Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

What's wrong with other countries having nukes?

Old 04-11-06, 11:59 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,281
What's wrong with other countries having nukes?

OK.

This came up in the Iran thread and I've been wondering for a while.

What's wrong with other counties having nukes? I mean, it's immediately slung around as an reason for invasion that most people seem to agree with.

"They're going after nukes, let's get 'em".

I don't get it. I mean, if I was some little country I'd probably want the same weapons as the big countries. If my somewhat unfriendly neighbor/enemy has a machine gun, sniper rifle, and a rocket launcher, and I've got a pistol...I'd probably want to even up the playing field a bit.

I mean, if someone nuked even part of the US (and this would have to be smuggled into the US, as most countries don't have ICBMs capable of reaching the US) we'd probably wipe their country from the face of the Earth. Isn't that the whole idea of "nuclear deterrance", MAD, etc?

I mean, every major world power/country has them...why wouldn't everyone want some? And why is pre-emptively invading a country for having a few nukes worth risking the emnity of so many Muslims and middle-eastern countries?
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 12:04 AM
  #2  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Nukes are in a safe hand under Democratic countries. Then again, it's up for debate. Is Russia a democracy? Pakistan can be called a democracy I guess. They're both can be unstable, especially Pakistan. Russia probably sells a bunch here and they if they're short on cash. So the short answer, I don't know.
Myster X is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 12:07 AM
  #3  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
Why not allow poison gas and germ warfare? Since there doesn't seem to be a weapon that doesn't eventually get used, the fewer countries that have the worst weapons the better.

There are some countries that have not demonstrated any bit of responsible behavior toward the world. Not to mention there are some with cultures that treat death as something to look forward to. The last reason is why I'm more concerned about Iran than I am North Korea.
X is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 12:32 AM
  #4  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,943
Myster X,

Democratic countries possessing nuclear weapons and them being "safe" don't mean shit if you have leaders who make their own rules as they go along. It all depends on the leader, and not necessarily the type of country. Currently we have several leaders who think their view is the best.

That's dangerous.
DVD Polizei is online now  
Old 04-12-06, 12:33 AM
  #5  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 51,943
Originally Posted by Vandelay_Inds
Because not all countries and regimes are equal. Would you let a pedophile baby sit your children?
Exactly. So why are we friends with Saudi Arabia.
DVD Polizei is online now  
Old 04-12-06, 12:58 AM
  #6  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
 
GreenMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 5,281
BTW

Could a mod fix the typo in my title (it says counties)

I'm listening BTW, I'm hearing some decent responses. This is just something I've been wondering about.
GreenMonkey is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 01:11 AM
  #7  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 6,032
As long as a country's leader isn't a nut-job, I don't see a problem with them having nukes....example of a country with a whack-job leader: Iran



And genocide, I'm not a fan of genocide. No genocidal tendancies!!
MartinBlank is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 01:16 AM
  #8  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Often when we think of other countries we can't help think about them in terms of what we think a country is based on what our is. Unfortunately, many countries are just the sickest bastard who took power. So you aren't really just having a country with a nuke, you are having a sick bastard with nukes.

If you had other countries with democratic style governments with some sort of checks and balances, I would probably not care a lot of they had a nuke. If you had a country where the most vicious and demented person managed to grab and hold power through any means necessary, I would worry more about him having nukes.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 02:17 AM
  #9  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: puckland
Posts: 745
Stalin, by most any measures, was vicious, twisted, etc.. He certainly wasn't the greatest fan democracy ever had either. However, he posessed enough sanity to know what a nuclear attack would mean. Political philosophy is not what makes a country or leader safe or unsafe to hold nukes.

Likewise, just because a country is a democracy doesn't mean that their nuclear weapons could never fall into less than sane hands. Heck, there are such a large number of nukes in the U.S. and a large number of people guarding them compared to those of countries with smaller arsenals that the odds of some nut-balls getting their hands on a nuke is probably *higher* in the U.S. than in countries like Israel or Britain. (Although probably not higher than in Russia, given the chaos and corruption there...)

