Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Nuclear Weapons and the World
A 47 nation nuclear summit agreement was reached Monday, Ukraine, one of the largest producers of weapon-grade Uranium has agreed to stop producing it, as well as getting the materials needed for bombs. While this is a good thing, at the same other Countries such as Iran are vigorously trying to get their hands on nuclear material and bomb experts. The president of America talked to the Chinese president, and together they have agreed, along with enforcements made by the 47 nation nuclear summit, to halt Nuclear Weaponry.
YET, though America has agreed to attempt to halt this in other countries, Russia, and America combined (Russia and America both being one of the 47 nations to sign) has together 90% of the world's Nuclear Weapons. So to me the whole thing seems silly, the two countries, the ones in which caused the cold war, still refuse to put down their own arms, and yet continue to enforce the persuasian of other putting their arms down. And while American and Russia claim to be keeping them for safety reasons, most other countries have been attempted to be persuaded to entirelly drop their arms...
Ultimately, this is ridiculous. If we enforced countries like Iran to put stop making Nuclear Weapons, they in turn may be persuaded to use these weapons against us, and in turn we would use our weapons against them. As humans, we now have the capability of blowing the world up 7 times over... WTF?! Just curious, what do you guys think of this race and yet halting of nuclear weapons? I honestly don't think we can get anywhere with this, most countries are so afraid of places like North Korea getting their hands on these weapons, or themselves being attacked, they refuse to back down, yet they try to get others to back down, while continuing to stay in the line of safety behind their weapons... I don't get it!
Opinions?!
YET, though America has agreed to attempt to halt this in other countries, Russia, and America combined (Russia and America both being one of the 47 nations to sign) has together 90% of the world's Nuclear Weapons. So to me the whole thing seems silly, the two countries, the ones in which caused the cold war, still refuse to put down their own arms, and yet continue to enforce the persuasian of other putting their arms down. And while American and Russia claim to be keeping them for safety reasons, most other countries have been attempted to be persuaded to entirelly drop their arms...
Ultimately, this is ridiculous. If we enforced countries like Iran to put stop making Nuclear Weapons, they in turn may be persuaded to use these weapons against us, and in turn we would use our weapons against them. As humans, we now have the capability of blowing the world up 7 times over... WTF?! Just curious, what do you guys think of this race and yet halting of nuclear weapons? I honestly don't think we can get anywhere with this, most countries are so afraid of places like North Korea getting their hands on these weapons, or themselves being attacked, they refuse to back down, yet they try to get others to back down, while continuing to stay in the line of safety behind their weapons... I don't get it!
Opinions?!
0
Comments
What will happen now is if certain countries, with certain violent leadership, are able to produce nukes, they're going to be "terrorist countries" for all intents and purposes. No one needs that. No one. Let the nuke-cops have their way and prevent this from happening.
As far as I know, USA and Russia, won't resort to nuclear war unless there is a serious threat to those countries. And yup, they won't disarm themselves. No country that possesses or will possess nuclear arsenal would disarm itself.
Supposing that Somalia(the poorest country on Earth) would possess nukes, no other international summit, no international convention, no nothing, will convince it to throw away it's nukes. Maybe, it would hide its arsenal and tell everyone that it no longer possesses nukes. Kno' what I'm sayin' ?
These so-called 'brilliant' people are actually sitting at drawing boards, designing objects which they hope will perfect the art of destruction by causing as much devastation as possible, in both environmental and human terms.
That's "Brilliant"?
Ginmme a break....
True brilliance is refusing to do anything of the kind.
Of course not. When you are thirsty and you make a jug of refreshing lemonade, you're not going to give everyone a glassful and go thirsty yourself, are you?
The reason 'poor countries' have the wherewithal to create such weapons is that the richer countries gave them that wherewithal in the first place.
It's all politics and power. It's got nothing to do with self-protection, fundamentally.
Whoever made nuclear weapons was not brilliant. Did you know that the person that invented dynomite never wished for it to be used to harm people, but somebody stole the engreidients. The world is in quite a state and it's quite sad
Love & Peace
Jellybean
Now the real thing is : " Scientists build bombs and retarded people detonate them in the shopping mall". It is taken from a Romanian rapper's lyrics.
And yeah, some scientists are forced to produce bombs. That's a sad truth, unfortunatelly.
World conquest is it ?? To invade a country based on a false pretext...
The irony of arming everyone does in fact seem to be a safer place in which to live. People feel more secure with a large bomb sitting in their yard. The small animals also want protection.
Regardless it's all big bushiness; there are so many other threads to consider such as the monopoly of seeds and the patenting of genes. Again this is sort of a small thing to consider in the big picture, we're all pretty much dead. Sure, we'd all be a lot better off without all the mess.
The world is an amazingly big place, it's tough to not just to think of it as a handful of countries- the big scary threatening ones, as opposed to the little harmless isolated ones. Consider yourself collateral damage if you're part of a nation bristling with uber devastating weaponry.
Since men began to make weapons he searched for the ones who would kill most of his enemies with one button push. The nuclear weapon is seen as the embodiment of mass destruction, but nowadays it is useless.
In a war between countries that have a high rate of killing, the ones who suffer are the small countries surrounding them.
These are childhood's laws
Let's say there's a mouse in the space adjacent to you. You kick it away in order to occupy the space. Using a nuke is the equivalent of shooting the mouse with a rocket propelled grenade.
The mouse is 'out of the way' but you shoot off your own foot in the process, OR decide to employ a shade more tact. But, anyway, war is bad enough. People without any arms get sucked into modern conflict in spite of the actual means.
