PDA

View Full Version : Why would Iran build reactor for energy?



jofg
2005-Feb-21, 02:02 PM
I keep reading two sides to this, and can't be sure what the truth is. I figured if anyone knows what they're talking about, it's people here (well, at least most of ya! :D )

So, does it make sense for Iran to build a Nuclear reactor for power, considering all the Oil they have? If so, then why not use the light-water reactor the Europeans offered and avoid the confrontation? If they can justify nuclear power with all their oil reserves, why aren't there reactors springing up all over the place?

Thanks in advance for any light you can shed on this. Oh, and let's try and keep the politics out of it!! [-X

Krevel
2005-Feb-21, 02:11 PM
It's ALL about power - the political kind. Probably not a topic for this forum.

Fram
2005-Feb-21, 02:14 PM
I haven't done any research on this, but I thought petroleum wasn't used to generate electricity? Coal (+ varieties), water, wind, gas, nuclear, sun, but not petroleum?
It would probably be possible, but I think there are better uses for it (petrochemicals, transport, ...).

jamestox
2005-Feb-21, 02:32 PM
I haven't done any research on this, but I thought petroleum wasn't used to generate electricity? Coal (+ varieties), water, wind, gas, nuclear, sun, but not petroleum?
It would probably be possible, but I think there are better uses for it (petrochemicals, transport, ...).
Petroleum-based generation is fairly common. There are gas-turbine generating stations here in the US that burn natural gas and natural gas-fired boiler/steam generation is cleaner (although more expensive) than coal-fired boiler/steam. Link here. (http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp) The big selling point on the natural gas-fired gas turbine plants is that they can be quickly started and online during peak loads. Since Iran sits on a large reserve of crude, they probably also have considerable natural gas (no jokes, please) to fire either boiler/steam or gas turbine power plants.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-21, 02:47 PM
I don't know if petroleum reserves automatically imply natural gas reserves: the Netherlands have quite some natural gas, but very little petroleum (that is to be found further in the North Sea). As you said, the plants work on natural gas, not on petroleum. I thought there are petroleum plants, though they were not efficient and not clean either. Just from memory, no research done here (This is not posted in my free tme... :)) I am quite sure that gas plants are cleaner and more effective. So unless they have gas reserves too, they can't really use the petroleum for power plants I think.

I don't have the time now to research whether Iran has substantial gas reserves, so I can't comment on that.

Fram
2005-Feb-21, 03:00 PM
Fast Google search, so probably not the most relevant source, but it appears that Iran does have a considerable amount of natural gas (http://www.american.edu/TED/iranpipeline.htm). So we can replace in the OP the word 'petroleum' by 'gas', and then you get the same question. Why use nuclear power when you have natural gas you can use for the same purpose?

Argos
2005-Feb-21, 03:04 PM
Why use nuclear power when you have natural gas you can use for the same purpose?
Because they´re willing to clean up the air? 8-[

Demigrog
2005-Feb-21, 03:16 PM
I haven't done any research on this, but I thought petroleum wasn't used to generate electricity? Coal (+ varieties), water, wind, gas, nuclear, sun, but not petroleum?
It would probably be possible, but I think there are better uses for it (petrochemicals, transport, ...).
Petroleum-based generation is fairly common. There are gas-turbine generating stations here in the US that burn natural gas and natural gas-fired boiler/steam generation is cleaner (although more expensive) than coal-fired boiler/steam. Link here. (http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp) The big selling point on the natural gas-fired gas turbine plants is that they can be quickly started and online during peak loads. Since Iran sits on a large reserve of crude, they probably also have considerable natural gas (no jokes, please) to fire either boiler/steam or gas turbine power plants.
Also, a lot of gas turbines are actually dual fuel-- they can also burn oil. Iran, however, is about 80% natural gas with the remainder mostly Hydro with some oil.

On the nuclear front, Iran currently has five operational research reactors and a contract with Russia to complete the ~1000MW Bushehr power plant (and possibly build another 400-1000MW of capacity there). At the rate that Iran's power needs are growing (~7% a year, and they are already facing under-capacity). The last I heard, Iran plans to have 20% of its electricity from Nuclear power.

Russia claims that the Bushehr reactor design (a light water type) isn't suitable for weapons production, and that the spent fuel rods are to be shipped back to Russia.

Much of the Iran controversy centers around Uranium enrichment technology rather than the reactors themselves. Enrichment technology is dual use—essential for weapons production, and essential for Iran’s ability to produce Uranium fuel domestically. Since about 1985, Iran has been trying to acquire gas centrifuge technology—ostensibly for the Bushehr reactor, despite the fact that it was severely damaged by Iraq and that construction was completely halted until the Russian deal in 1997.

In my opinion, if Iran’s intentions were entirely above-board, they could just as easily purchase the processed Uranium from Russia, and avoid a lot of controversy. However, I’m probably out of my league. Comments from Stuart? :)

jamestox
2005-Feb-21, 04:00 PM
I haven't done any research on this, but I thought petroleum wasn't used to generate electricity? Coal (+ varieties), water, wind, gas, nuclear, sun, but not petroleum?
It would probably be possible, but I think there are better uses for it (petrochemicals, transport, ...).
Petroleum-based generation is fairly common. There are gas-turbine generating stations here in the US that burn natural gas and natural gas-fired boiler/steam generation is cleaner (although more expensive) than coal-fired boiler/steam. Link here. (http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp) The big selling point on the natural gas-fired gas turbine plants is that they can be quickly started and online during peak loads. Since Iran sits on a large reserve of crude, they probably also have considerable natural gas (no jokes, please) to fire either boiler/steam or gas turbine power plants.
Also, a lot of gas turbines are actually dual fuel-- they can also burn oil. Iran, however, is about 80% natural gas with the remainder mostly Hydro with some oil.

On the nuclear front, Iran currently has five operational research reactors and a contract with Russia to complete the ~1000MW Bushehr power plant (and possibly build another 400-1000MW of capacity there). At the rate that Iran's power needs are growing (~7% a year, and they are already facing under-capacity). The last I heard, Iran plans to have 20% of its electricity from Nuclear power.

Russia claims that the Bushehr reactor design (a light water type) isn't suitable for weapons production, and that the spent fuel rods are to be shipped back to Russia.

Much of the Iran controversy centers around Uranium enrichment technology rather than the reactors themselves. Enrichment technology is dual use—essential for weapons production, and essential for Iran’s ability to produce Uranium fuel domestically. Since about 1985, Iran has been trying to acquire gas centrifuge technology—ostensibly for the Bushehr reactor, despite the fact that it was severely damaged by Iraq and that construction was completely halted until the Russian deal in 1997.