The biggest risk of nuclear attack in the next century will almost certainly come from terrorists and lunatics, not states. No state, no matter what political philosophy they subscribe to, is likely to willingly sell or give nukes to those who might use them because those nukes will quite probably be traceable to them. (isotope analysis of the fall-out, etc..) Any nation that lets one of their nukes fall into the wrong hands will most likely be treated almost as badly as if they'd hit the button themselves.

The real scary thing is that as technology advances nuclear weapons technology may eventually come within the means of lunatics like the unabomber, working alone out of a shack in the wilderness.

As for other nations developing nukes... It's their funeral. If I were living in a state with an unstable government (e.g. Russia after the fall of Comunism) I sure as heck wouldn't feel safe with a massive nuclear arsenal laying around, vulerable because the people guarding them aren't getting paid. I probably wouldn't feel to comfortable living in a *stable* country with a massive nuclear arsenal laying around, but then again, I've probably watched too much bad sci-fi. However, there are probably quite a few reasons why some countries, such as Canada, who have posessed the technology and resources to build their own nukes, literally from day 1, choose not to do so.
Nutter is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 05:58 AM
  #10  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 290
I'm OK with any county other than Hazzard getting nukes. Them Duke boys just ain't responsible enough fer 'em in my opinion.
SlartyBart is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 07:25 AM
  #11  
Admin-Thanos
 
VinVega's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Caught between the moon and NYC
Posts: 31,014
The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the more chance there is that a rouge organization will get a hold of one. That organization is not responsible to any nation and can cause tremendous damage with zero deterrent. Nuclear proliferation (coupled with terrorism) is the most dangerous problem the world now faces. Taking it lightly as some appear to be is also dangerous.

Is it "fair" to say to a country "You can't have nukes, but we can."? No. Is it hypocritical? Yes. However, I trust the US more with nukes than I do any other country. That's reality.
VinVega is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 07:30 AM
  #12  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by VinVega
Is it "fair" to say to a country "You can't have nukes, but we can."? No. Is it hypocritical? Yes. However, I trust the US more with nukes than I do any other country. That's reality.
Fairness is not the cornerstone of geo-politics.

It shouldn't be either.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:13 AM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
Originally Posted by classicman2
Fairness is not the cornerstone of geo-politics.

It shouldn't be either.
Venusian is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 08:17 AM
  #14  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Nazgul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Jayhawk Central, Kansas
Posts: 7,125
Originally Posted by classicman2
Fairness is not the cornerstone of geo-politics.

It shouldn't be either.
Nazgul is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:29 AM
  #15  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by MartinBlank
As long as a country's leader isn't a nut-job, I don't see a problem with them having nukes....example of a country with a whack-job leader: Iran
Really? Why do you believe that? Because of what he SAYS? What has he DONE?

I keep asking this question and no one has come up with an answer other than, "well he SOUNDS like a whack-job".
sracer is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:34 AM
  #16  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
I take what the Iranian PM has to say with a large grain of salt, because I remember what another leader (Soviet) said about nuclear weapons and threats to the U. S.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:46 AM
  #17  
DVD Talk Legend
 
sracer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Prescott Valley, AZ
Posts: 12,396
Originally Posted by classicman2
I take what the Iranian PM has to say with a large grain of salt, because I remember what another leader (Soviet) said about nuclear weapons and threats to the U. S.
That's a different situation, IMO, because the Soviet Union actually took military actions against other nations during the cold war.
sracer is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:47 AM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
because iran's financing of hezbollah?
Venusian is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 09:56 AM
  #19  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
Originally Posted by sracer
That's a different situation, IMO, because the Soviet Union actually took military actions against other nations during the cold war.
My point was that just because a leader says something - it doesn't mean that they're willing to carry it out.

The Soviet Union knew very well the consequences if they used nuclear weapons.

