Chat/Comment thread

What exactly are "global rights?" Would you say Iran has the right to park an aircraft carrier off Chesapeake Bay?

Depends on where in WI you live. If you live in Milwaukee or Madison, it can get pricey. If you live in the country, it can cost you hundreds just to pay for the gas to get you to a city with anything to do in it. SO yeah, especially in this economy, it can be pretty tough to afford to live, even in WI.

But what about Mercury, or Venus...or one of Mars' moons? Doesn't this denial just mean they must have teleported him somewhere else?/delusion

Unless said mothership has shields at full. You're right, the cat is out fo the bag, but the question is, how do we justify telling other countries that they can't have nukes while we sit on our unnecessarily large stash? If my enemies had a huge weapons advantage, I'd sure as hell want to be able to inflict as much damage as they could.If we want to be able to tell any country they can't have nukes, getting rid of ours would make our position less hypocritical, and would also make it less likely for one of our weapons to go "missing."History has shown that "defensive" nukes only creates an arms race. But as long as anyone has them, all other countries, 8th century theocracies or not, are going to want to have them, if only for parity. Just wait until that mothership shows up.

You're right, I overstated the case that every country wants them. However, any country with a beef towards another country that has nukes will want to have nukes. Considering the destructive capability of nukes, as long as you have enough to wipe out your enemy's country (or even just government) you'd have at least a form of parity. I mean, who cares if your enemy could wipe you out 5 times over and you could only wipe them out 3 times over? Once is enough. Only if people follow your call to action. Merely possessing a weapon shouldn't make it more or less likely for a country to be attacked. As for nukes, most countries have had them only as a dterrant. Now, the argument for or against deterance as a reason for nukes is something else, entirely. But, only one country in the history of the world has ever used a nuclear weapon against an enemy...and they did it twice...I'm sure you can figure out which country that is. All countries could protect their interests without nukes...nukes are just cheaper and easier in the long run. The US getting rid of nukes would not only make the world a bit safer, it would also give us the moral authority to tell others not to have them. As it stands, we're the biggest hypocrites in the world on the nuclear topic. I'm not sure what you meant by this.

"Brandishing" it could be construed as threatening harm, so anyone within reach of the knife could be vindicated in asking you to stop. Then if you don't either making you stop or asking someone else to do so.The guy three blocks over and five down should see you through his binoculars, and with no one else asking him to, run down the street and jump on you.But that all assumes you're brandishing it. If you are simply carrying it, even in the open, without any threatening moves, then there should be no reason to attack you. There are. Hypocricy does not seem to be one...at least to me. I agree. War of any kind is bad. Therefore advocating one without cause would seem to be a bad thing.

I don't think anyone shoudl have nuclear weapons, I agree with youthat far, but saying they should not be allowed to get them? How do you propose to stop them, if not by force of war? And if it does come to war, can we afford it?And all of this does nothing to change the hypocricy of the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons on another country telling a third country they can't have them because they might use them.As for the Strait of Hormuz, the fact that the strait is between multiple countries, I agree that they shouldn't be allowed to close it. If the land on the other side of the strait was part of Iran, it would be their sovereign waters, and I might not like them closing it, but they would have the right to do so. Much like the US has the right to close the Mississippi, or the Erie Canal...but not the St. Lawrence Seaway or the Bering Strait. Unfortunately, Iran has shwon that the "not killing" routeis not one that will work. At best, it will only delay them because they are bound and determiend to get them, and considering their biggest enemies are the US and Israel, both of whom have nukes, I can't really blame them.As for the killing route, the problem comes from the fact that more often than not, the people who die are not the ones responsible for the policy nor for the process. We might kill thousands of soldiers and citizens for every military commander or lead scientist...and even the lead scientists aren't necessarily free to decide their own work.And then, when the dust clears, what's to stop the next group of leaders to decide they need nukes? The cat's out of the bag, you're never going to be able to stop a determined country from getting them, unless you're willing to commit blood and treasure in a comprehensive, indefinite occupation.Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.