Time to kick Iran

[RandFan]

sure, or should we, instead, give the nuclear weapons to the only nation in history to use them against hundreds of thousands of civillians, in order to frighten off another another nation for political gain?

America: Has been in many conflicts since WWII and has NEVER used nuclear weapons since.

 

[RandFan]

anyone care to kick Iran along with Randfan?

Anyone have something other than rhetoric, a compelling and logically valid argument perhaps? Plumjam? No?

 

[plumjam]

America: Has been in many conflicts since WWII and has NEVER used nuclear weapons since.

lol
difficult to describe really,
previous barbers have only cut your sideburns, sure, America gave you a number one... but heck, that was for national security purposes

 

[plumjam]

Rand, my old mate,
the USA is the only state to use nuclear weapons on cities of unsuspecting civilians... i'm not having a go at you individually,... i just feel that in such a circumstance what is it most logical to have fear about?

 

[RandFan]

lol
difficult to describe really,
previous barbers have only cut your sideburns, sure, America gave you a number one... but heck, that was for national security purposes

I have no idea what this means. I guess it's supposed to be funny. ..... right?

 

[RandFan]

Rand, my old mate,
the USA is the only state to use nuclear weapons on cities of unsuspecting civilians... i'm not having a go at you individually,... i just feel that in such a circumstance what is it most logical to have fear about?

I can't parse your last sentence. I really don't even know what the hell you are saying. You seem to think that since America was the only nation to use a nuclear weapon that that fact somehow proves something. It doesn't. And I'm telling you that in 60 years the United States has NEVER used a nuclear weapon.

We didn't use them in Korea.
We didn't use them in Vietnam.
We haven't used since.

Let me know if you need further clarification.

 

[Matteo Martini]

How do we enforce the agreement?

The nations themselves would make a clear promise in front of their people

How do we keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?

You do not need nukes for keeping Iran from getting nukes

 

[Matteo Martini]

supposedley Mutually Assured Destruction is the best tried and approved strategy that we've yet had in World Wars and that. So the best thing would be for every country to have the same number and power of nuclear missiles. Thus would be guaranteed future stability and opportunities for earthly happiness

There are 200+ nations in the world, many of them are not democracies.
Many of them have crazy leaders.
Give them nukes, and you will see what happens

 

[RandFan]

The nations themselves would make a clear promise in front of their people

?

We'll, we know that works. Remember the clear promise made to Nevile Chamberlain?

You do not need nukes for keeping Iran from getting nukes

There are nations that are friendly to Iran that would like not to see an Armageddon. If America has nukes they have a real good reason to intercede to influence Iran. Our hand is much better with nukes.

If America has no Nukes and Iran wants to wipe out America then that's that.

FTR, there is no way in hell India is getting rid of its nukes.
There is no way in hell Pakistan is getting rid of its nukes.
There is no way in hell Israel is getting rid of its nukes.

It's a lot of fun but in the end it's just make believe and will only grow hair on your brain. I hate to be cynical but no diplomats take this serious.

To get rid of nukes you've got to get rid of the underlying problems first. So long as India and Pakistan are at each others throats they won't trust the other to disarm.

Matteo,

I'm not going to try and change your mind on this. It's a non-starter at this juncture. You have hundreds of, at the moment, very deep and intractable problems. You might as well ask the Israelis and Pakistanis and the Indians and Pakistanis to live together in harmony.

That's a good idea, BTW. Get back to me when you get that accomplished.

 

[Matteo Martini]

?

We'll, we know that works. Remember the clear promise made to Nevile Chamberlain?

Promise made by Adolph Hitler.
None of the nations which today have nukes, have an Adolph Hitler as dictator
BTW, 70 years have passed from 1938..

There are nations that are friendly to Iran that would like not to see an Armageddon. If America has nukes they have a real good reason to intercede to influence Iran. Our hand is much better with nukes.

You are giving Iran ( and other 20 nations ) the excuse to get nukes

If America has no Nukes and Iran wants to wipe out America then that's that.

I did not say get rid of your army.
I said, make a world plan to get rid of nukes

FTR, there is no way in hell India is getting rid of its nukes.
There is no way in hell Pakistan is getting rid of its nukes.
There is no way in hell Israel is getting rid of its nukes.

It's a lot of fun but in the end it's just make believe and will only grow hair on your brain. I hate to be cynical but no diplomats take this serious.

Then, if it is them who disagree, it will be their fault.
And, you can keep your nukes and say " we were in favour of getting rid of them "
What is the point of not going out and say, if everyone get ride of nukes, we will also?

To get rid of nukes you've got to get rid of the underlying problems first. So long as India and Pakistan are at each others throats they won't trust the other to disarm.

Who say that?
What if the process of disarmement is a global process?

Matteo,

I'm not going to try and change your mind on this. It's a non-starter at this juncture. You have hundreds of, at the moment, very deep and intractable problems. You might as well ask the Israelis and Pakistanis and the Indians and Pakistanis to live together in harmony.

That's a good idea, BTW. Get back to me when you get that accomplished.

We ( Italians ) do not need to accomplish anything, as we do not have nukes
Except for the American nukes in our American bases

 

[RandFan]

Promise made by Adolph Hitler.
None of the nations which today have nukes, have an Adolph Hitler as dictator

BTW, 70 years have passed from 1938..