In my opinion, if Iran’s intentions were entirely above-board, they could just as easily purchase the processed Uranium from Russia, and avoid a lot of controversy. However, I’m probably out of my league. Comments from Stuart? :)
Thank you for the correction, demagrog, as well as for the natural resources survey; I didn't realize Iran was as natural-gas rich. I'm a bit fuzzy on reactor design, though, and would like clarification: by "light water" reactor, do you mean a "pressurized-water" reactor, similar to the power generating stations we have in the US? Or are we talking about a high-deuterium/tritium-content water-shell for neutron moderation?

J.

Sheki
2005-Feb-21, 04:19 PM
So, does it make sense for Iran to build a Nuclear reactor for power, considering all the Oil they have?

I did a little research, as your question piqued my interest. From http://www.uic.com.au/nip08.htm I picked up the following (emphasis added):

"[consider[ing] emissions, dispersion and ultimate impact. With nuclear energy the risk of accidents is factored in along with high estimates of radiological impacts from mine tailings (waste management and decommissioning being already within the cost to the consumer).] Nuclear energy averages 0.4 euro cents/kWh, much the same as hydro, coal is over 4.0 cents (4.1-7.3), gas ranges 1.3-2.3 cents and only wind shows up better than nuclear, at 0.1-0.2 cents/kWh average."

My own calculations with respect to crude oil indicate about 1.4 cents/kWh (Note: anyone have a different number for this? I am only about 50% certain of this estimate) - presuming a production cost of about $3 to $5 per barrel (which is apparently what it costs to produce oil in the middle east).

Given this, if I were in Iran's position, I think I would convert all of my baseload power to nuclear (at 0.4 cents/kWh) and sell my oil abroad (at $47/barrel). (note: standardizing from barrels to kWh, this would effectively be a decision between burning the oil in Iran at an apparent value of 1.3 cents per kWh vs. selling it abroad for an apparent value of 12.73 cents per kWh).

Throw in the possibility that the oil might run out, and the ability to become effectively undefeatable as a nuclear power... Makes sense to me!


Sheki

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-21, 06:21 PM
Argh this is what I don't like about Bush's foreign policy. We can do whatever we want because we represent moral and upright democracy (give me a break), but Iran needs to be watched over since they are part of the Axis of Evil.

Come on, we have nuclear technology, and countries have a right to defend themselves. No one is criticizing us for using the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima or using all of the resources in the Manhattan Project.

That's why other countries might not like us. We are against nuclear proliferation but we have the largest arsenal of weapons. It's not very convincing when you tell others that you are the world leader and everyone must tell them what you're doing.

Sorry about the political rant, but this is one of the very few things in Bush's foreign policy I can't stand. If we are against nuclear proliferation, we must get rid of a substantial portion too, if not all.

papageno
2005-Feb-21, 06:26 PM
Come on, we have nuclear technology, and countries have a right to defend themselves. No one is criticizing us for using the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima or using all of the resources in the Manhattan Project.


Actually, I think the US have been and are criticized for that.



(Alright, I confess, the main reason I posted this is to get to 1001 posts!)

Candy
2005-Feb-21, 06:29 PM
Argh this is what I don't like about Bush's foreign policy. We can do whatever we want because we represent moral and upright democracy (give me a break), but Iran needs to be watched over since they are part of the Axis of Evil.

Come on, we have nuclear technology, and countries have a right to defend themselves. No one is criticizing us for using the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima or using all of the resources in the Manhattan Project.

That's why other countries might not like us. We are against nuclear proliferation but we have the largest arsenal of weapons. It's not very convincing when you tell others that you are the world leader and everyone must tell them what you're doing.

Sorry about the political rant, but this is one of the very few things in Bush's foreign policy I can't stand. If we are against nuclear proliferation, we must get rid of a substantial portion too, if not all.
Different issue, different time. [-X

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-21, 06:57 PM
I would guess that Iran is trying to gain power by scaring other nations. It's a common geopolitical strategy, but not a very good one in my opinion. If Sheki's calculations are accurate, Iran could make a lot of money through more benign forms of nuclear technology, and in the end, money is the real power. Nuclear weapons aren't the source of America's power today, and they won't be the source of China's power tomorrow, even though both those countries have them.

jofg
2005-Feb-21, 07:57 PM
That's why other countries might not like us. We are against nuclear proliferation but we have the largest arsenal of weapons. It's not very convincing when you tell others that you are the world leader and everyone must tell them what you're doing.

Agreed - but it's like parents, between puffs on the cigarette, telling their kids not to start smoking. They might be hypocrites, but they would still have a valid point.


...burning the oil in Iran at an apparent value of 1.3 cents per kWh vs. selling it abroad for an apparent value of 12.73 cents per kWh).

Makes sense. Although there are the start up costs with nuclear energy that will probably add to the costs for a while.

Don't they have to worry about Nuclear waste also? Having never been to Iran (or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter), are there suitable locations for storing spent fuel rods, etc. in that region of the world?

Nicolas
2005-Feb-21, 08:07 PM
That's why other countries might not like us. We are against nuclear proliferation but we have the largest arsenal of weapons. It's not very convincing when you tell others that you are the world leader and everyone must tell them what you're doing.

Agreed - but it's like parents, between puffs on the cigarette, telling their kids not to start smoking. They might be hypocrites, but they would still have a valid point.


...burning the oil in Iran at an apparent value of 1.3 cents per kWh vs. selling it abroad for an apparent value of 12.73 cents per kWh).

Makes sense. Although there are the start up costs with nuclear energy that will probably add to the costs for a while.

Don't they have to worry about Nuclear waste also? Having never been to Iran (or anywhere in the Middle East for that matter), are there suitable locations for storing spent fuel rods, etc. in that region of the world?

No, they don't have reservations :D I'm sorry I couldn't resist it.
They could always build bunkers, and maybe they've got stable ground layers and mines or something like that?

Sheki
2005-Feb-21, 08:20 PM
Different issue, different time.

Two things here:

1. Re: "different issue"
Yes, of course these are two different issues, but it could be argued that they are effectually the same. The USA developed nuclear weapons when it was feeling threatened (in a war that it apparently felt needed ending rather sooner than later). Later, it continued developing and advancing nuclear weapons technology in response to other threats.

Similarly, Iran could argue that it is being threatened. Afterall, the middle east is no stranger to conflict, its next-door neighbour is currently occupied by western troops, the leader of said troops has identified them as part of an "axis of evil". Were I in Iran's position I would do exactly what they appear to be doing: playing nice to the west while furiously expediting a nuclear weapons based insurance policy.

In my mind there is moral equivalence (that is, I would if I believed in absolute morality - the existence of good and evil - which I do not).

2. Re: "different time"
Irrelevant. I fail to see what time has to do with the matter. The species Homo sapiens has not changed appreciably in 100k years, let alone the past 60. To think that we have developed a higher moral compass over that period is absurd.

