|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fred zepplin
Joined: 21 Sep 2010
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:00 pm Post subject: nuclear weapons?? |
 |
|
I'm interested to put this out there: is it not totlaly hypocrtical to condemn Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should have them, but why should USA, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, DPR (ffs) and probably S.K? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
FurballPete
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is this the right forum for this thread?
Anyway if we take hypocritical to mean "a person who pretends to have, but lacks, virtues, moral or religious beliefs" then yes to some extent, but the fewer states with capacity to launch a nuclear weapon the better. Should Iran develop this capacity, we should only expect other middle eastern states to respond with at least increased spending in conventional military budgets, and at worst, their own nuclear programmes. This is, of course, in a notoriously unstable region.
Incidentally the ROK does not have this capacity at present. The DPRK arguably does, but would be of likely be of very limited efficacy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swampfox10mm
Joined: 24 Mar 2011
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject: Re: nuclear weapons?? |
|
|
| fred zepplin wrote: |
I'm interested to put this out there: is it not totlaly hypocrtical to condemn Iran for wanting a nuclear weapon?
Don't get me wrong, I don't think anyone should have them, but why should USA, Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, DPR (ffs) and probably S.K? |
Maybe it has to do with the fact that Iran has said several times that their ultimate goal is the complete destruction of Israel? Israel already has nukes (everyone assumes) and has shown/said they would strike first if they felt the need.
So basically, when Iran says they're going to make a nuke (or doesn't say it but secretly builds one) we can expect a war, possibly nuclear, between the two. That could drag several other countries in.
That's why we don't want Iran to get a nuke. Plus they'd likely use it to threaten other nations to make money.
And yes... wrong forum. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FurballPete
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is also important to note that the USA and Russia have inherited their nuclear arsenals from a previous era, and in the case of Russia, from a different state and system of government. I would not say that either of these nations are hypocritical at all to limit the number of states with nuclear weapons, as they, through the STARTs have made a concerted effort to reduce their nuclear potential, and in the case of the Obama administration, to bring about a world without any nuclear weapons at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes or no. The answer is YES they are. They have one of the largest stockpiles of nukes and they are the only country to have ever used them against another country....TWICE.
It's sort of like a serial rapist condemning a room full of other perverts that fantasize about raping. Can you believe these rapist wannabe's? At least the serial rapist here is limiting the number of rapes he does each year.... How is it that you people can't even acknowledge hypocrisy when it's right in front of you?
| FurballPete wrote: |
| It is also important to note that the USA and Russia have inherited their nuclear arsenals from a previous era, and in the case of Russia, from a different state and system of government. I would not say that either of these nations are hypocritical at all to limit the number of states with nuclear weapons, as they, through the STARTs have made a concerted effort to reduce their nuclear potential, and in the case of the Obama administration, to bring about a world without any nuclear weapons at all. |
You don't need as many nukes when a fraction of them can destroy the world 1000 times over. It's such blatant hypocrisy to try to limit everyone else's nukes and simultaneously bully and attack nations that don't have any!
What's that you say? Economic sanctions/international blockages are not considered an act of war? what would the US do exactly if the same was done to them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 3:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Economic sanctions/international blockages are not considered an act of war? what would the US do exactly if the same was done to them? |
It's definitely a full-on act of blatant war aggression, which has been around since the most ancient of times. It's called a siege. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FurballPete
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
Yes or no. The answer is YES they are. They have one of the largest stockpiles of nukes and they are the only country to have ever used them against another country....TWICE.
It's sort of like a serial rapist condemning a room full of other perverts that fantasize about raping. Can you believe these rapist wannabe's? At least the serial rapist here is limiting the number of rapes he does each year.... How is it that you people can't even acknowledge hypocrisy when it's right in front of you?
| FurballPete wrote: |
| It is also important to note that the USA and Russia have inherited their nuclear arsenals from a previous era, and in the case of Russia, from a different state and system of government. I would not say that either of these nations are hypocritical at all to limit the number of states with nuclear weapons, as they, through the STARTs have made a concerted effort to reduce their nuclear potential, and in the case of the Obama administration, to bring about a world without any nuclear weapons at all. |
You don't need as many nukes when a fraction of them can destroy the world 1000 times over. It's such blatant hypocrisy to try to limit everyone else's nukes and simultaneously bully and attack nations that don't have any!
What's that you say? Economic sanctions/international blockages are not considered an act of war? what would the US do exactly if the same was done to them? |
I'm sorry I must not have made myself clear.
What I'm saying is that, on the one hand, the STrategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and New START are bilateral treaties between the USA and USSR / Russia to limit their own nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles, not anyone else's.
On the other hand, the USA and other NPT nuclear-weapon states do not criticise Iran and the DPRK for their nuclear programmes with reference to international andregional stability and keeping the status-quo, rather than their own virtues. Hence it is not hypocrisy.
Do I think the NPT nuclear-weapon states have done enough do limit their ability to use nuclear weapons? No. Do I think a world without any nuclear weapons would be better? Yes. But that doesn't mean the existing nuclear states are hypocrites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The complaints against Iran are international, and pertain to their obligations under the NPT. For an international agreement, the Non-Proliferation Treaty carries a great deal of weight. Iran is a signatory, indeed the only non-signatories are Israel, India, and Pakistan. Notably, North Korea is the only state that has abandoned its obligations under the treaty and has withdrawn. The NPT is no joke:
| Quote: |
| At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25-30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, only four states are not parties to the NPT, and they are the only additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons. |
The charges of hypocrisy would be more potent if not for the NPT. The NPT is an explicit deal between nuclear weapons powers and non-nuclear weapons powers. The nuclear powers will allow the others, and even assist them, in developing peaceful nuclear energy and research programs. In exchange, the nuclear powers will neither proliferate nor employ nuclear weapons.
But for NPT to be a viable compromise, nuclear weapons powers must adhere to responsible nuclear weapons use policies. Nuclear weapons powers must abandon the option of the use of such weapons against powers that abstain from nuclear weapons use.
Under Obama, America has qualified its first-strike nuclear policy.
| Quote: |
| The United States has a partial, qualified no-first-use policy, stating that they will not use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. |
At roughly the same time, Dmitry Medvedev flirted with the expansion of Russia's first-strike policy.
| Medvedev wrote: |
| Variants are under considerations for the use of nuclear weapons depending on the situation and potential of a would-be aggressor. In a critical situation for national security, a preventative nuclear strike on an aggressor is not ruled out. |
But successful START II negotiations headed off such a first-strike policy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FurballPete
Joined: 08 Apr 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 04, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
The complaints against Iran are international, and pertain to their obligations under the NPT. For an international agreement, the Non-Proliferation Treaty carries a great deal of weight. Iran is a signatory, indeed the only non-signatories are Israel, India, and Pakistan. Notably, North Korea is the only state that has abandoned its obligations under the treaty and has withdrawn. The NPT is no joke:
| Quote: |
| At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25-30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, only four states are not parties to the NPT, and they are the only additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons. |
The charges of hypocrisy would be more potent if not for the NPT. The NPT is an explicit deal between nuclear weapons powers and non-nuclear weapons powers. The nuclear powers will allow the others, and even assist them, in developing peaceful nuclear energy and research programs. In exchange, the nuclear powers will neither proliferate nor employ nuclear weapons.
|
It is also important to consider that as the number of nuclear warheads decreases, the significance of a single state developing a small nuclear arsenal rises. This is related to economists' law of diminishing marginal utility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luckylady
Joined: 30 Jan 2012
Location: u.s. of occupied territories
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I smell a troll
op makes an inciting post obviously in the wrong forum, then scampers off.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
