I agree with you, though I prefer the idea of no one having them, until that can be achieved though I think we have to live with some countries having them, and desuading more countried developing them in the mean time.
Bomb Iran?
- Thread starter The Halk
- Start date
I agree with you, though I prefer the idea of no one having them, until that can be achieved though I think we have to live with some countries having them, and desuading more countried developing them in the mean time.
How far should we go to dissuade other countries?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
Fully support them if their borders and interests are under threat of force so they do not need their own nuclear weapons to deter attackers.
What if we are the ones threatening their borders?
The US has an appalling record of invading other countries and/or orchestrating/funding coups or terrorism against countries over the last 60 years or so.
So what are you saying, Iran has to behave in a way the US wants or risk being invaded? Those countries you list all have a Western culture, even Japan. What if Iran doesn't want to follow that culture, who are we to tell them they should?
Iraq had a good standard of living before we implemented crippling sanctions against them.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
We can never assume a workable situation unless we have 'fairness', fairness would dictate we dont invade but negotiate.
Absolutely, fully justifiable indeed, but also, potentially an extremely dangerous situation for us.
I do not in anyway what so ever deny Iran's 'right' to posses such weapons, nor do I think they are unjustified in wanting to do so.
I do however strongly and vehemently object to it, I do not trust the Iranian regime, I do not trust any state run in the way that Iran is and I do not want to see nuclear weapons spread any further than they already have.
I do not believe that MAD is a doctrine which can really work with Iran, due to their religious beliefs and the culture of Iran or any hard-line Islamic state.
I believe they would see the West burn, Israel burn and their own country burn because of their faith.
If I truly believed that I would go to some kind of heaven, because I had spilled the blood of my ‘enemies’ and ‘cleansed’ the world with fire and righteous fury all for the love of my God …then I might be rather open to the idea of a nuclear war myself, a war to end all wars. However I don’t believe this nor do I desire such a thing to happen, one way or another.
But, Islamic fundamentalism isn’t so …considerate. Islamic extremist doctrine and philosophy is the greatest threat the world has known since the Cold War, a threat that cannot be ignored and ‘swept under the carpet’, it won’t just go away.
For reasons I have already been over in this thread, Iran is not the sort of country you want to see with nuclear weapons technology.
As for how far do we go, how far do we need to go? ...this remains to be seen.
I am not one to read too much into what the press says, nor do I pay much attention to the likes of the Daily Mail. My opinions are my own, derived from my own understanding and knowledge of the situation.
In the many years I have spent studying history, politics and international relations.
One thing has shone through above all others to me, from my first year as an undergrad to my final piece of research. We have to look after our own interests, the world is a dangerous place. There is no room for weakness, no room for the timid.
The world revolves around money and by extension oil and military might, either or both are power and power is what defines the world we live in. Or more specifically, who controls the 'power'.
Right now, the balance of power in the world, is very much in our favour, I for one, would like to keep it that way. Which brings up the question of China, but that’s another discussion entirely so I wont get into that here.
Reading my post back now, reminds me of a quote by an 18th century Anglo-Irish statesmen, one that has always made an impression on me. "Evil flourishes, when good men do nothing" - Edmund Burke.
Now who decides what is good and evil in the world you might say? ...well that's a good question and not an easy one to answer without bringing it down to one simple thing, power, who has the power to decide ?
. It wasn't supposed to be like this.I would say there is a greater risk that the West-friendly Pakistan government is toppled by Islamic extremists, due to our adventures in the middle east and the bad feeling we are engendering throughout the region as a result. They would then have their finger on the button of a ready made nuclear arsenal.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
Of course you are right, but politically they are all backwater countries. They have no clout on the world stage.
lol, no that's not what I'm saying at all...
I'm saying 'we' set a good example of showing one can live well without nuclear weapons. It would be a seriously good thing if the UK unilaterally said that in 15 years we were going nuke-free. Sending a 'good' example to the rest of the world that there are better things to spend money on. That we have progressed beyond needing the ability to vaporise millions of people.
Yeah, and our response should be to give them respect, listen to them , trade with them etc... so they didn't feel the need to develop the bomb just to get noticed.
Sorry for misunderstanding then.
I think I would be quite happy for us to ditch our nuclear capability, provided we ditched our desire to be a major world power along with it.
And some of those countries have a higher standard of living than we do. I think our 'clout' on the world stage is overestimated and/or overrated as far as the benefits it actually brings us. I know it brings us a lot of enemies due to us sticking our nose in other countries' business and our close alignment with America.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
I think that's spot on. I was just thinking about what you'd posted and the list of countries you detailed is quite an interesting one.
They all have good economies, a modern military, not aggressive politically, a few of them are involved in peace keeping operations but otherwise non-confrontational on the world stage.
Quiet and fairly reserved.
So it can be done, you're right.
Suspended
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,480
I agree, but standard of living wasn't something I'd raised or was the subject of this debate.
I think there are two different units of measure here.
Our clout politically is definately weaker than it was. Much of this is due to the weakness of the current Government and particularly of the uncharismatic and incapable PM.
Our clout militarily is much as it has always been. No other country exists in the World, except perhaps Israel, that has such incredible military power for the size of it's land mass.
I fully accept your last point. I would very much like to see the UK stand on it's own two feet on the world stage, rather than always acting in the shadow of the US.
and gas his own people.
I take it you're qualified to make that judgement?