Posted: 11/15/2002 1:02:38 AM EDT
|
Greetings AR-15.commers! This is my second post and with your help & assistance from my first post... I am the proud owner of a Bushy AK Shorty. It's my first AR-15 and my very first firearm purchase. Needless to say, it is refreshing to exercise my 2nd Amendment rights. [:D] Anyway, I need some assistance in a debate I am currently involved with my uncle. Unlike myself, a born & raised US citizen, my uncle is an immigrant and understandably still set in his old, nationalistic, ways. One night at the local bar, we were involved in a debate about the current Iraq/North Korea issue. He brought up the question, "Why should the US have nuclear weapons and other countries cannot?" In response, I told him simply that nations such as Iraq & North Korea are not stable nations plus they have been KNOWN to use WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) against their own people. Saddam has used mustard gas against the Kurds and the North Korean government is so repressive, that they could care less if the little people starve (only the privileged party members get the food). In any case, this debate doesn't seem to want to end and I need some intellectual assistance from my fellow AR-15'ers to successfully debate this topic. So I ask all of you... Why do nations such as the US, England, France, Russia, & China are allowed to possess nukes, but Iraq & N. Korea cannot? Many thanks in advance for the replies. Oh yeah... Please send me your prayers `cuz Blagojevich is my damn governor now. Perhaps I should move to Alaska? [:(!] |
|
Touche! Yes, it was my third post, but my second was a merely a reply. Does that count or am I getting too much into semantics? [:)] BTW, how can a "Bushy AK Shorty" be your first AR? Because it is. Plus the missus tends to keep a tight hold on the check book. (Cough... wanted an Armalite... Cough) |
|
[b]markl32[/b]: The US was the only nation to use a nuke during wartime. However, IMO the US had no choice. Japan would NOT surrender and it's troops would rather die than be captured. Hence the kamikazes. Rather than let thousands upon thousands of US servicemen die on the beachheads of Operation Coronet, Harry Truman opted to drop a couple atom bombs on Japan to force a surrender. IMO, dropping the A-bombs did more to end the war faster than face a bloody landing on the Japanese mainland. |
|
I'm pulling some of this from half-memory (similar to drunk memory, minus the alcohol), so you might want to check things out w/research. Shortly after WWII, people realized the full potential of these massively destructive weapons. When the cold war kicked in, and nuclear stockpiling became 'popular', there were efforts by the international community to limit the development of nuclear technologies, to try and stave off the possibility of another conflict involving atomic/nuclear weapons. A number of nations got involved in specific non-proliferation treaties, where set criteria were layed out with regards to emerging countries nuclear programs and existing countries weapons. Unfortunately, by the time these international coalitions were being developed, several nations had already developed nuclear weapons programs. The cat was let out of the bag, so to speak. The general thrust of these treaties were to keep countries from developing nuclear weapons, until certain economic and political criteria were met. Iraq, for example, has consistently shown that it has no respect for international conventions, it's people are brutally oppressed by the ruling few, and it has a penchant for the stockpiling and use of biochem weapons. Their development and the political environment shows that were Iraq to be involved in a major conflict, they would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons if available. When you consider the climate of the ME, were Saddam to have nuclear weapons the chances of them being used is much higher than, say, the US or England using them. In effect, they would represent a much higher and greater nuclear threat. North Korea......they broke a rather defined treaty with the US regarding their nuclear program. We're not leaning on them quite as hard as Iraq because they do not represent the same threat level as an Iraq with nuclear weapons. |
|
The nations that do not have them are intellectually inferior, which is why we had them first! He's just jealous of all the power we have. If there are going to be nuclear arms, should the nations with the most discretion own them? Do we want pissant countries like Jamaica or Somalia owning them? Financially secure nations also have less of a neccessity of selling to the highest bidder if the economy takes a nose dive. Then there's my favorite argument....BECAUSE WE'RE JUST FUCKIN BETTER THAN THE COUNTRIES THAT DON'T HAVE THEM. (And many that do!) |
