How come US can make nukes but other nations can't?

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.

On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.

I would agree that we are at least a little compelled to abide by it, but we still allocated significant funding to research on new nuclear weapons. While I'm sure treaty obligations factored in to our calculations, I still think that it shows fairly strongly that we are willing to set aside those obligations if it suits us... and that's why I've found our stance on the NPT to be fairly unpersuasive all these years.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

:roll:

I'm not going to repost your posts and outline where I've shot down every point you've tried to make. Just read and you'd know it.

If you were actually shooting down points I had made, I would welcome it. Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you wish I said as opposed to what I actually said. Now you're mad about the whole thing and you've become emotionally invested in 'winning' against me.

Like JoS just said, you can't win because you're fighting against something that doesn't exist. When you successfully joust that windmill, let me know.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

:roll:

I'm not going to repost your posts and outline where I've shot down every point you've tried to make. Just read and you'd know it.

If you were actually shooting down points I had made, I would welcome it. Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you wish I said as opposed to what I actually said. Now you're mad about the whole thing and you've become emotionally invested in 'winning' against me.

Like JoS just said, you can't win because you're fighting against something that doesn't exist. When you successfully joust that windmill, let me know.

Actually, I don't care about what you think I said. All I did was show that we've been acting appropriately based on the NPT. Much better than other nations involved.

You are trying to be evasive, not me.

 

[dbk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...n-Proliferation_Treaty

This should help you understand why there only few countries with nukes and so many who don't.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.

On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.

Ayup, that is what the MOAB was all about, can't kill them with nukes, kill them with a bigger bomb.

That's where I believe this is going. At least with a MOAB we won't have to worry about the long term health effects of continuing land combat in nearby regions after we drop it.

I was joking, i thought everyone already knew that the MOAB is just a concept that was never meant to be used?

You do realise that the US HAS developed nuclear arms after signing the NPT? Directed nuclear bunker busters weren't part of the arsenal before signing the treaty now was it?

That's pretty much WHY Iran and others want nukes, because the US WANTED to use nukes in Iraq and they do not KNOW that the US won't use nukes next time around.

I don't blame them one bit but they will be ten feet under before NATO allows it.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.

On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.

Ayup, that is what the MOAB was all about, can't kill them with nukes, kill them with a bigger bomb.

That's where I believe this is going. At least with a MOAB we won't have to worry about the long term health effects of continuing land combat in nearby regions after we drop it.

I was joking, i thought everyone already knew that the MOAB is just a concept that was never meant to be used?

You do realise that the US HAS developed nuclear arms after signing the NPT? Directed nuclear bunker busters weren't part of the arsenal before signing the treaty now was it?

That's pretty much WHY Iran and others want nukes, because the US WANTED to use nukes in Iraq and they do not KNOW that the US won't use nukes next time around.

I don't blame them one bit but they will be ten feet under before NATO allows it.

Hmm, I don't see why we wouldn't want to use a non-nuclear, high damage weapon though? I'd be interested to hear though if you have a reason why.

We have in many past conflicts enjoyed much less damaging and much more horrible side effect inducing weaponry (agent orange for example), so you'd think it would be handy.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

:roll:

I'm not going to repost your posts and outline where I've shot down every point you've tried to make. Just read and you'd know it.

If you were actually shooting down points I had made, I would welcome it. Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you wish I said as opposed to what I actually said. Now you're mad about the whole thing and you've become emotionally invested in 'winning' against me.

Like JoS just said, you can't win because you're fighting against something that doesn't exist. When you successfully joust that windmill, let me know.

Actually, I don't care about what you think I said. All I did was show that we've been acting appropriately based on the NPT. Much better than other nations involved.

You are trying to be evasive, not me.

And my argument was that calling for (and funding) the research and development of new nuclear weapons is not acting appropriately based on the NPT. Why you think that quoting warhead reduction figures affects that fact is beyond me.

There's no need to get all wrapped up in this, you made a simple mistake that you've now blown way out of proportion, and you've turned this thread into an enormous fagdance.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: TruePaige

:roll:

I'm not going to repost your posts and outline where I've shot down every point you've tried to make. Just read and you'd know it.

If you were actually shooting down points I had made, I would welcome it. Unfortunately you are arguing based on what you wish I said as opposed to what I actually said. Now you're mad about the whole thing and you've become emotionally invested in 'winning' against me.

Like JoS just said, you can't win because you're fighting against something that doesn't exist. When you successfully joust that windmill, let me know.

Actually, I don't care about what you think I said. All I did was show that we've been acting appropriately based on the NPT. Much better than other nations involved.

You are trying to be evasive, not me.