Anyways, war is bad when is not justified.
there is no way we can afford World war 3. it will surely wipe out the whole earth. Then those stuff we see in movies would become reality.
Who said we can't afford it ? If someone, let's say a powerful country leader decides to attack the wrong country, nobody will do a thing to stop him.
Who said we can't afford it ? If someone, let's say a powerful country leader, decides to attack the wrong country, nobody will do a thing to stop him.
Metta to all
Now this 'weapon' thing becomes a delicate matter. Without (hi-tech) weapons, a country can't defend itself, but at the same time with (hi-tech) weapons the same country can ruin another country, if this country invades.
I know that J. Robert Oppenheimer, the "father of the atomic bomb really regreted the use of the atomic bomb he had helped build and became one of the biggest opponents of the hydrogen bomb.
Metta to all
And now, I think, you need to set out the criteria by which war can be 'justified'.
Well if you listen to the leaders who support and/or are responsible for wars then war is justified when their countries way of life is threatened (aka George Bushes weak connection between Iraq and al qaeda) or in Tony Blairs case because their leader is a nasty man ( aka Saddam Hussein) and deserves to be removed. So in effect the justification is whatever a leader can convince himself and the general public that the war is em well justifiable. Or if you live in a dictatorship then the leaders don't need a justification they just do what they want regardless of what the population think.
Of course there is the possibility that wars are started because of financial reasons but that suggestion would be too cynical wouldn't it. :rolleyes:
Metta to all sentient beings
I think the question is, what are NomaD Buddha's criteria for justifying it....?
Metta to all sentient beings
Evil's got little to do with it. Even the most evil men in the world are rarely suicidal. And even if they are the men around them aren't necessarily.
Anyway is there such a thing as a peaceful weapon ?
Metta to all sentient beings
I never said that nuclear weapons stop wars.
Metta to all sentient beings
As far as weapons go sure they are. Mutually Assured Destruction: "if they use their nukes on us we will use ours on them. If we use our nukes on them they will use theirs on us". It's what kept the Cold War cold.
Cold? Not in those theatres where the competition between the US and the USSR carried on 'conventional' struggles. Of course, it was deathly cold as the poor and sick were made to pay for the useless nuclear weapons and their means of delivery.
"Mutual Assured Destruction" is not known as MAD for nothing. We still have more than enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world many times over - MAD indeed.
yes. we have many weapons to destroy the whole earth many times over and over again. but unfortunately we still are manufacturing weapons, nukes like crazy.
don't count on that... there are psychos who would commit suicide and take as many people as they can along with them. Imagine if those weapons got in hands of Al qaeda and similar groups. :eekblue::eek::eekblue:
You will see that the cold war was not as Cold as you may have thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_conflicts
Metta to all sentient beings
Simon 'n' Fede, I honestly think some wars are justifiable... say a war fighting for equal rights, freedom from slavery, women's rights... do you agree?
Thanks L'n'P for making a long story short ! :thumbsup:
War is justified when :
1. A country is opressed by another country and wants to gain independence;
2. An enemy country has stationed a great number of soldiers at your borders, on the territory of a 'neutral' country. You know the soldiers would invade your land so you strike first.
3. Recapture lost territories.
Now, the examples : ( lesson of Romanian history)
1. Up until 1877-78, The United Kingdom of Wallachia and Moldavia were still the vassals of the ottoman turks. At that time, a war between Russia and Ottoman Empire started, and the russians were defeated; romanians agreed to help, and they sent troops into Bulgaria where they fought the Turks, and captured their general, and after that they obtained independence, and were officially recognised as a free state in Europe.
2. Vlad Tepes ( oh yeah, the infamous Dracula) was at war with the ottoman turks. The turkish soldiers had made garrison along the Danube in Bulgaria, so they could invade Wallachia at any time. Dracula knew that he would be invaded by the turks from the south of the Danube, and , he chose to strike the enemy before he would crosss the Danube. In 1461-62 He destroyed nearly all the the turkish garrisons along the Danube ( meaning that he crossed into Bulgaria).
3. From the tenth century, Transylvania was occupied by the hungarians. Since then, in the Middle Ages, the romanians were always in conflict with the hungarians. There were attempts to retake Transylvania in 1600, when Mihai Viteazul ( Mihai the Brave) reoccupied it for a year ( he was the only man to unite, for one year the three main provinces of Romania), but he was assasinated in 1601, and the three provinces split, Transylvania becoming part of the Habsburgic Empire. In 1916, Romanians entered the war, and attacked the borders of Austro-Hungarian Empire ( the borders meaning Transylvania) , but this attempt was a total fiasco, which was about to get Romanians nearly conquered by the germans. Transylvania became part of Romania, when the war ended, and the Austro-Hungarian Epire was split in 1918.
I know it's boring....
Yes, I'm well aware of Cold War conflicts. My point stands however. I firmly believe that the vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons controlled by both countries is largely what kept the United States and the Soviet Union from all out war with each other.
I think that the women of Liberia are a great example of how fairness can be achieved via non-violent protest, putting a stop to the sexual violence and corruption of children.
There was an interesting documentary on it known as: 'Pray the devil back to hell'
Here is the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_the_Devil_Back_to_Hell
You can also see the documentary at '4 on Demand'. It does contain some distressing images, so it's not suitable for everyone: http://www.channel4.com/programmes/tags/documentaries/page-11
Let us consider contemporary examples:
1. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Tibet: 'countries' wanting to gain independence.
2. Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Tibet: 'countries' occupied by foreign armies.
3. .....do I need to go on?
The common thread between all these current - and past - examples is that they depend on a vast confidence trick: the idea of nations or countries, artificial lines drawn on a map, and greed for resources.
Metta to all sentient beings