nukes: okay for some but not for others

Pepe Silvia

i found this article a bit odd concerning Obama and Iran

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCr ... SN01288689

"Iran must demonstrate through concrete steps that it will live up to its responsibilities with respect to its nuclear program."

Obama insisted that Tehran must meet its pledge to allow immediate international inspections of a second nuclear fuel site disclosed last week.

"It must grant unfettered access to IAEA inspectors within two weeks," he said.

Obama and other Western leaders have threatened further sanctions if Tehran fails to comply with international demands.

Using a carrot and stick approach, Obama said, "We've made it clear that we will do our part to engage the Iranian government on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect but our patience is not unlimited."

He said Iran must prove that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, as it maintains, and not for developing nuclear weapons as Western nations allege.

"We expect to see swift action. We're committed to serious ... engagement but we're not interested in talking for the sake of talking," Obama said.

"If Iran does not take steps in the near future to live up to its obligations, then the United States will not continue to negotiate indefinitely and we are prepared to move toward increased pressure," he said.

yet 2 weeks earlier this administration voted against forcing Israel to have their nuclear facilities inspected by the IAEA, in fact Obama has agreed to keep their capabilities secret....so what's this talk about living up to their responsibilities and how they MUST allow the IAEA to inspect their sites while on the other hand saying Israel doesn't need to follow any of these rules? why do we allow them to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? isn't this a double standard to demand 1 nation 'live up to their obligations' while saying another doesn't have to?

fife

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

who cares? i'm fine with any country having nukes as long as they wouldnt use them on me.

rebornFixer

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

What does the end of WW-II have to do with Iran getting nukes?

catefrances

rebornFixer wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

What does the end of WW-II have to do with Iran getting nukes?

why dont we all get to play the game. why does one country say weve got them but you cant have them. level the playing field i say cause mutually assured destruction is such a fantastic game to play.. to think that discovering the technology to destroy makind, developing it and then making it a possibility is progress is some sort of perverse logic. no we cant undo the knowledge we gained but yes we can ensure no one is armed in such a manner.

theoceansmademe

rebornFixer wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

What does the end of WW-II have to do with Iran getting nukes?

There were others ways to end WWII, the nuke was used to show Russia we had the bomb not to end the Japanese threat.

Study your history before posting.

haffajappa

theoceansmademe wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

What does the end of WW-II have to do with Iran getting nukes?

There were others ways to end WWII, the nuke was used to show Russia we had the bomb not to end the Japanese threat.

Study your history before posting.

"the end of WWII" is an interesting and softening term to use

Commy

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

right. you'd the the one country on the planet willing to use a nuke on a civilian population would be the last one on the planet deciding who can or can't have them.

TriumphantAngel

Commy wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

right. you'd the the one country on the planet willing to use a nuke on a civilian population would be the last one on the planet deciding who can or can't have them.

too true..

blackened Is the end
winter it will send
throwing all you see
into obscurity

rebornFixer

theoceansmademe wrote:

Study your history before posting.

Tell you what .... I'll study some history, if you agree to learn some basic social skills. Deal?
I now remember why I disappeared from this place for the better part of two years. I have three degrees, one of which includes a minor in history. So seriously, maybe think before making unfounded assumptions about people's knowledge.

rebornFixer

haffajappa wrote:

"the end of WWII" is an interesting and softening term to use

Maybe so, but you guys are the ones tossing out an example of a country using a nuke without providing any historical context whatsoever. I am well aware that forcing the Japanese surrender was only one of the reasons the bomb was dropped ... And that was my point. Giving the Soviets a demonstration is a specific historical context that has little to do with whether Iran should have the bomb. Knocking the U.S. for opposing Iran because they used a nuke in 1945 sort of implies that the U.S. has no right to oppose other countries getting the same technology, which is both illogical and potentially dangerous. Times have changed quite a bit since 1945, and I would guess that most people view further nuclear proliferation as a problem ... Does the fact that the U.S. dropped the bomb decades ago, in a completely different historical context, really mean that its oh so ironic that they oppose Iran now?

soulsinging

theoceansmademe wrote:

rebornFixer wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

What does the end of WW-II have to do with Iran getting nukes?

There were others ways to end WWII, the nuke was used to show Russia we had the bomb not to end the Japanese threat.