People are people, and people are quite predictable when it comes to their response to a threat. If the USA did not currently have a nuclear arsenal, in the current geopolitical climate, I would certainly expect them to start developing one. It would be irresponsible not to. Hence, I really can't blame other countries for wanting just that.


Sheki

Sheki
2005-Feb-21, 08:30 PM
jofg wrote:


Although there are the start up costs with nuclear energy that will probably add to the costs for a while.

If you follow the link I provided, it explains that the calculations were based on the total costs for each energy sector. Start-up costs for a major capital project like a reactor, or a dam, are usually considered as an amortized cost that is applied over the useful life of the facility. The costs per kWh include all amortized capital costs plus operational costs (such as maintenance, staff, and fuel). The analysis I linked to actually went further, including amortized captial casts, operational costs, environmental/treatment/risk costs, etc.

My calculation for the price per kWh for oil, on the other hand, was a theoretical best case (cost of oil production divided by energy output). If we add amortized capital costs, environmental costs, operational costs for the power plant, etc, the price per kWh for crude oil looks even worse.

However, I am no expert on these matters. I would encourage others to do their own calculations/research to see if their results agree with mine.

Sheki

Glom
2005-Feb-21, 10:23 PM
Let them eat MOX! Specifically our MOX. BNFL would love the contracts.

archman
2005-Feb-21, 10:49 PM
I never really thought about this 'til now, but if a country had the moxie to build nuclear power plants, wouldn't the temptation to build some nukes eventually enter into the minds of their leaders (both civilian and military)?

What countries possess nuclear power plants that don't have acknowledged (or not acknowledged) nuclear weapons? I'm not talking teensy research reactors like Greece (or my university!) has, but full-on power plants. I figure any such nations would have to be fully developed, with a weak or tightly controlled military. Countries like Iran and North Korea wouldn't fit either criteria.

Glom
2005-Feb-21, 11:10 PM
What countries possess nuclear power plants that don't have acknowledged (or not acknowledged) nuclear weapons?

Canada? South Africa? Germany? Japan?

paulie jay
2005-Feb-22, 12:16 AM
Australia has a reactor at Lucas Heights but it probably falls into the "teensy" category!

Addressing the original question "...does it make sense for Iran to build a nuclear reactor for power, considering all the Oil they have?..." my answer would be - yes it does make sense. I don't necessarily see it as a suspicious act. But it could be... I don't really know.

I know that is where I should leave it - I really shouldn't go on to say how much it offends me that nuclear powers are shaking thier finger at other countries for doing the same thing. Oops...


:wink:

Fortis
2005-Feb-22, 12:37 AM
What countries possess nuclear power plants that don't have acknowledged (or not acknowledged) nuclear weapons?

Canada? South Africa? Germany? Japan?
Currently that's true. What surprised me when I looked into it a few years ago, was the number, and identity, of countries that had had programs. Canada had a program for an indigenous weapon until 1949. South Africa had the bomb until the early '80s. I guess Germany did during the war but that shouldn't really count as they weren't developing peaceful nuclear power.

Other nations that have had nuclear programs include Switzerland (ended sometime after 1970), Sweden, Australia, Brazil, among others.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-22, 12:43 AM
Yes, I almost forgot that during the 1950s Australia had a nuclear testing program forced upon us at Maralinga by the British so I guess that kind of puts us in the nuclear family... http://tinyurl.com/6hadl

Argos
2005-Feb-22, 01:04 AM
What countries possess nuclear power plants that don't have acknowledged (or not acknowledged) nuclear weapons?

Canada? South Africa? Germany? Japan?

Other nations that have had nuclear programs include Switzerland (ended sometime after 1970), Sweden, Australia, Brazil, among others.

Brazil voluntarily abandoned the nuclear weapon program in 1990. The constitution forbids the manufacture of nuclear bombs. However, the country is technically capable of doing so. Brazil has its own centrifugue technology, and is developing a nuclear reactor for a submarine fleet. Also, the country is planning 6 new nuclear plants (there are 3 currently) to set up a diversified energy matrix.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 04:48 AM
Two things here:

1. Re: "different issue"
Yes, of course these are two different issues, but it could be argued that they are effectually the same. The USA developed nuclear weapons when it was feeling threatened (in a war that it apparently felt needed ending rather sooner than later). Later, it continued developing and advancing nuclear weapons technology in response to other threats.

Similarly, Iran could argue that it is being threatened. Afterall, the middle east is no stranger to conflict, its next-door neighbour is currently occupied by western troops, the leader of said troops has identified them as part of an "axis of evil". Were I in Iran's position I would do exactly what they appear to be doing: playing nice to the west while furiously expediting a nuclear weapons based insurance policy.

In my mind there is moral equivalence (that is, I would if I believed in absolute morality - the existence of good and evil - which I do not).

Are you suggesting Iran is using Nuclear ‘power’ for warfare?


2. Re: "different time"
Irrelevant. I fail to see what time has to do with the matter. The species Homo sapiens has not changed appreciably in 100k years, let alone the past 60. To think that we have developed a higher moral compass over that period is absurd.

People are people, and people are quite predictable when it comes to their response to a threat. If the USA did not currently have a nuclear arsenal, in the current geopolitical climate, I would certainly expect them to start developing one. It would be irresponsible not to. Hence, I really can't blame other countries for wanting just that.
It depends on which countries you are talking about. I believe world civilization is a reality. Whether 3rd world countries believe it or not, is the ultimate question, but it is here. I’m just glad I will see the beginning of world democracy in my lifetime.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 05:27 AM
Agreed - but it's like parents, between puffs on the cigarette, telling their kids not to start smoking. They might be hypocrites, but they would still have a valid point.

Nice analogy. :D

But really, what United States and other developing countries are thinking is silly. We can't expect undeveloped countries to always listen to developed ones. I agree with reduction of nuclear weapons, but only if it's through negotiation and action on both sides.

Saying that America can have nuclear weapons because we are responsible and can responsibly possess these weapons and Iran and North Korea for example can't, is basically saying the leaders of the country are inferior and childish. That's being biased against different governments. [-X

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:34 AM
Saying that America can have nuclear weapons because we are responsible and can responsibly possess these weapons and Iran and North Korea for example can't, is basically saying the leaders of the country are inferior and childish. That's being biased against different governments. [-X
Ok, let them have nuclear weapons. You will now be responsible for what happens next. Care to respond?

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 05:37 AM
I would rather no one had nukes. Since that obviously isn't the case, I would at least prefer that no one else gets them. Especially countries like North Korea and Iran. I would include Syria in my top three countries that I don't want to have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the USA has nukes. However we, and the other nuclear nations have shown that we can restrain ourselves from using them. I would say we have been pretty lucky that we have dealt with mostly reasonable people. Kim Jong-Il is not someone that seems very restrained or reasonable. How do you think he would act if he had the ability to really threaten the entire world with nuclear weapons? We cannot afford to level the playing field regarding nukes. A mistake in that arena would be the end.

