Nuclear weapons, war and cultures

[Hanse]

Renamed topic. I was probably just a bit annoyed at the total deviation for three pages from the previous topic when I named this one I split off from it.

If the shoe fits. . .

 

[Stargazer]

Stargazer2006, sferrin, Orion - in essence, I agree. I just think that it is good to be better than one's enemies and leave the door open for them to be better than we fear they are. Sometimes it won't work of course and history will take a different course.

I for one would never have predicted the relatively peaceful end to Apartheid in South Africa. I want as many chances to be proved wrong in the future as possible.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that point. I also wish to be proven wrong, but that doesn't mean I should be naive about the odds. There is a balance to be found, and it's a tough act, but when you're capable to always prepare for the worst while always hoping for the better, I think it's the best political stance.

 

[bobbymike]

Avimimus - The US has shown unprecendented leadership for the past 20 years. Reducing nuclear weapons by 94% since 1991, has not tested or developed a new weapon and all the other nuclear power wanna-be's have not deviated one bit from their plans. So this is twenty years how long do they need?

Japan was actually bombed with nuclear weapons and I don't see them scrambling to get nukes, that it unless they see no value in staying under the US's nuclear umbrella.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

a small country in the middle east likes to play the game without a level playing field though

 

[Hanse]

a small country in the middle east likes to play the game without a level playing field though

Who doesn't? Nobody wants to fight on a level playing field.

 

[edwest4]

What did India say after testing their first nuclear device? They believed the world would pay more attention to them. Not to mention that plot of dirt they've been fighting over for how long?

Who installed a shah in Iran? What did Israel do about the Osirak reactor? What did it cost them politically?

Sure. There are threats. If I were President, I'd simply place a call to North Korea, outline the trigger scenarios, give them a list of targets that would be obliterated and end the call.

Iraq? Sure. Nothing is out of the question. It doesn't matter what the military tells the public except after the fact. The Pentagon doesn't call me to get my take before a major strike, or war. And I'm sure the nuclear situation in Iraq is being watched very closely and we'll never have the level of detail the military has.

"Nuclear proliferation"? Now there's a silly concept. Where did Iraq get the equipment? Military surplus? Seriously, people knew this was coming and it's no surprise it's happening.

I don't see the point of a lack of bomb tests on our part. We may have to build one from scratch when the time comes but the technology is off the shelf anyway. (Yes, I'm aware of shelf life issues and so on.)

 

[bobbymike]

Here is a good example of what I'm talking about.

Shortly after signing NEW START Obama had this to say: “With this agreement, the United States and Russia – the two largest nuclear powers in the world – also send a clear signal that we intend to lead. By upholding our own commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, we strengthen our global efforts to stop the spread of these weapons, and to ensure that other nations meet their own responsibilities,” Obama said.

Shortly thereafter North Korea released this statement: "Those who seek to bring down the system in the (North), whether they play a main role or a passive role, will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strikes of the invincible army," North Korea's military said in comments carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The North, believed have enough weaponized plutonium for at least half a dozen atomic bombs, conducted its second atomic test last year, drawing tighter U.N. sanctions.

 

[RanulfC]

It seems that far too often people in and out of power forget that "deterrence" only works when the OTHER guys believe or even care that they will be obliterated in any exchange. Any political/religious/mental outlook that does not CARE if they survive starting a conflict renders anything short of being fully prepared to carry out the 'threat' useless.

Randy

 

[Barrington Bond]

"Speak softly but carry a big stick" Roosevelt?

 

[RanulfC]

"Speak softly but carry a big stick" Roosevelt?

close... insert "... and let everyone KNOW you are willing and able to use it" and it gets the point across ;D

(And I suspect the original can probably be atributed to "Ugh" the cave-man if one really wanted to )

Randy

 

[Avimimus]

"Speak softly but carry a big stick" Roosevelt?

Exactly - which is incomplete without the first half.

Avimimus - The US has shown unprecendented leadership for the past 20 years. Reducing nuclear weapons by 94% since 1991, has not tested or developed a new weapon and all the other nuclear power wanna-be's have not deviated one bit from their plans. So this is twenty years how long do they need?

Japan was actually bombed with nuclear weapons and I don't see them scrambling to get nukes, that it unless they see no value in staying under the US's nuclear umbrella.

Bobbymike,

Good point.

I'll make a positive comparison. In the United States's 2008 Presidential election there was considerable posturing by both parties (but especially John McCain) agaisnt Russia. In terms of contemporary foreign policy this doesn't make much sense. Unlike the United States Russia is a net oil exporter. Russia has a favourable natural resources to per-capita GDP ratio. Russia may have some political limitations (although U.S. interests have often treated the form of government of allies irrelevant), but appears politically stable. Russia is well placed to have mutual interests regarding limiting Chinese expansion into Asia and the Middle-East. In many respects Russia is an ideal ally from an American point of view.

Instead American internal politics and political leadership tends to treat Russia as an upstart competitor, as an opponent of the American Way and as a military threat - just as it was twenty years ago. I think this was a misstep and may have backfired among many voters. The Cold War styled rhetoric certainly was a cause for concern in other countries, such as Canada and a common topic among people of all political backgrounds. So the public may have moved on in a twenty year period - but the leadership hasn't quite.

The same may already be true of Iran. Returning to the Iranian example, the Iran-Iraq war ended at about the same time as the cold war did (having started a decade earlier). High casualties and heavy bombardment are still clearly remembered. Chemical weapons aside, conventional weapons can still be incredibly destructive. The threat of U.S. invasion, including possible bombardment and nuclear strikes has been repeatedly raised over the past few years (keeping a sense of fear alive). It should also be noted that Iranians are not used to the idea of a free press and may interpret the products of media or think-tanks as government policy.