?

You've really got me at a loss on that one. Are you serious? Really?

I mean sure there is no one EXACTLY like Adolph Hitler but do you know anything about Kim Jong Il? Ahmadinejad? These guys are nuts. And I've got to be honest with you, I have some very real concerns about the mental health of Chavez, serious concerns.

I can't take you seriously Matteo. This is nonsense.

 

[RandFan]

You are giving Iran ( and other 20 nations ) the excuse to get nukes

? This is naive Matteo. Israel isn't going to give up it's nukes.

I did not say get rid of your army.

Our army would be of questionable worth against thermo nuclear weapons.

I said, make a world plan to get rid of nukes

And make a plan for the Israelis and Palestinians to love each other.

You are a nice guy but very naive.

it is them who disagree, it will be their fault.

Oh, fine, we get blown up by nuclear weapons and blame it on someone else. Terribly naive.

What is the point of not going out and say, if everyone get ride of nukes, we will also?

It's naive.

What if the process of disarmement is a global process?

What if everyone just loves eachother. You are speaking in platitudes and I don't take that seriously.

We ( Italians ) do not need to accomplish anything, as we do not have nukes
Except for the American nukes in our American bases

You speak for every Italian? Really?

I'm not going to post much more on this Matteo. I don't take it seriously.

 

[Matteo Martini]

?

You've really got me at a loss on that one. Are you serious? Really?

I mean sure there is no one EXACTLY like Adolph Hitler but do you know anything about Kim Jong Il? Ahmadinejad? These guys are nuts. And I've got to be honest with you, I have some very real concerns about the mental health of Chavez, serious concerns.

I can't take you seriously Matteo. This is nonsense.

I am not talking about Ahmadinejad.
I am talking about the countries who already have nukes.
Of course, Iran should be stopped ( did not understand why Israel has not done anything, so far ).
I am talking mainly of the US and Russia, and France UK, India, China Pakistan and Israel following
NK is a case apart..

 

[Matteo Martini]

? This is naive Matteo. Israel isn't going to give up it's nukes.

What if everybody else does?

Our army would be of questionable worth against thermo nuclear weapons.

If China, Russia India Pakistan France UK and ( yes ) Israel agree on give up nukes, and NK forced to, whose nukes are you talking about?

And make a plan for the Israelis and Palestinians to love each other.

Palestinians have no nukes and no plan to get them

You speak for every Italian? Really?

I'm not going to post much more on this Matteo. I don't take it seriously.

Italy does not have nukes.
Full stop.
Nor Japan.
Full stop.

 

[Ziggurat]

Rand, my old mate,
the USA is the only state to use nuclear weapons on cities of unsuspecting civilians.

Killing someone with a nuclear weapon is not morally different than killing them with conventional bombs. We killed more Japanese civilians with conventional bombs than with nuclear weapons. And what, exactly, does "unsuspecting" have to do with it? Is it really better to tell someone you're going to kill them before you kill them? Or is that only a requirement for using nukes?

So, why is it a problem that Iran might get nukes, if nukes are morally no different than other weapons? It's simply that nukes allow small countries like Iran the ability to do damage (and kill) on a scale which used to require the full military might and industrial output of superpowers. Which means not only can more players enter the game, the up-front cost of doing such damage and killing so many people is dramatically decreased (since you don't need to dedicate as much of your economy to doing so). That is an issue of threat level. And it is very logical to worry about fundamental shifts in threat levels, especially escalations of those threats. Now, considering that America had and used conventional military power which did more destruction than nukes prior to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and did in fact kill more Japanese with these methods, on what basis is America's use of nuclear weapons immoral? Not on the basis that we were the first or only country to use them, that's for damned sure.

 

[Ziggurat]

What if everybody else does?

What if pigs could fly? Doesn't matter what they might or might not do in a situation that will not happen.

Palestinians have no nukes and no plan to get them

That's only because they can't. But you damn well better believe they would try if they thought they could.

What you and so many other proponents of disarmament fail to realize is that the incentive for dictatorships and rogue states to acquire nuclear weapons would increase, not decrease, if the existing nuclear powers disarmed. And because you've got no idea how to deal with that reality, your arguments fall apart.

 

[RandFan]

What if everybody else does?

If China, Russia India Pakistan France UK and ( yes ) Israel agree on give up nukes, and NK forced to, whose nukes are you talking about?

Palestinians have no nukes and no plan to get them

Italy does not have nukes.
Full stop.
Nor Japan.
Full stop.

With all due respect Matteo, and I do respect you. There is no argument here to overcome the very real problems of disamament.

What if everyone disarms? Happy day. What if we all got puppies and shiny new cars?

 

[Ziggurat]

I mean sure there is no one EXACTLY like Adolph Hitler

Indeed. Stalin and Mao didn't choose their victims on the basis of religion, but they still murdered tens of millions.

 

[Ion]

How did you find that article about topology and special relativity?...

By learning topology.

You didn't hear of Poincare until I told you, which is a sign of the faulty U.S. education.

Better fill gaps like this and contribute to civilization than support U.S. wars.

 

[Ion]

You are a hero by being a jerk on an internet forum?...

Jerk to you, hero to the world.