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 05:39 AM
Saying that America can have nuclear weapons because we are responsible and can responsibly possess these weapons and Iran and North Korea for example can't, is basically saying the leaders of the country are inferior and childish. That's being biased against different governments. [-X

it would be biased if it wasn't based on past actions, but even then, so what?

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:43 AM
I would rather no one had nukes. Since that obviously isn't the case, I would at least prefer that no one else gets them. Especially countries like North Korea and Iran. I would include Syria in my top three countries that I don't want to have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the USA has nukes. However we, and the other nuclear nations have shown that we can restrain ourselves from using them. I would say we have been pretty lucky that we have dealt with mostly reasonable people. Kim Jong-Il is not someone that seems very restrained or reasonable. How do you think he would act if he had the ability to really threaten the entire world with nuclear weapons? We cannot afford to level the playing field regarding nukes. A mistake in that arena would be the end.
Let Brady Yoon answer the question. He needs to understand the importance of warfare and what it means to the world as a whole.

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 05:45 AM
I would rather no one had nukes. Since that obviously isn't the case, I would at least prefer that no one else gets them. Especially countries like North Korea and Iran. I would include Syria in my top three countries that I don't want to have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the USA has nukes. However we, and the other nuclear nations have shown that we can restrain ourselves from using them. I would say we have been pretty lucky that we have dealt with mostly reasonable people. Kim Jong-Il is not someone that seems very restrained or reasonable. How do you think he would act if he had the ability to really threaten the entire world with nuclear weapons? We cannot afford to level the playing field regarding nukes. A mistake in that arena would be the end.
Let Brady Yoon answer the question. He needs to understand the importance of warfare and what it means to the world as a whole.

Yeah, I started working on that before you posted. I would add that it isn't just warfare, but nuclear warfare that is the concern.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:47 AM
I would rather no one had nukes. Since that obviously isn't the case, I would at least prefer that no one else gets them. Especially countries like North Korea and Iran. I would include Syria in my top three countries that I don't want to have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the USA has nukes. However we, and the other nuclear nations have shown that we can restrain ourselves from using them. I would say we have been pretty lucky that we have dealt with mostly reasonable people. Kim Jong-Il is not someone that seems very restrained or reasonable. How do you think he would act if he had the ability to really threaten the entire world with nuclear weapons? We cannot afford to level the playing field regarding nukes. A mistake in that arena would be the end.
Let Brady Yoon answer the question. He needs to understand the importance of warfare and what it means to the world as a whole.

Yeah, I started working on that before you posted. I would add that it isn't just warfare, but nuclear warfare that is the concern.
Agreed.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 06:14 AM
Nuclear war isn't necessarily worse than regular war, and it definitely isn't always "the end" if by that you mean "the end of civilization". During the Cold War, two global antagonists with gigantic nuclear arsenals were staring each other down and risking Armageddon. That's not the case today. Now, obviously it's in each nation's interest to keep its enemies from getting nukes, but from a "world civilization" point of view, what would happen if North Korea used its nuclear weapons (which it already has, by the way) on, say, South Korea? Another Korean War would presumably result, just as it would if they attacked with conventional forces. But World War III? I doubt it.

Still, as I said, there's an obvious reason for the United States to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of our enemies: they might decide to use them on us.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 06:29 AM
Nuclear war isn't necessarily worse than regular war, and it definitely isn't always "the end" if by that you mean "the end of civilization". During the Cold War, two global antagonists with gigantic nuclear arsenals were staring each other down and risking Armageddon. That's not the case today. Now, obviously it's in each nation's interest to keep its enemies from getting nukes, but from a "world civilization" point of view, what would happen if North Korea used its nuclear weapons (which it already has, by the way) on, say, South Korea? Another Korean War would presumably result, just as it would if they attacked with conventional forces. But World War III? I doubt it.

Still, as I said, there's an obvious reason for the United States to try to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of our enemies: they might decide to use them on us.
From what I understand, nuclear war was once considered the end to civilization as we know it. Of course, that was before my time of 'understanding'. After taking college humanities, yes humanities, I saw up close the difficulty John F. Kennedy went through with the 'button'. It's scary to think about it now, but it was a reality not so long ago.

It's Brady Yoon and the majority of younger generation people that need convincing that nuclear is not good, when in certain hands. :-?

Enzp
2005-Feb-22, 06:33 AM
There sits Iran, nuclear Israel to the west, nuclear India and Pakistan to the east. Iraq until recently next door with possible nukes. Nearby former Soviet Bloc countries with nuclaer capability. The USA always in the neighborhood with more nukes than they could count at their disposal. All this in a part of the world where conflicts escalate to arms very quickly. COuple that with the US open hostility.

Why on earth would it be surprising that IRan would seek nuclear weapons? I would certainly be expecting them to pursue it.

Would I rather they didn't? Sure. DO I have a right to tell them not to? I am not so sure. I am not so sure their rights are to be based on my self interest, no matter how appealing that might be.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 06:37 AM
From what I understand, nuclear war was once considered the end to civilization as we know it.
I'm not sure whether I made my point clearly. I meant that while a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR would have been the end of everything, the type of nuclear war that might erupt today would not necessarily cause more than regional devastation---and not necessarily more devastation than a conventional war could cause, although it would happen a lot faster.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 06:41 AM
From what I understand, nuclear war was once considered the end to civilization as we know it.
I'm not sure whether I made my point clearly. I meant that while a nuclear war between the USA and the USSR would have been the end of everything, the type of nuclear war that might erupt today would not necessarily cause more than regional devastation---and not necessarily more devastation than a conventional war could cause, although it would happen a lot faster.
It would most certainly cause WWIII. Please, don't delude yourself.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 06:43 AM
There sits Iran, nuclear Israel to the west, nuclear India and Pakistan to the east. Iraq until recently next door with possible nukes. Nearby former Soviet Bloc countries with nuclaer capability. The USA always in the neighborhood with more nukes than they could count at their disposal. All this in a part of the world where conflicts escalate to arms very quickly. COuple that with the US open hostility.

Why on earth would it be surprising that IRan would seek nuclear weapons? I would certainly be expecting them to pursue it.

Would I rather they didn't? Sure. DO I have a right to tell them not to? I am not so sure. I am not so sure their rights are to be based on my self interest, no matter how appealing that might be.
Ditto to my above post.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 06:52 AM
Saying that America can have nuclear weapons because we are responsible and can responsibly possess these weapons and Iran and North Korea for example can't, is basically saying the leaders of the country are inferior and childish. That's being biased against different governments. [-X

it would be biased if it wasn't based on past actions, but even then, so what?

