"Axis of Evil" vs Nuclear Threat

Discussion in 'TRIBE Main Forum' started by LoopeD, Feb 27, 2002.

  1. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member

    Re: CSIS


    You mean North Korea?


    And I hear you about bellicose - there's only about a billion other words that mean the same thing.

    According to my Word thesaurus: aggressive, warlike, belligerent, pugnacious, combative, confrontational, argumentative, quarrelsome.

    ;)







    :)d
     
  2. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    Yea it was called the Cold War (War is term of offense BTW)
    it ended in an arms race which bankrupted the USSR.. didn't get rid of the Nuclear weapons tho.

    I believe that the U.S. has a historical right to bear Nukes because they had developed them first. Most other countries had stolen the information to develop them.

    And don't be naive, the US are the only country ever to drop nukes on another country in an offensive act, so by statistical probability alone, they are most likely to do so again.



    -OTIS
     
  3. H2Whoa

    H2Whoa TRIBE Member

    Exactly, old news. The Israelis have been keeping close tabs on the Mid East nuke shit for years. They have the most to lose. They sniff nuclear material and they take action - (eg. bombing of Iraqi nuke power plant years ago).

    This argument is stupid anyway. One is crystal ball the other has been a known threat for decades. A better argument is whether Bush's Axis of Evil stuff will accelerate the development and/or aquisition of atomic weapons (these nations probably couldn't develop thermonuclear-fusion weapons, atomic-fission is more realistic) by these nations.
     
  4. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    And for the rest of you that believe that the U.S. would never use their nuclear arsenal unless provoked by a nuclear threat, you are naive too.

    For example, take a look at the star wars program originally developed by the Regan administration and now being followed up by the Bush administration.

    Although the U.S. military is claiming it as solely a defensive measure for nuclear threats, what they dont tell you is that it will eliminate the one caveat that prevents nuclear war from happening -a counterattack.

    You're right, no country will send off nukes if they know for certain that regardless of how much of the country is destroyed, there is a sub in the middle of the atlantic waiting to send off a father missile which will launch a counter attack back at you.

    But what if your country was sheilded.

    Then what?
    Then the probable certainty for nuclear attack rises.

    And whos the only country ever to propose such a sheild?

    The U.S.
    think about it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2002
  5. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    That's some terrible reasoning you got there, pardner. I can't even begin to shoot that down - too many analogies, cant think of just one, would be typing all day..............





    :)d
     
  6. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    Sorry, man, you've lost me. Whatare you babbling about? Are you agreeing that nukes can be defensive or disagreeing?


    I am confused!:D






    :)d
     
  7. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    Read the first sentance.
     
  8. Subsonic Chronic

    Subsonic Chronic TRIBE Member

    Yeah Rob's got a good point.

    Right now nuclear war is not an option for anyone really because as soon as one nuke is launched, retaliatory nukes would be launched quickly and wherever the missile came from would be nuked just as bad.

    But suppose an effective missile defense shield were built over the U.S. Then they could use nuclear weapons whenever and wherever they wanted to without having to deal with the effects of retaliation.

    Pretty scary eh?

    Of course, its preposterous to assume that the U.S. would ever do something like that, but it's way too much power for one nation to have. Especially a nation who's government is willing to kill its own people to further it's agenda (ie: testing nuclear fallout on the amish, the proposed project Northwoods) and has shown utter contempt for the lives of innocents abroad (ie: Afghanistan).

    Pete
     
  9. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    i'm not just trying to get a rise out of you, nor is this my real opinion. that's what devil's advocate means, you are taking the other side for the purpose of possibly furthering understand through an appreciation of other point of view.

    it is certain that saddam and his supporters believe that they are on the side of good and right. they believe that america is evil and that they need to arm themselves to defend against american aggression.
     
  10. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    For anyone that want's to find out more about the star wars, or similar U.S. missile "defense" programs here's good (but ugly) link.

    http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/index.html

    It's funny under the NMD link how they try to pass the program off as such a passive project meant to deterr unauthorized or accidental launches of intercontinental ballistic warheads.

    Such tripe..
     
  11. Chris

    Chris Well-Known Member

    "We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -- totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression..."

    "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

    "Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the world--would look very different today..."

    "If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma--predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant..."

    "Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?"

    Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or even that it was imminent. He said, "I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."

    "Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point..."

    What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our zero-option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces ..."

    "Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated..."

    "We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political invention -- totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their instruments of repression..."

    "Regimes planted by bayonets do not take root."

    "Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe--indeed, the world--would look very different today..."

    "If history teaches anything, it teaches self-delusion in the face of unpleasant facts is folly. We see around us today the marks of our terrible dilemma--predictions of doomsday, antinuclear demonstrations, an arms race in which the West must, for its own protection, be an unwilling participant..."

    "Must civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet, deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?"

    Sir Winston Churchill refused to accept the inevitability of war or even that it was imminent. He said, "I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here today while time remains is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries."

    "Well, this is precisely our mission today: to preserve freedom as well as peace. It may not be easy to see; but I believe we live now at a turning point..."

    What I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of the people. And that's why we must continue our efforts to strengthen NATO even as we move forward with our zero-option initiative in the negotiations on intermediate-range forces ..."

    "Our military strength is a prerequisite to peace, but let it be clear we maintain this strength in the hope it will never be used, for the ultimate determinant in the struggle that's now going on in the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas, a trial of spiritual resolve, the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish, the ideals to which we are dedicated..."

    President Reagan March 1983

    President Reagan Brands USSR the Evil Empire Speach and SDI program
     
  12. H2Whoa

    H2Whoa TRIBE Member

    The missile shield will also never work. Billions wasted on theory and unproven technology.
     