For North Korea the time period is larger - it is closer to remembering Pearl Harbour. However, some (not to reliable) estimates suggest 80% of public infrastructure and over 10% of the population killed as a result of the war. This is similar to the most badly damaged countries during WWII and much greater than the United States sustained (which had no fighting on its own soil). The psychological scars from such a large scale cataclysm are often passed down family lines (eg. plague psychology studies, people I've met from Yugoslavia). It is very hard to hazard a guess about what is actually going on in the DPRK.

Given that the United States spends a lot more time bragging about its weapons than its disarmament, it isn't surprising that some people around the world are a little slow to catch on.

So there is still plenty of hope,

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

imho, iran will continue to be paranoid as long as it's being threatened or "bullied"

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Yet it is pretty easy to feel "threatened" or "bullied" when your paranoid, even if there isn't any threat if you behave yourself.

 

[bobbymike]

You have to remember Iran has said pretty explicitly that they are at war with the Great Satan and have been saying that since 1979. I do not think there is any way to appease them no matter what we do. A good example is that literally days apart Ahmadinejad said America wants to have a monopoly on nukes to dominate the world/Middle East and then after Obama's "global zero" speech said the only reason America will get rid of its nukes is to lock in its' conventional superiority.

It is incredibly naive and dangerous to let enemies dictate your foreign policy.

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

or rather let some powerful minority dictate your foreign policy? :

 

[Stargazer]

Since day one Ahmadinejad has dealt in provocation, saying one thing one day and another the next, claiming goodwill then sending death threats. His purpose seems to be only to upset and unsettle. One can never be too cautious with guys like him.

 

[bobbymike]

or rather let some powerful minority dictate your foreign policy? :

Please elaborate. If you are talking about the authority to conduct foreign policy by the Executive branch under the Constitution? Congressional oversight under the Constitution? In a representative or republican form of democracy we are governed by a small minority we elect to represent our views and un-elect them if they don't (most of the time).

Is this the minority you are talking about?

 

[Orionblamblam]

or rather let some powerful minority dictate your foreign policy? :

The Mullahs?

 

[Rosdivan]

It is incredibly naive and dangerous to let enemies dictate your foreign policy.

How exactly do you propose to conduct foreign policy without enemies dictating it to some extent?

 

[bobbymike]

It is incredibly naive and dangerous to let enemies dictate your foreign policy.

How exactly do you propose to conduct foreign policy without enemies dictating it to some extent?

Do you understand what I am saying in the quote you use from my last post? Your enemies may "determine" or "set" or "guide" policy but "dictate" is a very specific term of reference. Meaning if Iran says "we would really like you to disarm and then we would feel better about ourselves" you might want to think twice. That would be dictating policy, understand? Iran saying "we will build nukes no matter what you do" would allow us to determine or guide our policy decisions. Diplomacy is not a blunt instrument there are subtleties to language that are important. Words have meaning.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

imho, iran will continue to be paranoid as long as it's being threatened or "bullied"

Iran is governed by an extremist dictatorship so is inherently paranoid. Further Iran has been the aggressor in every external conflict it has been involved in. A little known fact is that Iran had launched a massive campaign of cross border terrorism before Iraq invaded in 1980

or rather let some powerful minority dictate your foreign policy? :

I suspect you are referring to the USA’s Jewish population. Many other countries with rational democratic governments support Israel without a politically significant Jewish minority. The USA also never supported Israel until the Soviet Union became a strong supporter of the nationalist Arab states. American support for Israel was very much a counter to Soviet influence expansion.

 

[bobbymike]

imho, iran will continue to be paranoid as long as it's being threatened or "bullied"

Iran is governed by an extremist dictatorship so is inherently paranoid. Further Iran has been the aggressor in every external conflict it has been involved in. A little known fact is that Iran had launched a massive campaign of cross border terrorism before Iraq invaded in 1980

or rather let some powerful minority dictate your foreign policy? :

I suspect you are referring to the USA’s Jewish population. Many other countries with rational democratic governments support Israel without a politically significant Jewish minority. The USA also never supported Israel until the Soviet Union became a strong supporter of the nationalist Arab states. American support for Israel was very much a counter to Soviet influence expansion.

AG - although my suspicions about what "minority" saintkatanalegacy was referring to mirrored yours I attempted to subtlety let him explain or give him enough rope to hang himself with

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

close but not referring to the Jewish minority

"megalodons" would be an appropriate description

 

[Orionblamblam]

close but not referring to the Jewish minority

"megalodons" would be an appropriate description

Lawyers?

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

they're small fries...

i meant the biggest fish out there

 

[bobbymike]

they're small fries...

i meant the biggest fish out there

Let me guess Bilderburgs? Opus Dei" The Illuminati? Oh no not The Stone Cutters?

 

[RanulfC]

Megaladons? You mean an "extinct" group then? One that failed to evolve and died off over time?


Randy

 

[saintkatanalegacy]

by "megalodons", i meant something older and bigger than "sharks"; only difference is that they haven't been hit by an "asteroid"

it's something fairly common in history tbh

Let me guess Bilderburgs? Opus Dei" The Illuminati? Oh no not The Stone Cutters?

I'm just an observer so I won't comment on that B)

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Fraggles?

 

[edwest4]

No, no, no. Stone Masons. Sheesh. Get it right.




Ed