Remember that we're the only country that has ever used them in warfare. If that's "responsible use," something's wrong. That means that another country can say that too many of their men will die, so they can launch a nuke.

When another country asks us why they can't have a nuclear program, we'll respond that we are responsible enough to carry the responsibility. The truth is that any response we make is hypocritical and has no logic behind it, other than opinion.

Either we all get rid of them or other countries are allowed to have them, if they agree to a treaty that says they will never use them. Why don't we get rid of all of our nuclear weapons? It's unfortunate, but if it comes to the worst, we have the intentions of using it. Why do other countries want nuclear weapons? To use it as a deterrent.

I know I'm only a kid, but I know a couple things. The thing that doesn't make sense is that we will still possess nuclear weapons, on the basis that we are a responsible country. And this is based entirely on opinion.

I don't want this get out of hand. Just a friendly debate. :)

lti
2005-Feb-22, 06:55 AM
either no countries have nuclear weapons. and i dont see the us disarming anytime soon. or all countries have nuclear weapons. Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weopans as any other country. Luckily i come from nuclear free NZ :D

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 06:56 AM
Saying that America can have nuclear weapons because we are responsible and can responsibly possess these weapons and Iran and North Korea for example can't, is basically saying the leaders of the country are inferior and childish. That's being biased against different governments. [-X

it would be biased if it wasn't based on past actions, but even then, so what?

We're the only country that has ever used them in warfare.
And.... that was 50 years ago? What need is it now for a country to suddenly start building it? Are you avoiding me, Brady? :-?

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:02 AM
either no countries have nuclear weapons. and i dont see the us disarming anytime soon. or all countries have nuclear weapons. Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weopans as any other country. Luckily i come from nuclear free NZ :D
And you are what age? Just wondering.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:03 AM
Saying that America can have nuclear weapons because we are responsible and can responsibly possess these weapons and Iran and North Korea for example can't, is basically saying the leaders of the country are inferior and childish. That's being biased against different governments. [-X

it would be biased if it wasn't based on past actions, but even then, so what?

We're the only country that has ever used them in warfare.
And.... that was 50 years ago? What need is it now for a country to suddenly start building it? Are you avoiding me, Brady? :-?

No, I'm not. I was just away for a while and came back.

Countries feel like they need defense. They are being threatened and they know that having advanced technology (in this case nuclear weapons) would be useful as a deterrent. I know nuclear weapons are very bad, but isn't it a right for a nation to build its defenses?

Why are you being so unfriendly? :( I'm not trying to start a fight..

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:06 AM
either no countries have nuclear weapons. and i dont see the us disarming anytime soon. or all countries have nuclear weapons. Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weopans as any other country. Luckily i come from nuclear free NZ :D
And you are what age? Just wondering.

Don't get age confused with maturity. Anyone can understand political issues and discuss them, even young people.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:08 AM
I would rather no one had nukes. Since that obviously isn't the case, I would at least prefer that no one else gets them. Especially countries like North Korea and Iran. I would include Syria in my top three countries that I don't want to have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the USA has nukes. However we, and the other nuclear nations have shown that we can restrain ourselves from using them. I would say we have been pretty lucky that we have dealt with mostly reasonable people. Kim Jong-Il is not someone that seems very restrained or reasonable. How do you think he would act if he had the ability to really threaten the entire world with nuclear weapons? We cannot afford to level the playing field regarding nukes. A mistake in that arena would be the end.

Regarding the comment about Kim Jong, he knows as well as anyone that nuclear war means the end of civilization. He is not using it as something to attack with, he is using it as a defense mechanism. He may be a crazy guy, but he's not going to endanger the whole world.

That's just common sense. Everyone realizes the dangers of nuclear war. That's what prevents people from using nuclear weapons.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:10 AM
Countries feel like they need defense. They are being threatened and they know that having advanced technology (in this case nuclear weapons) would be useful as a deterrent. I know nuclear weapons are very bad, but isn't it a right for a nation to build its defenses?

Why are you being so unfriendly? :( I'm not trying to start a fight..
Countries do need to defend (big difference). Iran is not being defensive, they are building defense (in a bad way).

I'm not being unfriendly, nor wanting to start a fight. I just want you to see the bigger picture. The picture is bigger than you think. :o

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:13 AM
either no countries have nuclear weapons. and i dont see the us disarming anytime soon. or all countries have nuclear weapons. Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weopans as any other country. Luckily i come from nuclear free NZ :D
And you are what age? Just wondering.

Don't get age confused with maturity. Anyone can understand political issues and discuss them, even young people.
I will when it comes to understanding potential warfare. You betcha I will!

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:14 AM
Countries feel like they need defense. They are being threatened and they know that having advanced technology (in this case nuclear weapons) would be useful as a deterrent. I know nuclear weapons are very bad, but isn't it a right for a nation to build its defenses?

Why are you being so unfriendly? :( I'm not trying to start a fight..
Countries do need to defend (big difference). Iran is not being defensive, they are building defense (in a bad way).

I'm not being unfriendly, nor wanting to start a fight. I just want you to see the bigger picture. The picture is bigger than you think. :o

What are you talking about? If they're building defense, they're defending. Everyone knows that Iran has no intentions of striking first. Same with the US. We will never strike first with a nuclear weapon. Why can't we give other countries some trust? We're acting like a strict parent here. Saying that we're working for the good of the children, but not giving them rights.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:15 AM
either no countries have nuclear weapons. and i dont see the us disarming anytime soon. or all countries have nuclear weapons. Iran has just as much right to have nuclear weopans as any other country. Luckily i come from nuclear free NZ :D
And you are what age? Just wondering.

Don't get age confused with maturity. Anyone can understand political issues and discuss them, even young people.
I will when it comes to understanding potential warfare. You betcha I will!

And you're saying you know nuclear war inside out? That must mean anyone older than you can completely deny your opinions.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 07:17 AM
It would most certainly cause WWIII. Please, don't delude yourself.
How would it cause WWIII? How would it cause WWIII if India dropped an atom bomb on Pakistan?

A nuclear weapon is just an extremely large bomb with nasty aftereffects. It does not cause an inherently different reaction on the part of the "bombee" than a conventional attack does. War is war. During the Cold War, ANY direct military assault from one superpower against the other would have caused Armageddon. If the Soviet Union had sent tanks into West Germany, it would have been the end. We came that close to worldwide destruction simply because the two most powerful nations on Earth hated each other.

World War Two caused destruction unparalleled in history even before the atom bombs were dropped. If nuclear weapons had never been invented, and the USA and the USSR had fought WWIII with conventional armies, every city on Earth could have been reduced to rubble. It just would have taken longer.