  13. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    Ah, I see what Otis was saying.

    Still majorly disagree, though. If the U.S. has the resources to build a defensive shield around its country, thereby protecting its people (and ours, I might add) from any nuclear attack, then of course they will build it. This doesn't mean they're going to blast the rest of the world into oblivion while sitting behind the shield saying Ha Ha. You're being melodramatic - whatever you might say about the U.S., they aren't bloodthirsty savages, just political opportunists.;)

    And I think the U.S. has a whole lot more respect for innocent lives than other people I could mention. Al-Quaida, Taliban, Iraqui regime, North Korean regime, Palestinian militants, Israeli soldiers, IRA, the list just goes on forever. At least they make an attempt to provide aid.........

    When innocent lives are lost, it is always the direct fault of the regime in power in that country, but people love to blame the other side. Its unfortunate the Afghan people had to suffer for the acts of a few idiots, but unfortunately those idiots chose to place their own people in danger by killing thousands of people who are the citizens of a country with a major military force.

    Essentially, they flew in the face of everything they were fighting for; if they truly believed in their cause, they would set up shop in the middle of the Sahara Desert, thereby keeping the lives of their oppressed people in safety and allowing them to be blasted into martyrdom.





    :)d
     
  14. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    Precicely, but the whole success of it will be in the propiganda. Nuclear cold was was always based on intimidation, not action. Opposing nuclear ready governments tried to out intimidate each other by boasting the sheer numbers in their nuclear arsenal.

    This is just another measure of one-upmanship.

    If they lead the rest of the world to believe that it works and works effectivly, then they have the upper hand.
     
  15. Chris

    Chris Well-Known Member

    Im positive a short term small SDI program will be implemented and work. But the ability to destroy 100% of all incoming targets is remote, unless targets can be destroyed during the first 5 minutes of flight, known as the bost phase of a ICBM flight.

    If I was the US I would be a little more stressed about "Dirty bombs" and or Chem, and BIO transportable weapons.
     
  16. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    So its OK for Hussein to believe and say America is evil, but when Bush says they are evil he is burned at the stake?

    There's some weird backwards double-standard stuff going on around here!;)

    And maybe the Americans aren't the ones to personally take over the overthrow of Hussein's regime. However, does this mean that regime should have nuclear weapons, to use against whoever tries? Or against the Kurds, or Kuwait, or anyone he sees fit?








    :)d
     
  17. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    *cough*bullshit*cough*

    america has enough nuclear weapons to directly wipe out all life on earth a thousand times over, not even considering the implications of fall-out. even if one stipulates that the states needed to develop that arsenal in order to maintain peace through parity with the soviets, which i do not, the 'star wars' program is a direct violation of that concept.

    the capacity of one nation to block another nation's missile launches is far more aggressive than building missiles themselves.

    ask yourselves, do you wish for the united states to have indisputable military control of the planet? do you think we will be free and safe if they do? because they will if the 'star wars' program is a success. and don't kid yourselves, with enough time and money they will make it work.
     
  18. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    If the sheild doesnt work as it's been stated time & time again by theorists over the last 20 years, then you have no choice to look for ulterior motives for such a waste of resources..

    I agree, I think the U.S. has a greater respect not only for life but quality of life lived. But that is a moot point because if they truly believe that their way of life is superior than all others, then time will eventually prove it true and other governemts will follow by example.

    No matter waht they think a tyrranous, regime can not always be strong-armed into submission nor can you force democracy on others that don't desire it.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2002
  19. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member



    And if that works as a deterrent for nuclear weapons, then I for one am all for it. I think someone else said it in this thread, the less chance of nuclear weapons of any kind being detonated by anybody, the better.





    :)d
     
  20. OTIS

    OTIS TRIBE Member

    Yea..
    But my point is,
    It lessens the threat of outside attack, but increases U.S.'s because the propiganda machine behind the programs will lead the world to believe that they will be untouchable militarily.
     
  21. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member



    We're not talking about forced democracy, for Christ sakes, we're talking about gettting madmen with bombs out of power so their people can live a better quality of life. You think the Iraqui people are happy right now?






    :)d
     
  22. Pyrovitae

    Pyrovitae TRIBE Member

    i do.:)

    "joicose, lachyrimose, bellicose, comatose" <----four escalating levels of alcohol intoxication

    *muah*
    ~N
     
  23. LoopeD

    LoopeD Well-Known Member


    Increases U.S.'s what? Probability of their orchestrating an unprovoked attack?

    Tell me this: when has America EVER attacked unprovoked? Or invaded another country in peacetime?

    The country that is badly guilty historically of forcing their way of life on others is England. look at Africa, India, etc. Maybe they are more deserving of your accusations.





    :)d
     
  24. Rosey

    Rosey TRIBE Member

    god, do i hate arguing with you, you know that is not what i am trying to say. they are both evil because it is evil to exert your will over another person through force. bush is evil. hussein is probably even more evil. while as a mortal with limited information available to me i don't have the capacity to judge degrees of absolute evilness, i do have a moral responsiblity to recognize it.

    nobody has argued that the 'axis of evil' nations are not really evil, they are, the issue is that bush, as the "leader of the free" world should probably not go around assigning labels like that. it makes him look shildish and strains already fragile relations with the 'axis' nations.

    the point is that neither bush, nor hussien, nor anybody should have the power to hold other nations, or their own, hostage with nuclear weapons.
     
  25. Pyrovitae

    Pyrovitae TRIBE Member

    garbage.
     

Share This Page