 |
| |
|
|
Thorn
|
 |
Asheville, NC
May 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
But before Ming comes on here let me explain:
Since the beginning of the Nuclear Age the threatened Use of Nuclear Weapons have been a detterant and ended World War II with the dropping of 2 Atomic Bombs on Japan.
Analyzing the expected pitfalls as addressed by many members in the other thread about the use of force in Iran, I came to a simple conclusion. Any military action either by airstrikes or by an even more unlikely invasion would lead to the acceleration of 3rd World Countries Attempts to gain Nuclear Weapons. This is costly both financially, and to global stability especially among the supposedly allied nations.
So, what would deter a country from pursueing a Nuclear Arsenal? Certainly wars won't, nor will diplomacy? How about facing certain annihlation? --Yeah that would do it.
I know this measure would be seen as extreme especially to you Europeans, but it would send a clear and decisive message to all countries-- Pursue your weapons of mass destruction, and Your nation will no longer exist!
My suggestion to President Bush, is if diplomacy fails, to use our Nuclear Deterrant on Iran's Nuclear Facility. This is the only way to stop the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the World.
I talked it over with My God, and he was the one that suggested this to me. While he doesn't like loss of life, he does not like at all what Iran is doing, and what it is leading the world into.
So here I pose the question to my fellow Apolytoners, from varied backgrounds, ethnicities, and nations, would a nuclear deterrant in Iran stop the proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and solve the Iranian Nuclear Crisis?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Thorn
|
|
Asheville, NC
May 1999
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
You are deluded, aren;t you?
1. You said "tactical nukes". So Iran would certainly not face destruction.
2. Deterence is making sure someone does not attack you. That implies that nukes will NOT be used unless you or an ally is attacked,, perhaps by nuclear weapons themselves.
You are proposing the US creating an OFFENSIVE nuclear policy, which is not deterence, but cohersive-the very opposite of Deterence.
Please understand the terms you use before you misuse them. |
Actually I wasn't saying that tactical nukes should be used, what I was saying that there is/was a(n) actual system that was designed for limited nuclear warfare, and think tanks and the like actually considered such possibilities.
You are telling me that an offensive nuclear policy would not deter someone from making weapons of mass destruction, maybe it won't if they are psychotic, but in that case there won't be anyone left to make weapons of mass destruction, so deductive cold logic states this is a viable answer to the problems presented by the systems inequalities in the grand equation of reality.  --I just love saying so little as so much at the same time
And now I don't think I'm out of my mind, we should have used an A-bomb in Vietnam as well. Setting an example is very important in a world where people don't understand logic but just violence. And what example will we be setting, we are the big fish, mess with us, and you will get eaten! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
child of Thor
|
|
The scariest thingabout this thread is that i'm sure some of the guys in my sig have already been pushing for it to happen.
Let these people near power and they really could screw the world up(and are as we type). Its often the problem when you let pure theory+acedemic guys try to rule the real world with their fantasy schemes.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2005 03:04
Attachment: 
|
|