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 07:18 AM
On the one hand, keeping other countries nuclear weapon free makes them easier to bully, sure. If that is the way one wants to look at it, ok. On the other hand, it should seem pretty obvious that the USA could have solved its problems with the application of nuclear force in a vast majority of cases. However, they don't, do they? That shows, to me, that the people in charge of the US's nukes understand the responsibility, yes. You would have us trust in others to show that same restraint, and I, personally, would rather not have to depend on the goodwill of a lunatic tyrant (NK) or the leaders of countries that, at least implicitly if not explicitly approve of terrorism.

It seems naive to say "either no one has them or everyone should have them." It boils down to trust and good sense. Allowing people to have nuclear weapons gives them the abilitiy to vastly affect our lives at their whim. I would rather that they don't have that option.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:22 AM
Countries feel like they need defense. They are being threatened and they know that having advanced technology (in this case nuclear weapons) would be useful as a deterrent. I know nuclear weapons are very bad, but isn't it a right for a nation to build its defenses?

Why are you being so unfriendly? :( I'm not trying to start a fight..
Countries do need to defend (big difference). Iran is not being defensive, they are building defense (in a bad way).

I'm not being unfriendly, nor wanting to start a fight. I just want you to see the bigger picture. The picture is bigger than you think. :o

What are you talking about? If they're building defense, they're defending. Everyone knows that Iran has no intentions of striking first. Same with the US. We will never strike first with a nuclear weapon. Why can't we give other countries some trust? We're acting like a strict parent here. Saying that we're working for the good of the children, but not giving them rights.
So, you anticipate them using nuclear warfare? :-k

And you're ok with that?

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:24 AM
On the one hand, keeping other countries nuclear weapon free makes them easier to bully, sure. If that is the way one wants to look at it, ok. On the other hand, it should seem pretty obvious that the USA could have solved its problems with the application of nuclear force in a vast majority of cases. However, they don't, do they? That shows, to me, that the people in charge of the US's nukes understand the responsibility, yes. You would have us trust in others to show that same restraint, and I, personally, would rather not have to depend on the goodwill of a lunatic tyrant (NK) or the leaders of countries that, at least implicitly if not explicitly approve of terrorism.

It seems naive to say "either no one has them or everyone should have them." It boils down to trust and good sense. Allowing people to have nuclear weapons gives them the abilitiy to vastly affect our lives at their whim. I would rather that they don't have that option.

That's a valid perspective, but you have to remember that the United States was considering using nuclear weapons at many times. Senator Barry Goldwater proposed using nuclear weapons in the Vietnam war, and John Dulles, Sec. of State said any attack against the US or its interests will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Sounds a lot like Armageddon.

And why are you forgetting that we DID use them twice!

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:25 AM
It would most certainly cause WWIII. Please, don't delude yourself.
How would it cause WWIII? How would it cause WWIII if India dropped an atom bomb on Pakistan?
Are you serious? You don't think what happens in another country is not directly affecting the world?

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:27 AM
Countries feel like they need defense. They are being threatened and they know that having advanced technology (in this case nuclear weapons) would be useful as a deterrent. I know nuclear weapons are very bad, but isn't it a right for a nation to build its defenses?

Why are you being so unfriendly? :( I'm not trying to start a fight..
Countries do need to defend (big difference). Iran is not being defensive, they are building defense (in a bad way).

I'm not being unfriendly, nor wanting to start a fight. I just want you to see the bigger picture. The picture is bigger than you think. :o

What are you talking about? If they're building defense, they're defending. Everyone knows that Iran has no intentions of striking first. Same with the US. We will never strike first with a nuclear weapon. Why can't we give other countries some trust? We're acting like a strict parent here. Saying that we're working for the good of the children, but not giving them rights.
So, you anticipate them using nuclear warfare? :-k

And you're ok with that?

When do I ever ay that? I'm saying that I don't see them using nuclear weapons until the last straw is passed, just like the policy that the US has followed.

The arguments you are proposing are starting to make me sick.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:29 AM
It would most certainly cause WWIII. Please, don't delude yourself.
How would it cause WWIII? How would it cause WWIII if India dropped an atom bomb on Pakistan?
Are you serious? You don't think what happens in another country is not directly affecting the world?

That's something I agree with... 8-[

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:29 AM
On the one hand, keeping other countries nuclear weapon free makes them easier to bully, sure. If that is the way one wants to look at it, ok. On the other hand, it should seem pretty obvious that the USA could have solved its problems with the application of nuclear force in a vast majority of cases. However, they don't, do they? That shows, to me, that the people in charge of the US's nukes understand the responsibility, yes. You would have us trust in others to show that same restraint, and I, personally, would rather not have to depend on the goodwill of a lunatic tyrant (NK) or the leaders of countries that, at least implicitly if not explicitly approve of terrorism.

It seems naive to say "either no one has them or everyone should have them." It boils down to trust and good sense. Allowing people to have nuclear weapons gives them the abilitiy to vastly affect our lives at their whim. I would rather that they don't have that option.

That's a valid perspective, but you have to remember that the United States was considering using nuclear weapons at many times. Senator Barry Goldwater proposed using nuclear weapons in the Vietnam war, and John Dulles, Sec. of State said any attack against the US or its interests will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Sounds a lot like Armageddon.

And why are you forgetting that we DID use them twice!
Oh, but we used them twice (for the same event). Who's making who sick?

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:31 AM
On the one hand, keeping other countries nuclear weapon free makes them easier to bully, sure. If that is the way one wants to look at it, ok. On the other hand, it should seem pretty obvious that the USA could have solved its problems with the application of nuclear force in a vast majority of cases. However, they don't, do they? That shows, to me, that the people in charge of the US's nukes understand the responsibility, yes. You would have us trust in others to show that same restraint, and I, personally, would rather not have to depend on the goodwill of a lunatic tyrant (NK) or the leaders of countries that, at least implicitly if not explicitly approve of terrorism.

It seems naive to say "either no one has them or everyone should have them." It boils down to trust and good sense. Allowing people to have nuclear weapons gives them the abilitiy to vastly affect our lives at their whim. I would rather that they don't have that option.

That's a valid perspective, but you have to remember that the United States was considering using nuclear weapons at many times. Senator Barry Goldwater proposed using nuclear weapons in the Vietnam war, and John Dulles, Sec. of State said any attack against the US or its interests will be dealt with swiftly and harshly. Sounds a lot like Armageddon.

And why are you forgetting that we DID use them twice!
Oh, but we used them twice (for the same event). Who's making who sick?

Ok, so what are you trying to say?

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:33 AM
This is why Phil discourages political topics. I see now.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 07:34 AM
It would most certainly cause WWIII. Please, don't delude yourself.
How would it cause WWIII? How would it cause WWIII if India dropped an atom bomb on Pakistan?
Are you serious? You don't think what happens in another country is not directly affecting the world?
Yes, I'm serious, and no, I don't think what happens in one country doesn't affect the rest of the world. But I don't see how a regional nuclear conflict would necessarity lead to worldwide destruction. You seem to know how that would happen, but I notice you haven't even attempted to explain it.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:35 AM
Ok, so what are you trying to say?
It's not okay for any country to have nuclear weapons, but it's been agreed by the POWERS that it's okay for some of them to have them.