| Did you guys ever hear of the plans by the U.S. to use bats on Japan if the A-bomb didn't work. Bats by the millions were to have small time delayed incendiary devices attached to them and then dropped from B29s in special containers over Japanese cities during daylight. The bats would naturally seek cover during the day and in a few hours poof. Japan would have been burned to the ground hopefully preventing an invasion. |
|
[i]Aren't we the only country to use a nuke in anger?[/i] Yeah I guess..if you dont count Pearl Harbor or Bataan I have a little problem with people who dont see the USA as the good guys.. Good guys should always be in control... that way the bad guys dont kill all the good guys and enslave them... Bad guys who have nukes need to be outgunned and need to know that if they go too far the good guys (thats us) will vaporize them off the face of the earth... [:)] |
|
Why is it illegal? It's not, unless someone thinks that the UN is a legitimate global authority! If Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan would of had more time they too would of had a working atomic bomb. I don't know the history the US atomic program, I think that we may have helped the Brits along at some point in their atomic program. France, Russia, China, Pakastan and India did it on their own, with help from traitors or spies. No one in the world really wants North Korea or Iraq to have atomic weapons. If they did then China would have just given North korea a few of atomic weapons. There is no real "friendly" atomic nation that would give atomic weapons to countries like Iraq or Iran. There may have been a few that helped with the development of their programs. There is really nothing to stop a pissant country like Pakastan from developing, building and deploying their own atomic weapons. If I were a betting man I would say that countries like Japan, Germany, Canada and even Argentina certainly posses the knowledge and materials to build an atomic weapon, and/or they may even a have a working "prototype" atomic weapon stashed somewhere. The only thing from stopping Iraq and North Korea from owning atomic weapons is themselves. |
|
In America it was the scientist and engineers who worked in the Nuclear Program and the Manhattan project itself who set the tone for the demension (ethical,moral) which the US had in the fielding and use of Nuclear Weapons. So Nuclear Weapons are safe in United States hands. they will never use them but in self-defense. However.. That still leaves INDIA,PAKISTAN,NORTH KOREA,RUSSIA These nations acquired Nuclear Weapons without, as far as I know, without the ethical/moral guidance of those who were building them. Several Scientist working for Russia had severe problems building weapons for a state that was of the nature of Russia, Totalitarian. But calmer heads seamed to have prevailed there. In INDIA,PAKISTAN that is a different issue altogether as they act like a kid with an Aerosol Can , Nail, and Hammer. Those nations are so unstable both nationally and in the psyches of their own rulers that I don't know how they can prevent a nuclear war. Except for the US going in and Confiscating all of both Pakistans and Indias weapons. In North Korea.. That is the UNKNOWN.. I don't know what they can do, but they weren't either Permitted or Stopped from having them, as is the case in china as well. They just did it, and you can't take them away without starting a major theater-scale war. On comprising the whole peninsula. My Guess is North Korea got the goods from China. Regardless of peoples view on China not wanting Nuclear nations around it. See on the Map both INDIA,PAKISTAN,NORTHKOREA are all bordered with China so one can assume safely that their has been major technological espionage in China at the least and perhaps a blind eye turned towards the problem by the Chinese themselves. Your friends argument is only wrong in that it wasn't about permit/not permit. It comes down to weapons proliferation. And the sale of those goods that make the bombs possible. Machines Lathes, Numerical Control, triggers (probably Chinese copies of russian coppies of American Triggers?? If I had to guess) And timers. But who the hell knows?? |
|
I totally agree with those above who say the difference is that we're the good guys, they're the bad guys. The U.S. can be trusted to use WMD's righteously. The same cannot be said for Iraq, N. Korea, Iran, Pakistan, China, etc. Those nations (I include Pakistan in the list since the population consists, by-and-large, of fanatic Islamists) wish to eliminate us, nay all of Western civilization. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to defend ourselves and our posterity, even to the total elimination of our enemies, if they make that necessary. For those that wish to placate our enemies who will eventually demand our unconditional surrender, consider the words of Sam Adams: If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen! It's us or them. I, for one, choose us. |