Study your history before posting.

is that a bad thing, in the course of history? if the entire world hadn't seen the horrors of hiroshima and nagasaki, do you think we'd have survived the cold war without nuclear exchange. it was a terrible act, but it made have saved us from far worse down the line. seeing the brutal reality of nuclear weapons in japan might be the only thing that saved us from testing them out on russia instead... which would have led to a whole lot worse than what happened to japan. a full on nuclear exchange between the us and russia becos we didnt fully understand what the weapons were capable of? that would have been a disaster for the entire world.

soulsinging

Commy wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

right. you'd the the one country on the planet willing to use a nuke on a civilian population would be the last one on the planet deciding who can or can't have them.

we haven't used them since. i don't think that shows a lot of willingness. nobody in the world knew what the things were capable of until we dropped them. it scared everyone shitless, and that is a good thing. it has prevented worse down the line.

haffajappa

rebornFixer wrote:

haffajappa wrote:

"the end of WWII" is an interesting and softening term to use

Maybe so, but you guys are the ones tossing out an example of a country using a nuke without providing any historical context whatsoever. I am well aware that forcing the Japanese surrender was only one of the reasons the bomb was dropped ... And that was my point. Giving the Soviets a demonstration is a specific historical context that has little to do with whether Iran should have the bomb. Knocking the U.S. for opposing Iran because they used a nuke in 1945 sort of implies that the U.S. has no right to oppose other countries getting the same technology, which is both illogical and potentially dangerous. Times have changed quite a bit since 1945, and I would guess that most people view further nuclear proliferation as a problem ... Does the fact that the U.S. dropped the bomb decades ago, in a completely different historical context, really mean that its oh so ironic that they oppose Iran now?

actually, I never tossed an example about anything... in fact, i haven't said anything about the USA's current position on the issue.
(by the way, I see 1945 from both sides, since i have family from both sides, and family who was there.)

theoceansmademe

soulsinging wrote:

Commy wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

right. you'd the the one country on the planet willing to use a nuke on a civilian population would be the last one on the planet deciding who can or can't have them.

we haven't used them since. i don't think that shows a lot of willingness. nobody in the world knew what the things were capable of until we dropped them. it scared everyone shitless, and that is a good thing. it has prevented worse down the line.

I don't follow your line of thinking.

The US knew how destructive this bomb was.

I think the Japanese people who suffered from radiation poisoning for 20+ years after the bomb was dropped wouldn't agree with the statement "it prevented worse down the line". Bleeding gums, throat cancer, hair falling out, burning skin, just to name a few. That is pretty horrible.

The killing of innocent women and children was down right inhumane.

Also, the dropping of the bomb didn't prevent future use, if anything it only accelerated the number of weapons produce during the cold war.

Your reasoning is why many countries have trouble believing the USA, "Do as I say and not as I do"".

rebornFixer

haffajappa wrote:

actually, I never tossed an example about anything... in fact, i haven't said anything about the USA's current position on the issue.
(by the way, I see 1945 from both sides, since i have family from both sides, and family who was there.)

Fair enough. I feel that any mass bombing is a humanitarian tragedy, and my term was not intended to be insensitive to the suffering of those affected. My term was intended to place the bombing in a historical context (the end of WW-II). Some folks throw Hiroshima/Nagasaki out there as an example of "American evil", and in this case, I feel that the example is a poor one. There are a number of reasons that atomic bombs were used, all of them bound to a particular context. Like soulsinging said, the willingness to use such a weapon is not there like it was in 1945, because circumstances have changed pretty drastically. There are now enough nukes around to obliterate us all hundreds of times over, the Cold War has ended (more or less), and the rest of Asia is not faced with Japan's Imperialism and no-surrender military doctrines. Some argue that maybe the atomic bomb was not needed to force a surrender, and maybe this is correct. But certainly previous experiences battling the Japanese led the Allies to believe that a mainland invasion would be far too costly in both Japanese and Allied lives ... This goal happened to dovetail nicely with wanting to show the "Commies" a new toy to keep them in line. I am not saying that the a-bomb SHOULD have been used, although maybe one could make such an argument. I am saying that its use needs to be placed in the correct historical context. Take the Europeans ... Europe used to be utterly wracked with warfare between the major powers ... Since WW-II, there has not been a single war between France, the UK, and Germany, not even a skirmish. Is it reasonable to keep saying that the Germans and French are jerks who cannot stop killing each other?

LikeAnOcean

It's all about leverage.

I'd love to see Iran threaten us with sanctions unless we get rid of our nukes.

soulsinging

theoceansmademe wrote:

I don't follow your line of thinking.

The US knew how destructive this bomb was.

I think the Japanese people who suffered from radiation poisoning for 20+ years after the bomb was dropped wouldn't agree with the statement "it prevented worse down the line". Bleeding gums, throat cancer, hair falling out, burning skin, just to name a few. That is pretty horrible.

The killing of innocent women and children was down right inhumane.