If you're not on the LIST, then you can't have them. There's a reason for THIS.

JUST TRYING TO BE POLITE. :)

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:37 AM
Ok, so what are you trying to say?
It's not okay for any country to have nuclear weapons, but it's been agreed by the POWERS that it's okay for some of them to have them.

If you're not on the LIST, then you can't have them. There's a reason for THIS.

JUST TRYING TO BE POLITE. :)

Who are the Powers? Rich and developed countries who regard the third world countries and developing countries as immature and irresponsible!

The "list" is a very good way of saying rich and powerful countries who can boss others around. :roll:

Nations may be economically or militarily more powerful than others, but all nations are entitled to the same rights, and that goes for all. Not just democratic governments or developed nations.

Go tell the North Koreans or Iranians that they aren't entitled to defend their country.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:42 AM
It would most certainly cause WWIII. Please, don't delude yourself.
How would it cause WWIII? How would it cause WWIII if India dropped an atom bomb on Pakistan?
Are you serious? You don't think what happens in another country is not directly affecting the world?
Yes, I'm serious, and no, I don't think what happens in one country doesn't affect the rest of the world. But I don't see how a regional nuclear conflict would necessarity lead to worldwide destruction. You seem to know how that would happen, but I notice you haven't even attempted to explain it.
No offense, but I don't think this needs explaining. Do we really have to relive the 50's to understand what I am talking about?

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 07:42 AM
I want to talk about why the US used them and explain why I think that it was a bad thing in some respects and an abstractly good thing in others, but none of that matters. Let me say it again in case it isn't clear: The fact that the US has used nuclear weapons has no bearing at all. None.

The issue isn't even so much WWIII, although that is a distinct possibility. Imagine if you will, an Iran with nukes. I see two likely scenarios. First, they get angry at Israel and attack with nukes. Israel responds by launching their arsenal at every arab country in the world. Maybe it stops there, and that would be bad enough, but it probably doesn't. Sound fun? Second, Iran is at least sympathetic to the idea of terrorism. Their friends in Syria enjoy terrorism as well. Maybe Iran loses a warhead to them or covertly supplies them with one or several. That device could be used anywhere. Maybe it shows up in New York, or Florida or (again) Israel or Italy. Maybe it shows up in Orange County. Not much fun either, eh?

Then there is North Korea. It doesn't seem like Kim Jong-Il is the most stable of people. Who can say where he would like to launch a nuke. Probably at Japan, South Korea and the USA. Maybe just for fun he will throw a few at China, who knows.

I don't think these countries would save their nukes as a last resort weapon. But that isn't important either. Here is a better question, what do they need them for?

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 07:46 AM
Ok, so what are you trying to say?
It's not okay for any country to have nuclear weapons, but it's been agreed by the POWERS that it's okay for some of them to have them.

If you're not on the LIST, then you can't have them. There's a reason for THIS.

JUST TRYING TO BE POLITE. :)

Who are the Powers? Rich and developed countries who regard the third world countries and developing countries as immature and irresponsible!

The "list" is a very good way of saying rich and powerful countries who can boss others around. :roll:

Nations may be economically or militarily more powerful than others, but all nations are entitled to the same rights, and that goes for all. Not just democratic governments or developed nations.

Go tell the North Koreans or Iranians that they aren't entitled to defend their country.

Yes. So? And no one is telling the Iranians they cannot defend their countries, but, I am confused, how do you use a nuke defensively? Let me put it another way, having nukes is not a right. Period. This isn't a fantasy world where everyone behaves appropriately. This isn't a game. Letting everyone have nukes is a risk that is not worth taking. There is no point. Nukes are not defensive.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:46 AM
Ok, so what are you trying to say?
It's not okay for any country to have nuclear weapons, but it's been agreed by the POWERS that it's okay for some of them to have them.

If you're not on the LIST, then you can't have them. There's a reason for THIS.

JUST TRYING TO BE POLITE. :)

Who are the Powers? Rich and developed countries who regard the third world countries and developing countries as immature and irresponsible!

The "list" is a very good way of saying rich and powerful countries who can boss others around. :roll:

Nations may be economically or militarily more powerful than others, but all nations are entitled to the same rights, and that goes for all. Not just democratic governments or developed nations.

Go tell the North Koreans or Iranians that they aren't entitled to defend their country.
YES to your questions.

Okay, I'll go tell Korea, as I fly an airplane into its land delivering loved ones and cargo. Which, my company is doing.

Ok, I'll tell Iran, once they ix nay the uclear nay.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:49 AM
I don't think these countries would save their nukes as a last resort weapon. But that isn't important either. Here is a better question, what do they need them for?

They don't need it. Nuclear weapons aren't something a country needs. It's something they want. Imagine being a leader of a country like Iran or North Korea. They see all of the other countries having advanced technology and powerful weapons, and they think, why not us? If they can have it, why not us? They want to make their nation a military power. Our nation has the best military, other countries have hardly any. They know that nuclear technology will make them respected.

Question. What do we need them for? The answer is pretty much the same. It is the symbol of power and it is a useful deterrent. Every country wants power, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is saying that some countries deserve it and others don't, without giving them a chance.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 07:49 AM
No offense, but I don't think this needs explaining. Do we really have to relive the 50's to understand what I am talking about?
Yes offense. I post in good faith, and when I say I don't understand something, I mean it. If you continue to treat my objections as if they were no more serious than the pestering "why" of a six-year-old child, I will take it as an insult.

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 07:49 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 07:54 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.
There is also a very good argument to be made that only democratic countries should be allowed to have them. Assuming that most people can see the danger of using them, a democratic leader would be subject to more pressure not to.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:57 AM
No offense, but I don't think this needs explaining. Do we really have to relive the 50's to understand what I am talking about?
Yes offense. I post in good faith, and when I say I don't understand something, I mean it. If you continue to treat my objections as if they were no more serious than the pestering "why" of a six-year-old child, I will take it as an insult.
Ok, if you can't google the 190,000 hits that appeared, then I will! JFK on Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/11/17_carnegie_jfk-nuclear.htm), and I am not a democrat. But JFK demonstrated an ability you, nor I, will ever duplicate!

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 07:58 AM
I don't think these countries would save their nukes as a last resort weapon. But that isn't important either. Here is a better question, what do they need them for?

They don't need it. Nuclear weapons aren't something a country needs. It's something they want. Imagine being a leader of a country like Iran or North Korea. They see all of the other countries having advanced technology and powerful weapons, and they think, why not us? If they can have it, why not us? They want to make their nation a military power. Our nation has the best military, other countries have hardly any. They know that nuclear technology will make them respected.