And my argument was that calling for (and funding) the research and development of new nuclear weapons is not acting appropriately based on the NPT. Why you think that quoting warhead reduction figures affects that fact is beyond me.

There's no need to get all wrapped up in this, you made a simple mistake that you've now blown way out of proportion, and you've turned this thread into an enormous fagdance.

And I was showing that even though George Bush called for this funding and development that projects were canceled and legislated away early on, nothing came of them, and all along we've continued to disarm our current standing force.

I made no mistake there, that is a condensed version of how I responded to your argument.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

And I was showing that even though George Bush called for this funding and development that projects were canceled and legislated away early on, nothing came of them, and all along we've continued to disarm our current standing force.

I made no mistake there, that is a condensed version of how I responded to your argument.

/facepalm

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.

On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.

Ayup, that is what the MOAB was all about, can't kill them with nukes, kill them with a bigger bomb.

That's where I believe this is going. At least with a MOAB we won't have to worry about the long term health effects of continuing land combat in nearby regions after we drop it.

I was joking, i thought everyone already knew that the MOAB is just a concept that was never meant to be used?

You do realise that the US HAS developed nuclear arms after signing the NPT? Directed nuclear bunker busters weren't part of the arsenal before signing the treaty now was it?

That's pretty much WHY Iran and others want nukes, because the US WANTED to use nukes in Iraq and they do not KNOW that the US won't use nukes next time around.

I don't blame them one bit but they will be ten feet under before NATO allows it.

Hmm, I don't see why we wouldn't want to use a non-nuclear, high damage weapon though? I'd be interested to hear though if you have a reason why.

We have in many past conflicts enjoyed much less damaging and much more horrible side effect inducing weaponry (agent orange for example), so you'd think it would be handy.

The MOAB isn't a good concept, it never was, per pound it's completely useless when you can have four directed hit bombs which causes a LOT more mayhem than the MOAB and you rarely get a situation where you need to bring undirected destruction to a general area anymore, that's why we're here, to provide the guidance for missiles to take out smaller compunds from 10-200 people at a time, sure, it's time consuming but wth else are we going to do?

It's just cock waving from the military to the US public, everyone else in the world that actually knows anything about it also knows that it's a useless concept.

 

[novasatori]

.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: novasatori
.

Nice fast edit, i already shot that one down in mid air earlier in the thread.

 

[novasatori]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: novasatori
.

Nice fast edit, i already shot that one down in mid air earlier in the thread.

Yeah that's why I edited it

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.

On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.

Ayup, that is what the MOAB was all about, can't kill them with nukes, kill them with a bigger bomb.

That's where I believe this is going. At least with a MOAB we won't have to worry about the long term health effects of continuing land combat in nearby regions after we drop it.

I was joking, i thought everyone already knew that the MOAB is just a concept that was never meant to be used?

You do realise that the US HAS developed nuclear arms after signing the NPT? Directed nuclear bunker busters weren't part of the arsenal before signing the treaty now was it?

That's pretty much WHY Iran and others want nukes, because the US WANTED to use nukes in Iraq and they do not KNOW that the US won't use nukes next time around.

I don't blame them one bit but they will be ten feet under before NATO allows it.

Hmm, I don't see why we wouldn't want to use a non-nuclear, high damage weapon though? I'd be interested to hear though if you have a reason why.

We have in many past conflicts enjoyed much less damaging and much more horrible side effect inducing weaponry (agent orange for example), so you'd think it would be handy.

The MOAB isn't a good concept, it never was, per pound it's completely useless when you can have four directed hit bombs which causes a LOT more mayhem than the MOAB and you rarely get a situation where you need to bring undirected destruction to a general area anymore, that's why we're here, to provide the guidance for missiles to take out smaller compunds from 10-200 people at a time, sure, it's time consuming but wth else are we going to do?

It's just cock waving from the military to the US public, everyone else in the world that actually knows anything about it also knows that it's a useless concept.

Good point, but I'd think the same would be true of the massive destruction nuclear weapons would cause.

I'd NEVER expect a MOAB type weapon to be used, but having them, in my mind, would be a good alternative to keeping nuclear weapons around at least, right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: AFMatt

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Right, what's your point? Our country has clearly shown that we don't feel particularly compelled to abide by the provisions of the NPT.

On the contrary, I believe the fact we decided not to go forward shows we are at least a little compelled to abide by it. I know NPT has an overarching goal of disarmament, but the main point of the NPT concerning this weapon type would be the agreement to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states. If this weapon were developed, it's intended use would obviously be against suspected nuclear weapon operations in a non-nuclear declared nation (ie: Iran). Surely this type of weapon would be of little to no use against, say, Russia or China.

Ayup, that is what the MOAB was all about, can't kill them with nukes, kill them with a bigger bomb.