Also, the dropping of the bomb didn't prevent future use, if anything it only accelerated the number of weapons produce during the cold war.

Your reasoning is why many countries have trouble believing the USA, "Do as I say and not as I do"".

Bullshit. Nobody in the world knew what a city would look like after it got hit with a bomb like that. You can run all the impact tests and calculations you want, it does not approach the reality of the horror those bombs inflicted. That's like saying you fired a gun at the target range so you know exactly what's it's like to kill someone with it. You don't.

Yes, it sucks for the Japanese and I'm not saying they should be happy about it. But multiply that kind of suffering by, say 1000 more nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously in a Russia-US nuclear exchange... it COULD be worse. That's why we're talking about non-proliferation... nobody wants that to happen.

Russia was building bombs anyway and they weren't going to stop. The nuclear tension between us had nothing to do with Japan. They wanted it, and they'd have gotten it. And we'd have all been in the exact same boat only without any clear picture of the kind of civil destruction the weapons could reach. You think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have come out the same way if we hadn't all seen the horror of Hiroshima and had it make us all sick with guilt? One of us would have pushed the button to strike first without the perspective necessary to hold off.

Now I agree, we're not in much of a position to tell people not to develop weapons given that we have plenty and keep building more. But your analogy is absurd. We dropped them, and I think it's pretty clear we don't feel so great about it and aren't eager to do it again. To say that makes us illegitimate when arguing against using those weapons is absurd. If someone gets lung cancer, should they be prohibitied from telling people not to smoke because they did and it makes them a hypocrite? No. They suffered the consequences and learned better and want others to avoid the mistakes they did. That's why it's ok for us to urge people not to use them.

fife

Opening Band For The Sun wrote:

fife wrote:

i personally hate it that the country who talks the most about nukes is the only country who has used it.

who cares? i'm fine with any country having nukes as long as they wouldnt use them on me.

What! so if they were used on someone else you won't have a problem?

dimitrispearljam

no matter how the name of usa president is and which party he is ,the usa policy is the same always..all the empires do the same in all the history..Egyptians,Greece(Great Alexander) Persians.Rome.Turkish,Brithish,Germans,Russian,Usa ..and China is coming,,the make wars in the name of peace,Democracy,have allies and enemies as they like..they use Justise as they like......

fife

soulsinging wrote:

theoceansmademe wrote:

I don't follow your line of thinking.

The US knew how destructive this bomb was.

I think the Japanese people who suffered from radiation poisoning for 20+ years after the bomb was dropped wouldn't agree with the statement "it prevented worse down the line". Bleeding gums, throat cancer, hair falling out, burning skin, just to name a few. That is pretty horrible.

The killing of innocent women and children was down right inhumane.

Also, the dropping of the bomb didn't prevent future use, if anything it only accelerated the number of weapons produce during the cold war.

Your reasoning is why many countries have trouble believing the USA, "Do as I say and not as I do"".

Bullshit. Nobody in the world knew what a city would look like after it got hit with a bomb like that. You can run all the impact tests and calculations you want, it does not approach the reality of the horror those bombs inflicted. That's like saying you fired a gun at the target range so you know exactly what's it's like to kill someone with it. You don't.

Yes, it sucks for the Japanese and I'm not saying they should be happy about it. But multiply that kind of suffering by, say 1000 more nuclear weapons detonating simultaneously in a Russia-US nuclear exchange... it COULD be worse. That's why we're talking about non-proliferation... nobody wants that to happen.

Russia was building bombs anyway and they weren't going to stop. The nuclear tension between us had nothing to do with Japan. They wanted it, and they'd have gotten it. And we'd have all been in the exact same boat only without any clear picture of the kind of civil destruction the weapons could reach. You think the Cuban Missile Crisis would have come out the same way if we hadn't all seen the horror of Hiroshima and had it make us all sick with guilt? One of us would have pushed the button to strike first without the perspective necessary to hold off.

Now I agree, we're not in much of a position to tell people not to develop weapons given that we have plenty and keep building more. But your analogy is absurd. We dropped them, and I think it's pretty clear we don't feel so great about it and aren't eager to do it again. To say that makes us illegitimate when arguing against using those weapons is absurd. If someone gets lung cancer, should they be prohibitied from telling people not to smoke because they did and it makes them a hypocrite? No. They suffered the consequences and learned better and want others to avoid the mistakes they did. That's why it's ok for us to urge people not to use them.

concerning yoru 1st paragraph, albert einstein knew what might happen. concerning yoru last paragraph. america telling people not to get nukes while still having soem themselves does make them hypocrites. ofcourse you can say that being a hypocriate is not always a bad things.