Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Nuclear Paradox

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Nuclear Paradox

    - 5 nations "legally" possess them
    - 2 officially posses them
    - 1 is known to have possession
    - and a couple more are trying to get them

    - how does America and other nations convince the govts around the world to give up their ambitions for nuclear weapons when the big 5 are legally allowed to posses them while other have to give them up?

    - how do we make this world "safer"
    when some of us dont want to give up what we are persuading others to give up?

    the NNPT is a topic of interest
    Last edited by 1947; 12 Jun 08,, 12:22.

  • #2
    It all starts with punctuation...

    -dale

    Comment


    • #3
      he did use a dot, once.
      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" B. Franklin

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by omon View Post
        he did use a dot, once.
        But that means more dots have to follow. When will it end? When people wants other people to use dots but don't use dots, is it fair? Some people don't use dots, yet all the rest of people use dots however there are few people who are trying not to use dots.

        How do we make this world "better"
        when some of us want to give up what we are persuading others not to give up?

        Comment


        • #5
          Hitesh,

          He meant that we could not be bother to decipher the original post.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
            Hitesh,

            He meant that we could not be bother to decipher the original post.
            I know. But I was making a humorous attempt to skewer several posts.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hitesh, YOU'VE TO GOT WORK ON YOUR TIMING.

              Comment


              • #8
                there happy now?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 1947 View Post
                  - 5 nations "legally" posses them
                  - 2 officially posses them
                  - 1 is known to have possession
                  - and a couple more are trying to get them

                  - how does America and other nations convince the govts around the world to give up their ambitions for nuclear weapons when the big 5 are legally allowed to posses them while other have to give them up?

                  - how do we make this world "safer"
                  when some of us dont want to give up what we are persuading others to give up?

                  the NNPT is a topic of interest
                  It's the modern paradox. Some of those who have them wish they didn't, and some of those who haven't got them lust mightily for them.
                  Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The big difference is that those that have them wont launch them nor attack another nation with them because they are of wrong religious origins or because some idiot Imam or Ayatolla said so. They will only use them to defend their respective nations. Countries that call blatantly for the destruction of another country for religious reasons cannont be trusted with such responsibility nor such destructive power EVER because they act like children in a grown up world.
                    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by glyn View Post
                      It's the modern paradox. Some of those who have them wish they didn't, and some of those who haven't got them lust mightily for them.
                      You must be talking about marriage. How is that a modern paradox?

                      Sorry, can't resist ;)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
                        The big difference is that those that have them wont launch them nor attack another nation with them because they are of wrong religious origins or because some idiot Imam or Ayatolla said so. They will only use them to defend their respective nations. Countries that call blatantly for the destruction of another country for religious reasons cannont be trusted with such responsibility nor such destructive power EVER because they act like children in a grown up world.


                        Stalin had the bomb, Mao during the cultural revolution had the bomb, Pakistan has the bomb, Kim jong il too,etc...Why did they think twice when there were diplomatic crises ? Mutual assured destruction. Do you think Ahmaninedjad is more crazy and unsensitive than the guys above?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Oscar View Post
                          [/B]

                          Stalin had the bomb, Mao during the cultural revolution had the bomb, Pakistan has the bomb, Kim jong il too,etc...Why did they think twice when there were diplomatic crises ? Mutual assured destruction. Do you think Ahmaninedjad is more crazy and unsensitive than the guys above?
                          He could be, for all we know. What if he thinks he's carrying out Allahs will?
                          Semper in excretum. Solum profunda variat.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by glyn View Post
                            He could be, for all we know. What if he thinks he's carrying out Allahs will?
                            The red button pushed by one person is a myth. These are national security affairs, it involves lots of people, especially in Iran, the president of Iran couldn't do it all by himself. And when it's about the survival of the state even Ahmaninedjad will put aside his beliefs. An israeli official said war with Iran was inevitable.. who believes him? The same for Iran, you need consensus. To Find two people who agree to die in the same time it's already difficult, now try to convince the whole Iranian establishment...because let's face it: they know that would be the consequence.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 1947 View Post
                              there happy now?
                              Honestly?

                              It's a little better but it's still not written English.

                              -dale

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X