That's where I believe this is going. At least with a MOAB we won't have to worry about the long term health effects of continuing land combat in nearby regions after we drop it.

I was joking, i thought everyone already knew that the MOAB is just a concept that was never meant to be used?

You do realise that the US HAS developed nuclear arms after signing the NPT? Directed nuclear bunker busters weren't part of the arsenal before signing the treaty now was it?

That's pretty much WHY Iran and others want nukes, because the US WANTED to use nukes in Iraq and they do not KNOW that the US won't use nukes next time around.

I don't blame them one bit but they will be ten feet under before NATO allows it.

Hmm, I don't see why we wouldn't want to use a non-nuclear, high damage weapon though? I'd be interested to hear though if you have a reason why.

We have in many past conflicts enjoyed much less damaging and much more horrible side effect inducing weaponry (agent orange for example), so you'd think it would be handy.

The MOAB isn't a good concept, it never was, per pound it's completely useless when you can have four directed hit bombs which causes a LOT more mayhem than the MOAB and you rarely get a situation where you need to bring undirected destruction to a general area anymore, that's why we're here, to provide the guidance for missiles to take out smaller compunds from 10-200 people at a time, sure, it's time consuming but wth else are we going to do?

It's just cock waving from the military to the US public, everyone else in the world that actually knows anything about it also knows that it's a useless concept.

Good point, but I'd think the same would be true of the massive destruction nuclear weapons would cause.

I'd NEVER expect a MOAB type weapon to be used, but having them, in my mind, would be a good alternative to keeping nuclear weapons around at least, right?

Well, the directed strike nukes are not general destruction devices, it's meant to be used as a lightweight bunker buster or cave buster in todays world. To actually use a nuke would be idiotic though as the area would be contaminated.

And while the MOAB is a general destruction device, the biggest scare is still nukes, no one gives a fuck about the MOAB besides the US, it is, as i said earlier, just cock waving to the US residents, it's useless, if WWIII rolls around, nukes will be the first thing used, probably in a smaller scale, the only thing the MOAB is good for is if there is an invasion, it will do a big badaboom without contaminating the area (actually it will contaminate the area but not like a nuke)

 

[lightstar]

is it because the US will use nukes responsibly as opposed to other countries? :laugh:

 

[I Saw OJ]

Because THIS might happen

 

[JEDIYoda]

what does being a South Korean-American have to do with anything???

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: lightstar
is it because the US will use nukes responsibly as opposed to other countries? :laugh:

Exactly, the US wouldn't use nukes to bring forth a surrender on the exact same conditions as before they were used just to show the world that they have the power to do so... nuh-uh, would never happen.

In Soviet America, propaganda teaches YOU!

 

[miketheidiot]

in regards to the op:

i think pretty much every country in the world is in agreement becaue noone wants anyone else to get nukes.

 

[Newbian]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
what does being a South Korean-American have to do with anything???

Read the op, he talks about it there.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: maddogchen
let me ask you this, do you subscribe to the theory that if everyone had a gun the world would be safer? Because we'd be less hesitant to pull a gun on someone else?

Good question. I see you have a gun . Why can't I . I should trust you to have my best interest at heart. YA Right! IF we can have . all nations cn have . I wouldn't like. But let the WORLD not forget USA used these weapons on women children and elderly in Japan . THats Scary . The scary part was the second bomb!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jiggz]

It's never forbidden to own, develop or purchase nukes as long as you are not a signatoree of the "Nuclear Proliferation Treaty"! India and Pakistan are good examples of this! N. Korea may have nuclear but it is a signatoree of the NPT that's why the world body is going against it! The same holds true with Iran. Obviously the big guy on the "block" will not just let the other guys get the "nuke" without his approval or as the gangsters say, " pay your dues . . . first ".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jiggz
It's never forbidden to own, develop or purchase nukes as long as you are not a signatoree of the "Nuclear Proliferation Treaty"! India and Pakistan are good examples of this! N. Korea may have nuclear but it is a signatoree of the NPT that's why the world body is going against it! The same holds true with Iran. Obviously the big guy on the "block" will not just let the other guys get the "nuke" without his approval or as the gangsters say, " pay your dues . . . first ".

North Korea isn't part of the NPT anymore, they withdrew a good while back.

 

[rchiu]

Oye, there is this thing call hypocrisy. When you set your feet in the society, politics or international policies, you'd see it every where you turn. So you just have to be smart and never blindly believe everything people say. In the end, everything comes down to self interest. So of course US want to keep making nuke and be this all powerful nation while limiting other's power.

But hey, hypocrisy applys to everyone. So like many people pointed out already, US keep doing that because they can, and because they have the allies in world organization to keep the vote going.