I believe the Iranian leader(s) know fully well the consequences if they use nuclear weapons.

The Soviets weren't willing to accept those consequences. Neither will the Iranian leaders, IMO.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:11 AM
  #20  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,676
Another problem with Iran having nukes is that they can conveniently "lose" one that nobody knew they had anyway, it could be set off by terrorists and we wouldn't be able to retaliate.

Not that they'd deal with terrorists or wish anyone any harm...
X is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:13 AM
  #21  
Retired
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 27,449
Personally, I don't want nukes in any ones hands, including hours. After the cold war we should have led efforts to destroy all existing nukes (instead of just reducing supplies) and gathered support (i.e. from the UN) to deal severly with anyone trying to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

As I said in the Iran thread, its just a hypocritical case of the haves oppressing the have nots with the 6 countries being allowed nukes deterimined to keep others from having them.

I'm certainly not supporting nuclear proliferation, but rather just saying I'd feel much better with no countries having nukes, just like we ban chemical weapons. Regular bombs due plenty of damage as is.
Josh H is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:14 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 28,992
Originally Posted by VinVega
The more nuclear weapons there are in the world, the more chance there is that a rouge organization will get a hold of one. That organization is not responsible to any nation and can cause tremendous damage with zero deterrent. Nuclear proliferation (coupled with terrorism) is the most dangerous problem the world now faces. Taking it lightly as some appear to be is also dangerous.
Personnally, I think the nuke threat is overrated and mostly psychological, simply because most people have seen what one can do. I believe that chemical and biological weapons are a far greater threat. Why do countries want nukes? Deterrent. Again, having nukes has a huge psychological impact.
Now that doesn't mean I'd be happy with every country on the planet having nukes.

Is it "fair" to say to a country "You can't have nukes, but we can."? No. Is it hypocritical? Yes. However, I trust the US more with nukes than I do any other country. That's reality.
The reality is also that:

1- The US is the only nation to have used nukes.
2- The US just attacked a sovereign nation without provocation.

Of course I see where you come from but I'm sure a lot of people in other nations woudn't agree with your assessment. The above assuredly has a lot to do with so-called rogue nations wanting nukes in the first place.
eXcentris is online now  
Old 04-12-06, 10:18 AM
  #23  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 36,980
Originally Posted by eXcentris
The reality is also that:

1- The US is the only nation to have used nukes.
2- The US just attacked a sovereign nation without provocation.
1) not true. in war, yes. but others have used them for tests etc

2) no provocation? really? you can argue not enough provocation, but none?
Venusian is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:18 AM
  #24  
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 68,522
The reality is also that:

1- The US is the only nation to have used nukes.
2- The US just attacked a sovereign nation without provocation
You're confused. We had provocation to invade Iraq. They had all those nuclear, biological & chemical weapons and were about to deliver them on the U. S.

How do I know this - the president told me so.
classicman2 is offline  
Old 04-12-06, 10:19 AM
  #25  
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 28,992
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
Personally, I don't want nukes in any ones hands, including hours. After the cold war we should have led efforts to destroy all existing nukes (instead of just reducing supplies) and gathered support (i.e. from the UN) to deal severly with anyone trying to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.

As I said in the Iran thread, its just a hypocritical case of the haves oppressing the have nots with the 6 countries being allowed nukes deterimined to keep others from having them.

I'm certainly not supporting nuclear proliferation, but rather just saying I'd feel much better with no countries having nukes, just like we ban chemical weapons. Regular bombs due plenty of damage as is.
Of course no nukes at all would be better for everyone but that ain't gonna happen. There should be rules for: One, everyone who currently has nukes and two, any nation who wants them. For starters, if you're not a signatory of the NPR and if you won't submit to regular inspections, no nukes for you! And I don't give a hoot if you are democratic or not, nobody should get a free pass. Currently, this would mean no nukes for Israel and (I believe) India.
Of course, the problem is always the same, how to get these damn regulations enforced...
eXcentris is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.