Obsession With Weather Forecast..
Jokes1 min ago
I dont understand
how come some countries can have nuclear weapons but if certain others have them they get told off and sanctioned?
And why do these countries want to make them anyway? They can just buy them of the USA
And why do these countries want to make them anyway? They can just buy them of the USA
Answers
1 to 19 of 19
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by SKA. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I do agree with you but other countries can't just "buy them off the USA". There isn't a nulear weapon store somewhere!
Other countries want them for the same reason the usa and britain and france etc. want them - defence. The reason being no one will fire a nuclear missile at us if they know we can fire one straight back. That logic is flawed but it exists nonetheless and was one of the principle reasons the cold war stayed a cold war. What is terrifying is the thought that a terrorist group could get hold of one and they're not the sort of people who would care if they got one sent straight back at them - therefore nothing to stop them firing one. The USA (and a lot of other countries) see some nations (i.e. Iran) as terrorist nations and believe the threat of getting a nuclear bomb sent back at them is not enough to stop them sending one here. Therefore they want to do everything possible to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
Other countries want them for the same reason the usa and britain and france etc. want them - defence. The reason being no one will fire a nuclear missile at us if they know we can fire one straight back. That logic is flawed but it exists nonetheless and was one of the principle reasons the cold war stayed a cold war. What is terrifying is the thought that a terrorist group could get hold of one and they're not the sort of people who would care if they got one sent straight back at them - therefore nothing to stop them firing one. The USA (and a lot of other countries) see some nations (i.e. Iran) as terrorist nations and believe the threat of getting a nuclear bomb sent back at them is not enough to stop them sending one here. Therefore they want to do everything possible to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
Nuclear weapons are a paradox, you need them so you don't need them!
The last Nuke bombs to be dropped are estimated to have saved around 1M lives, more paradoxical thinking Booldawg. In fact quite a lot of problems can be solved by Pardoxical thinking but our politicians rarely have the guts to do it.
The last Nuke bombs to be dropped are estimated to have saved around 1M lives, more paradoxical thinking Booldawg. In fact quite a lot of problems can be solved by Pardoxical thinking but our politicians rarely have the guts to do it.
Loosehead I think the first nuclear bomb saved 1 M lives I'm not sure how many the second saved.
I don't think Iran want a nuclear bomb to hit Israel with, they're not stupid.
Of course the Iranian president gets up and shouts and rails against Israel and the US - that's mostly for internal consumption.
They want a nuclear bomb to prevent the US engaging in regieme change in Iran as they have in Iraq.
Of course if they can scare Israel a bit and use it for leverage the way other nuclear states have too, all the better.
Personally I'm more worried about the internal security of nuclear states - we saw what happened to the Russian conventional armoury after the breakup of the USSR - it all went walkies!
Can Iran or any nuclear state be sure of the security of such weapons?
After all the US have had 32 nuclear weapon accidents
http://www.milnet.com/nukacci.htm
and the UK 19
http://www.nukewatch.org.uk/accidents.php
I don't think Iran want a nuclear bomb to hit Israel with, they're not stupid.
Of course the Iranian president gets up and shouts and rails against Israel and the US - that's mostly for internal consumption.
They want a nuclear bomb to prevent the US engaging in regieme change in Iran as they have in Iraq.
Of course if they can scare Israel a bit and use it for leverage the way other nuclear states have too, all the better.
Personally I'm more worried about the internal security of nuclear states - we saw what happened to the Russian conventional armoury after the breakup of the USSR - it all went walkies!
Can Iran or any nuclear state be sure of the security of such weapons?
After all the US have had 32 nuclear weapon accidents
http://www.milnet.com/nukacci.htm
and the UK 19
http://www.nukewatch.org.uk/accidents.php
You see SKA, you;re just now with the programme here are you?
If you are white, and belong to a rich ecconomy, you can appoint yourself policeman of the world, and basically tell other people what they can and can't have. This especially applies if the people who are getting uppity are the sort of people that used to be colonies in the days when Britain had an empire - you know, people like Inda ... America .. hang on, the logic of this argument has just collapsed ...
Anyway, forgetting all that history nonsense, anyone who is likely to be a pest and use their nuclear weapons for very very bad things (clue - check the colour chart: anyone with anything resembling a suntan is in this catagory) - then they can;t have them.
And if you may have them, probably not, but hey, we have a lot of generals to pay, and we have to give them something to do to justify their money, then the West will jolly well send in lots of large guys with big boots on to show you the error of your ways.
It's called 'The War on Terror'.
Of course, you could get picky and wonder if the definition of 'terror' depends who'se gun barrel you are staring down, but that's just being a spoilsport.
"I've got one, you can't have one, because i say so, and I'm bigger than you."
In the playground, that's bullying, in politics, it's a 'Defence Policy'.
Clear now?
Good.
If you are white, and belong to a rich ecconomy, you can appoint yourself policeman of the world, and basically tell other people what they can and can't have. This especially applies if the people who are getting uppity are the sort of people that used to be colonies in the days when Britain had an empire - you know, people like Inda ... America .. hang on, the logic of this argument has just collapsed ...
Anyway, forgetting all that history nonsense, anyone who is likely to be a pest and use their nuclear weapons for very very bad things (clue - check the colour chart: anyone with anything resembling a suntan is in this catagory) - then they can;t have them.
And if you may have them, probably not, but hey, we have a lot of generals to pay, and we have to give them something to do to justify their money, then the West will jolly well send in lots of large guys with big boots on to show you the error of your ways.
It's called 'The War on Terror'.
Of course, you could get picky and wonder if the definition of 'terror' depends who'se gun barrel you are staring down, but that's just being a spoilsport.
"I've got one, you can't have one, because i say so, and I'm bigger than you."
In the playground, that's bullying, in politics, it's a 'Defence Policy'.
Clear now?
Good.
Of course I wouldn't be happy with Iran having nuclear weapons Loosehead, but then again, I'm equally not happy with America having them either.
I find the notion of a President from Texas - the home of the 'right to bear arms' - having a major say on nuclear weapons for anyone is as terrifying as the idea of Iran, or any other country having access to nuclear arms.
The notion of America as the world's voice of reason is offensive, dangerous, and self-awarded.
I find the notion of a President from Texas - the home of the 'right to bear arms' - having a major say on nuclear weapons for anyone is as terrifying as the idea of Iran, or any other country having access to nuclear arms.
The notion of America as the world's voice of reason is offensive, dangerous, and self-awarded.
I am not a racist anotheroldgit - I know it, you know it, and anyone who has seen any of my posts on this site knows it. My points are based on a moral highground approach, not race or colour.
My point about 'anyone with anything reselmbling a suntan' was ironic - and I think you know that.
At least I hope you do.
My point about 'anyone with anything reselmbling a suntan' was ironic - and I think you know that.
At least I hope you do.
1 to 19 of 19
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Jobs & Education4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles10 mins ago
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |