« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Simon Charles
Joined: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 20 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Manitoba
City: Winnipeg
|
Nuclear weapons club
October 25, 2002 - 04:30 AM
|
|
Hello everyone! I have posted here before, some of you may remember me for my long essay written about Pakistan and India(which I apologise again for posting because of it's excessive length).
I guess the subject of this thread kind of hints towards what I want to talk about. I lived in Pakistan right when they developed and tested their nuclear bomb. I have had a closer encounter than what I would like with the prospect of nuclear war. It isn't fun. However, one thing I'd like to ask Bush, if I could, was why there seems to be a nuclear club. This club consists of the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. These are the 'allowed' members. There are some countries which everyone widely knows have nuclear weapons, or at least the capability to make nuclear weapons if they wanted, like Canada, Israel, North Korea, Japan and some others. Then there are countries that have them and are being sanctioned because they have them. Pakistan, India, and more recently Iraq jump to mind. However, since when is there a requirement to have nuclear arms. In my mind, there should be NO nuclear weapons, as in EVERYONE is banned from having/using them, or there should be no restrictions on their development.
It seems that this is just another tool being used by the USA and it's allies to keep themselves in the position to dominate policy in other nations around the world. A lot of people complain about the tag that the USA has, the "World's policeman", but yet they don't seem to raise a complaint about how the USA has kept it's massive nuclear weapons arsenal even after the Cold War has ended.
Of course, here I am preaching the converted most probably, because the posters here at TIG are probably more learned than in other places/websites and they would most like to see a more evenly balanced world. It's just that there's no conceivable way to really get the USA and it's major allies to start to eliminate it's nuclear arsenal. We can try to have democratic protests and demonstrations, but when you're fighting a behemoth the size of the US military, who could just as easily hide a nuclear bomb under the White House and we wouldn't know about it, there seems no hope of ever getting them to comply.
Any other opinions on this?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Well.
October 26, 2002 - 04:06 AM
|
|
The countries you mentioned who are part of the nuclear club share something in common. They treat their nuclear weapons as a deterrent against war, not as a first-strike option. This latter option is what the west perceives the countries of India, Pakistan, North Korea (only recently) and Iraq have planned with their weapons of mass destruction.
Interestingly enough, both India and Pakistan have been able to avoid nuclear war because of the deterrence of the first strike option.
While Nuke weapons are a bad thing, its interesting to note that the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 were made to ensure tens of thousands of troops did not have to be committed to a long, drawn-out and potentially bloody guerilla war on the main four islands of Japan.
How important are the lives of those victorious in glory and strength, and how small and insignificant are the many more lives of those suffering.
Where is it going to end?
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Charles
Joined: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 20 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Manitoba
City: Winnipeg
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
October 28, 2002 - 01:48 AM
|
|
I do accept that some of the countries that I mentioned simply have the nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent. However, who's to say that an African country shouldn't have the same sort of deterrent against war with one of it's neighbours. The whole situation of have's and have not's creates a very unequal world where only certain countries get to benefit from practically complete safety, while other countries simply go to war when they have a problem. You can't possibly tell me that that's fair.
And also, the whole deterrent strategy was on the part of the USA a remnant of the Cold War. Who really nowadays has the military capability to launch a nuclear strike against the US. Nukes are practically a remnant of the arms race. They should be completely dismantled, or better yet, somehow placed under the supervision of the UN, which actually would go against the UN's principles...but it's better than the status quo.
And in regards to the Hiroshima explanation. I actually had to do a mock trial a long while back where I was defending President Truman against charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. It was very interesting, now of course I think I was an idiot for defending him. Of course, the situation was very influential, as the end of the war was in sight, and all the allies wanted to just finish it off quickly and then get on with the massive job of rebuilding. But, the after-shocks that the people of Hiroshima/Nagasaki are feeling now are indeed unforgiveable, and the scientists basically used them as guinea pigs to test their new 'toy' on. Dreadful...indeed when will it all end.
Of course, this raises a completely new issue. One which I've been recently discussing in my Conflict Resolution Class. The fact that conflict is completely inevitable. It will always happen. It's just how we choose to respond to conflict that shapes the outcome.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
November 1, 2002 - 09:38 AM
|
|
1st of all, i dont agree the way pred talks.
(hope you remember me pred)
it sounds like america is the saviour of the world and the rest of us just exist as stupid morons under the able protection of america and other countries.
there are a lot of political things beyond yours and mine understanding pred and sometimes things go out of hand and you gotto do something to stop a big war.
in case of india and pakistan, somefacts that they dont tell on BBC or CNN:
pakistan never conducted any nuclear tests for real. actually, pakistani soldiers had infiltrated into indian region and captured a strategic position on the indian side of the loc (under the able guidance of then only an army general, parvez musharraf. in reply, india attacked the posts and got them back. pakis knew they could never win a conventional war against india, so mushu went one step ahead and BOUGHT nuclear technology from their old allie china. (he could do that coz its an open fact, how much control does political leadership in pak have over its army generals)
so... under such circumstances, what should have india done? wait for american intervention and hope for a messiah to come from america and save the world?
and i am not talking baselessly, may be you wont believe me. but to tell you, indian technology is far superior to pakistani. faaaaaar superior. we had nuclear technology since 1971 and 20% of our electricity comes from nuclear fuels. still it took us 3 years of careful planning to conduct our nuclear tests. but pakis, with no proir experience of handling any sort of nuclear material before could conduct a test in 3 months!!!!
think about it. and BTW, i dont agree on your "america is the saviour" theory.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 369 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Australia
Province/State: Western Australia
City: Perth
|
Im not sure . ..
November 3, 2002 - 03:30 AM
|
|
Im not sure where ones perception of me being pro-America came from, since what I was really trying to do was outline the different strategies/policies among the nuclear powers of the world.
You practically ignored my point about the first-strike vs. counterstrike reality - instead you wanted more than anything to tell us who got the bomb first.
What we all really need to look at is what to do with all the worldly entities who have this incomprehensible power, and deal with it from there. No good comes out of tit-for-tat conflicts, especially when its over such a volatile region like Kashmir and when the threat of nuclear conflict rears its head almost immediately after the first sign of physical conflict.
Blame doesn't come into this discussion, humanity has to deal with reality regardless of which schoolyard bully stole the other bullies lunch money.
- - -
Pred.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 47
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Other Side of Coin
November 5, 2002 - 07:40 AM
|
|
Ah, but what if by giving the UN the weapons, you spread the knowhow of building them? Could you have people from all over the world learning about nuclear weapons technology by serving with the UN?
What actually is amazing is that the NPT actually has worked well, though not perfect. It has been over 50 years since the first nuclear weapon, yet relatively few countries have them.
Glad to see Vivek back. :-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Charles
Joined: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 20 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Manitoba
City: Winnipeg
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
November 5, 2002 - 12:42 PM
|
|
vivek-
i'm sorry, but you're pro-Indian BIAS is not going to work very well. You've maintained your complete bias towards the other side of the coin and that's a serious problem, because that doesn't allow you to actually see the real problem and make serious efforts toward reconcialiation and eventually, hopefully, making some serious steps towards resolution of the Kashmir conflict. Everyday that we delay more innocents, both Pakis and Indians, get killed and the conflict becomes more and more personal for a lot more people. That's what's happened in Palestine, and now basically that whole population has lost someone at one point or another to the conflict and they have a personal reason to hate Israel or the USA.
My basic reasoning is that you can't hope to get anywhere by not understanding the other side. if you can't understand, and see their reasoning, their side, then there's no hope.
One more thing, i really don't understand where you were coming from with the whole 'who got the nuke first, pak or india?' thing. Where did that come from? I merely mentioned the imbalance in the world caused by the Nuke Club having the ultimate weapon and the rest of the world having to kow tow militarily to them. In that regard I totally agree with you. The current climate of imbalance cannot continue, it's just creating hard feelings on both sides of the divide, and climbing powers like Brazil, are making some suggestions that they might want to get nukes, and they will no doubt be sanctioned for it. As I said before, it's nukes for all, or nukes for no-one. OR, we give them to the UN, although that would pose some serious problems as to the morals of that, and how they would continue to be used. The best way to deal with them would be to just ban them outright. Whether it would work or not, since people could be hired to make them and a huge blackmarket would probably spring up, but it's still the way to go.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Charles
Joined: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 20 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Manitoba
City: Winnipeg
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
November 6, 2002 - 11:52 AM
|
|
Okay, my point was by giving the UN the weapons, ALL countries could have them. That would significantly enhance the stature of the UN and would also even the playing field for the world, which was basically the main point of this whole thread.
And really, nuclear weapons right now could be had by so many more countries than the 'official' ones. Tomorrow, if these countries so desired, they could test nukes, Canada, basically ALL of western Europe, a good chunk of the former USSR, and Australia/New Zealand. They all have the technology to make one, it's just that they are being held back, or they don't really see the need to have them, because they are already on the inside circle of some of the 'Big Five'.
See now rsmarg implied the less countries that have them the better. Well, I disagree with that, because eventhough they are horrible, they are significant weapons of power. Like I said before, if people are really into changing the world, then you've got to right the power imbalance in the world, and one way to do that is to put some restrictions of the USA and the 'Big Five'.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Robert Margolis
Joined: Nov 15, 2000
Posts: 480 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 47
Country: United States
Province/State: Florida
City: Palm Beach Gardens
|
Nuke 'em if you got 'em
November 7, 2002 - 08:13 AM
|
|
The reason that so many are concerned with proliferation is that the likelyhood of using nuclear weapons increases if you have more nuclear armed countries. We need to figure out how to get rid of the things, not be giving out more of them. Power imbalances are bad, but nuclear war is much worse.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Charles
Joined: Jan 8, 2002
Posts: 20 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 27
Country: Canada
Province/State: Manitoba
City: Winnipeg
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
November 9, 2002 - 03:09 AM
|
|
You see you're wrong there. More people have 'em, less people WANT to use 'em. That's the whole principle of deterrence. Why don't you think the USA and the USSR nuked each other crazy during the Cold War. Because they KNEW what the consequences would be. Same thing applies to India and Pakistan. Mutually Assured Destruction is one of the most balancing phenomena in world politics.
Now i'm not saying that we should give them to everyone since there are some pretty crazy rulers that couldn't give a crap about other countries.
It's all nice to say that we should ban the stupid things, but the fact is that the technology isn't going to be forgotten. A lot of countries are enately suspicious of other countries, and so most countries probably will keep a little stash of nukes in the cupboard for the day when the world turns on them. This sort of technology doesn't go away. We've really screwed ourselves here.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
vivek
Joined: Dec 19, 2001
Posts: 148 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: India
Province/State: Maharashtra
City: Pune
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
December 19, 2002 - 03:36 AM
|
|
yup sano,
sorry for being so late in replying.
the thing is, indo-pak and indo-british issues are a little close to my heart alrite.
frankly, no biases.
pakistan doesnt have anything to say. i look at pakistan as a totally immature kind of a state where an army general has the power to publically hang the prime minister. its not even a democracy in my view.
i am not trying to work my biases on anyone. really.
the thing is that indians are soooo absolutely gullible, throughout their history, they always try to give their enemeies a fair chance, how much ever cunning or unworthy their enemies might be. throught, be it alexander the great, be it moughals, be it british, be it anybody. indians are really stupid and gullible.
india-pak differences tody is just another example.
to tell you, had we chosen to end the issue swiftly and ruthlessly with pakistan, we could have ended it 50 years back. but... india is a peaceful country. so, we give pakistan a chance. we go to the UN. UN asks pak troops to move out. pak says no. attacks india.
india defeats pak and says, look lets have peace now. enough is enough. pak screams out to the world "look how this giant moron is dominating the situation" world feels sympathised. pak attacks again. again india defeats pak. says lets talk. pak sceams out "this stupid powerful country is trying to gain control by defeating us and signing a treaty when we are in the loosing situation."
the whole world is against india "you are so strong, you should behave resposibly" india bends to international pressure, says alrite.
pak knows it cant win a direct war. starts a proxy war, sends militants. indians, defend their country. pak says human rights volations. india stops killing militants. militants create havoc. pak is happy.
indians are soooo gullible.
nuclear weapon development by pak is another step towards its stupid immature intentions of somehow humiliating india. thats why it matters, who does what first.
somehow the world doesnt realise what a threat pakistan is today as far as global security is concerned.
pakistan is a haven for militants. militants just do their thing in india and escape to pakistan. we just cant do anything about it. pakistan is absolutely immature. it can do anything, like sell nuclear technology to northkorea in return for misslie technology, provide govt. incentives to official terrorist camps in pakistan as well as in kashmir.
who doesnt know about it. who does anything about it.
and there are peaceloving talkers like you.
when you dont know about the situation and ask for an unbiased perspective, you are being stupid. (sorry for the harsh word. but i'd like you to investigate for yourself, what is pakistans side of the story) infact, pakistans mistakes are very cleverly hidden from the world and no one knows about it, coz, the world watches CNN and CNN belongs to america and pakistan is an ally of america.
pakistan is the epicentre of global terrorism, not saudi arabia. the next biggest epicentre of global terrorism is america. if you think you are too powerful and can do anything and you dont need to follow the rules, youre a terrorist.
as for global peace and stuff... yeah sure. keep ignoring pakistan and you will know. they are immature enough to blow up the entire non-muslim world. including america.
tell you something, whenever there are terrorist attacks anywhere in the world, 99% its got to be islamic militants and out of all the terrorists, half will turn out to be from pakstan. anywhere in the world.
and plzzzz dont change your view coz i am asking you to. you investigate and know it for yourself.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Darren Houldcroft
Joined: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Reading
City: Reading
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
December 19, 2002 - 07:59 AM
|
|
Ahem..
leaving all that asside gentlemen, the only reason why Bush etc get upitty is the legal side. I believe alot of these have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban and Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaties...
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Moss
Joined: May 7, 2002
Posts: 79 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Australia
Province/State: Victoria
City: Melbourne
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
December 19, 2002 - 08:10 AM
|
|
I disagree.
I reckon that Bush, Blair and friends get uppity becuase of the perceived threat to the Anglo-American hegemony.
America has no qualms about not signing onto/ignoring international treaties and agreements - just look at the ban on land mines, kyoto, rights of the child, international criminal court etc. And yes, I have heard of the "national interest" argument - a self-serving way to promote ones interests at the expense of others and unltimately themselves.
Preemptive action goes directly against the international norms of non-intereference - it would set a very dangerous precedent for international affairs. Weapons of Mass Destruction are just being used by the Yanks as a vaguely acceptable justification for eliminating perceived threats.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Darren Houldcroft
Joined: Nov 25, 2002
Posts: 37 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 31
Country: United Kingdom
Province/State: Reading
City: Reading
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
December 20, 2002 - 07:11 AM
|
|
Originally posted by mossy
I disagree.
I reckon that Bush, Blair and friends get uppity becuase of the perceived threat to the Anglo-American hegemony.
*spits out his coffee*
I'm sorry to break it to you.... but we in the UK, along with the US, are not the only nations with nuclear weapons - the hegemony is non-existant. And last time I checked, the British military was downsizing rather than the other way around.... shamefully.
America has no qualms about not signing onto/ignoring international treaties and agreements - just look at the ban on land mines, kyoto, rights of the child, international criminal court etc. And yes, I have heard of the "national interest" argument - a self-serving way to promote ones interests at the expense of others and unltimately themselves.
Lets look at those teaties :
Land Mines - Read up on Korea.... even I wouldn't want to be near Seoul without the mines.
Kyoto - Bad form, quiting rather than re-negogiating. But then, it was heavily biased against indurstrialised nations. I don't pretend to support their actions, but I understand their reasons.
Rights of the child - Not something I can comment on. It's very much a personal opinion subject.
IIC - The US has always co-operated in all cases, unless you have any specific comments I can't see the problem?
And on "national interest" - America's policy is based on power projection - dealing with the problem 'over there' before it becomes a problem 'over here'. It's effective at maintaining gross peace, sorta like spraying down a fire. It doesn't go out.... but it keeps it under control. As much as I think that Bush is..... selective.... with his use of these policy, on the balance I think it does more good than harm.
Preemptive action goes directly against the international norms of non-intereference - it would set a very dangerous precedent for international affairs. Weapons of Mass Destruction are just being used by the Yanks as a vaguely acceptable justification for eliminating perceived threats.
I don't disagree there - pre-emptitive action is a vad precedent to set. But after Sept 11th, I doubt anyone could convince the rank and file over there of that fact.....
You just have to hope that the guy holding the reigns can keep their desires in check and ride a true course....
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Simon Moss
Joined: May 7, 2002
Posts: 79 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Australia
Province/State: Victoria
City: Melbourne
|
Re: Nuclear weapons club
December 20, 2002 - 09:10 AM
|
|
Yeah, I'll pay a fair bit of what you said.
My original comment was in response to
"the only reason why Bush etc get upitty is the legal side. I believe alot of these have signed the Comprehensive Test Ban and Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaties"
But on Anglo-American hegemony, I wrote that poorly. What I was hoping to note was that currently international order is largely maintained through US power projection, as you noted.
As I see it, Bush is charting the course to disarm Iraq with Blair as his first mate. They want to do it legally to appease the doves and just generally to ensure continued order, fair enough. My comment on being upitty was meant to express the belief that they want to disarm Iraq because they feel threatened by a pariah state with solid economic resources (oil) and WMD potential that could serve to seriously destablise the Middle East. Bush (and Blair to a small extent) are the hegemons in the area through their involvement with Israel and relationships with the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt and Iran.
And hey, while I'm here, I'll throw my hat in the ring on some of the other comments;
land mines & korea - i would like to go near Seoul without landmines, and I'm sure the south koreans would too, i believe they quite like their capital. I would not, however, be too keen on visiting Pyong Yang without support, but that does not mean land mines. The DMZ is littered with mines, a reminder of the Korean war. If they serve to deter North Koreans from invading/fleeing/espcaping, whatever, fair enough. But if the south is anxious about the north invading, they have 37 000 American troops in their country to defend them, the land mines mean bugger all. And if the north are wary of the South and the US they should understand that the land mines mean nothing. If the US really wanted to attack the north the land mines we only be a minor inconvenience.
ICC - my specific problems are with the symbolism of US actions. By refusing to surrender limited judicial sovereignty the US places itself outside an international community that is seeking greater cooperation. i understand US concerns, but I also understand that by not entering into the agreements, other countries can perceive, rightly or wrongly, that the US considers itself above international scrutiny and can have its 2 million troops do whatever they want without recourse to international institutions.
For specific examples of US non-cooperation in incidents involving troops in another country, see Blowback by Chalmers Johnson, in it he outlines the problems of the US forces in Japan (Okinawa), South Korea and the Asian rim.
It does all seems to come back to the justice/order dilemma - the US wants continued order, the UN places more importance on justice. The example of hosing down a fire is right, what I note as someone with a bent for justice is that the fire can be doused in numerous ways - hosed, smothered, contained. Yes we want to control the fire, but we also want to do it in a manner that is not going to kill/affect innocent bystanders.
And finally - I really do hope that the guy holding the reigns takes us in the right direction, my concern is that this guy is having his hand pushed in the wrong direction by those with vested interests (the hawks)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
