Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Go Nuk-yah-lur!

Options
  • 14-02-2004 8:46pm
    #1
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭


    I see that Bush is on a "non-proliferation" bent even though he basically threw out the Non-Proliferation Treaty and has stepped up development of nuclear weapons.
    I wonder if some country like Ireland should now decide to become a nuclear power?
    This would be in aid of blackmailing the States, NATO, and Russia to get rid of theirs.
    Say "we'll get nuclear weapons unless you get rid of yours"...


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,412 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    They could place sanctions on us, but we could cut their off their Viagra supply. :D


  • Options
    #3
    DadaKopf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,731 ✭✭✭DadaKopf


    "Non-Proliferation" is a byword for US global hegemony. The US has been on a "non-proliferation" trip since 1890. I don't see much difference between what Roosevelt tried with the UN and what Bush is trying now. America has always wanted 100% control.


  • Options
    #4
    daveirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #5
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Originally posted by daveirl So would people prefer if every country had nuclear/chemical/bio weapons. :rolleyes:

    I don't like US dominance either, but at the same time I'm quite happy with the countries that have nukes remaining the only one's to have them. All the anti-Americanism in me doesn't add up to wanting Lybia, Iran etc, to have nukes.

    I don't either but I'd say that it would be more likely that Lybia and Iran would'nt want them so badly if it were not for security from a country (who happens to posses the largest stockpile in the world) that recently called one of them "evil" as well as past aggression.
    I also think it more likely that countries would disarm were the US to do so...'cept maybe Israel.


  • Options
    #6
    chill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 576 ✭✭✭chill


    Originally posted by DadaKopf
    "Non-Proliferation" is a byword for US global hegemony. The US has been on a "non-proliferation" trip since 1890. I don't see much difference between what Roosevelt tried with the UN and what Bush is trying now. America has always wanted 100% control.

    Wonderful. We should let every nation to have the bomb... Let's ALL have it. It should be an equal opportunity world where America can't boss it's way around and instead we'l have 150 nuclear nations....

    Gee what a wonderfful world.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    sovtek
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,485 ✭✭✭sovtek


    Originally posted by chill
    Wonderful. We should let every nation to have the bomb... Let's ALL have it. It should be an equal opportunity world where America can't boss it's way around and instead we'l have 150 nuclear nations....

    Gee what a wonderfful world.....

    What about a world where the inventor, first one to use and largest holder of nuclear arms leads the way in getting rid of them...like they promised.
    With the current trend your nightmare vision seems to be getting closer to reality.


  • Options
    #8
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    Originally posted by chill
    Wonderful. We should let every nation to have the bomb... Let's ALL have it. It should be an equal opportunity world where America can't boss it's way around and instead we'l have 150 nuclear nations....

    Gee what a wonderfful world.....

    Well, I can understand many nations not being too happy with the exclusive "those who have it, keep it" club.

    Surely its a case of double- (or even triple-) standards? Its ok to have them. Its ok to have secretely researched them in breach of treaties once you've suceeded and gotten there. But its not ok to be researching them.

    The US dropped out of the non-proliferation treaty it had. It is no secret that Bush / the US military support the research into newer, cleaner nukes that they could actually use rather than hold as a defensive threat - so-called battlefield nukes and super-bunker-busters. And yet the man has the gall to tell other nations that it is simply not ok for them to even aspire to being able to match the US' current level of nuclear technology....which the US is now striving to move a generation or three beyond.

    I don't want to see a world where every nation has nukes. However, I recognise as being ridiculous beyond belief the concept of being able to maintain a world where some nations can continue to develop and improve their nuclear arsenals whilst telling others that such paths of research are bad, 'mkay???

    While the US continues to show every intention of continuing nuclear research for the purposes of improving its military capability, it is nothing less than hubris to expect any emerging power to seriously respect their claims that continued research into WMDs is something we should all unite against.

    If the US won't disarm - and I accept that there are good reasons (or at least realistic ones) why it shouldnt , let it at least commit to not attempting to advance its own WMD capability if it wishes the world not to laugh when they try and preach the dangers of other nations treading the path it continues to walk.

    jc


  • Options
    #9
    Gearoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 130 ✭✭Gearoid


    Lybia


    Christ sake people, if you have a view on a country at least be able to spell it properly.----Libya, I'd write the proper Arabic name but it's fecking long.


Advertisement