a matter of North Korea being a threat. As long as they are a threat, would you care if they were a democracy? Why, then, should attacking the US be wrong because you are a democracy?

Iraq, we pretty much inflicted any harm that came from that on ourselves.

Afghanistan, a lot of the enemy is dead or captured, the rest disorganized and on the run. They defintely are not in a position to attack the US homeland any tine soon.

Still, would you say that the US policies that contributed to the war were a good idea; your original statement was "what are they going to do about it?". They have done quite a bit. They've paid for it, for sure, but so have you.

 

[dtugg]

J

But that is special pleading. It's not a matter of North Korea being a totalitarian dictatorship; it's a matter of North Korea being a threat. As long as they are a threat, would you care if they were a democracy? Why, then, should attacking the US be wrong because you are a democracy?

We are only a threat to them because they are a totalitairian state run by a madman. They brought it on themselves.

Is your position that nobody should ever neutralize a threat because it would be a double standard?

Still, would you say that the US policies that contributed to the war were a good idea; your original statement was "what are they going to do about it?". They have done quite a bit. They've paid for it, for sure, but so have you.

Fine you found one instance where somebody did something about it mostly because we simply we not paying attention. "What are they they going to do about it still stands" in a general sense because "nothing" will be the answer the vast majority of the time.

 

[Mirrorglass]

J

We are only a threat to them because they are a totalitairian state run by a madman. They brought it on themselves.

That is a gross oversimplification of the history between the nations involved. And like I've said, it's not a matter of North Korea being a totalitarian state run by a madman. There are many such states. The only way North Korea is different is that they are a legitimate threat.

Is your position that nobody should ever neutralize a threat because it would be a double standard?

It is my position that it is extremely short-sighted to only think in terms of neutralizing threats, never ceasing to consider how those threats could be avoided in the first place. I think it's arrogance bordering on evil to treat people like they don't matter, and then attempt to crush them when they try to do something about it. And I think it's a policy that always comes back to bite you, something the US should have learned a long time ago.

Fine you found one instance where somebody did something about it mostly because we simply we not paying attention. "What are they they going to do about it still stands" in a general sense because "nothing" will be the answer the vast majority of the time.

So in the course of ten years, how many thousands of Americans have died because "they" did something? How many civilians? Have there not been similar wars in the previous decades? Is the hubris of doing whatever you want without caring about others worth all those deaths, because most of the people you step on won't do anything about it? And do you truly believe it's alright to step on people, if you have the strength to kill them, should they rise against you?