Question. What do we need them for? The answer is pretty much the same. It is the symbol of power and it is a useful deterrent. Every country wants power, and there is nothing wrong with that.

What is wrong is saying that some countries deserve it and others don't, without giving them a chance.

Because in this game there are no second chances.

Heck, the USA doesn't even need them. If we got rid of them, do you think that NK and Iran would stop wanting them? I doubt it. They do not want them because we have them. They want them because, even without nukes, we are still more powerful than them.


They see all of the other countries having advanced technology and powerful weapons, and they think, why not us? If they can have it, why not us? They want to make their nation a military power.

That is not what they are thinking. They are thinking, If we had nukes, we could threaten people with them and get things from them. If we had nukes, people would give in to our childish demands and we wouldn't have to join the world community to get what we want. If we had nukes, think of the bargaining power we would have. We wouldn't have to lose in a conventional war, we could just escalate it into a nuclear war. No one will ever tell us no again! At least, that may be what they are thinking. Why find out the hard way?


Our nation has the best military, other countries have hardly any.

That is a good thing.


They know that nuclear technology will make them respected. Being nice and coming back to the 6 party talks would make the world respect NK a little more.


They don't need it.

Then that should be the end of the conversation. They don't need it, so they shouldn't have it. It would probably be dangerous for us to let them have it, so we should prevent them from getting it. Having nukes will not help them in any realistic way. Instead of spending money on a weapons program, Kim Jong should look to feeding his people. But he is crazy and power hungry, so his people die from starvation and disease. And this is the guy you want to have nukes.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 07:59 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.

Yes, that is a reasonable point. Nuclear weapons are obviously extremely dangerous. The less, the better. If the United States were the only country to know about it, no problem. We would keep it a secret and keep it safe. But that's too late. Other countries want to seek this new technology, and how can we stop them? The arguments we make don't make sense to them. Trust is the number one thing here. The leaders of those countries may be volatile, but they are people nonetheless. Those so called "rogue nations" will possess nuclear weapons someday, whether it is illegal or legal for them. My point is that we need to show to them that we trust them with the technology. They would sign a treaty and so forth.

Trust is a remarkable thing. The human mind isn't all bad. We need to respect other countries' leaders and regard them as equals.

And you can't really get rid of all nuclear weapons. Once technology comes, it stays.

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 08:01 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.
There is also a very good argument to be made that only democratic countries should be allowed to have them. Assuming that most people can see the danger of using them, a democratic leader would be subject to more pressure not to.

I would honestly prefer that no one had them. Since that is the case, I wish that only the USA had them. It doesn't frighten me when countries like the UK and France develop them. Pakistan and India is troubling but less of a global threat than Iran or NK.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 08:02 AM
Heck, the USA doesn't even need them. If we got rid of them, do you think that NK and Iran would stop wanting them? I doubt it. They do not want them because we have them. They want them because, even without nukes, we are still more powerful than them.

If we got rid of them, it would make other countries reconsider. The visions of peace don't make much sense when we still have a huge arsenal.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 08:04 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.
There is also a very good argument to be made that only democratic countries should be allowed to have them. Assuming that most people can see the danger of using them, a democratic leader would be subject to more pressure not to.

I would honestly prefer that no one had them. Since that is the case, I wish that only the USA had them. It doesn't frighten me when countries like the UK and France develop them. Pakistan and India is troubling but less of a global threat than Iran or NK.

Stereotype. Come on, Middle Easterns and Koreans aren't as evil as they look. I'm South Korean myself. :)

Maybe limit nuclear weapons to something like 1 per nation, incase of a global emergency (think Deep Impact)

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 08:05 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.

Yes, that is a reasonable point. Nuclear weapons are obviously extremely dangerous. The less, the better. If the United States were the only country to know about it, no problem. We would keep it a secret and keep it safe. But that's too late. Other countries want to seek this new technology, and how can we stop them? The arguments we make don't make sense to them. Trust is the number one thing here. The leaders of those countries may be volatile, but they are people nonetheless. Those so called "rogue nations" will possess nuclear weapons someday, whether it is illegal or legal for them. My point is that we need to show to them that we trust them with the technology. They would sign a treaty and so forth.

Trust is a remarkable thing. The human mind isn't all bad. We need to respect other countries' leaders and regard them as equals.

And you can't really get rid of all nuclear weapons. Once technology comes, it stays.
And it takes a person on the internet to teach you this? What exactly are you learning in your school? :-k

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 08:07 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.

Yes, that is a reasonable point. Nuclear weapons are obviously extremely dangerous. The less, the better. If the United States were the only country to know about it, no problem. We would keep it a secret and keep it safe. But that's too late. Other countries want to seek this new technology, and how can we stop them? The arguments we make don't make sense to them. Trust is the number one thing here. The leaders of those countries may be volatile, but they are people nonetheless. Those so called "rogue nations" will possess nuclear weapons someday, whether it is illegal or legal for them. My point is that we need to show to them that we trust them with the technology. They would sign a treaty and so forth.

Trust is a remarkable thing. The human mind isn't all bad. We need to respect other countries' leaders and regard them as equals.

And you can't really get rid of all nuclear weapons. Once technology comes, it stays.

But we can stop them. We put international pressure on them so that it is in their best interest to cooperate. We don't trust them with the technology. I don't trust them with it. Why should I? They don't need it. The only thing they can do with it is threaten other people. Why let them have that tool? The human mind may not be all bad, but that doesn't mean that there aren't human minds that are all bad. Imagine Hitler with nukes. Think he would have holed up in a bunker and blew his brains out? Why not flip a switch and take a few million people with you?

Here is the thing. Other countries have to trust that we will not use nukes frivolously. They do not have a choice. We have them and we don't use them. We do not have to trust other leaders to not use them, we can prevent them from having the option and so we do not have to rely on faith and treaties (which are just pieces of paper after all). It seems silly and naive to think that we should just hand over the ability to cause mass devestation in the name of playing fair. I mean, if that is the case, where do I go to pick up my nuke? You will just have to trust that I don't use it in a fit of pique.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 08:11 AM
Ok, if you can't google the 190,000 hits that appeared, then I will! JFK on Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/11/17_carnegie_jfk-nuclear.htm), and I am not a democrat. But JFK demonstrated an ability you, nor I, will ever duplicate!
Oh, sorry, never mind. If JFK said it, it will obviously remain correct and applicable till the end of time.

I have already explained why I don't think Cold War assumptions necessarily apply any more. If Kennedy quotes are all you can come up with to counter that, then I don't really need to say any more.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 08:12 AM
Musashi, your debating style is much more effective... kinda at a loss for words.

I'm thinking compromise would be the best course of action. Allow these countries one nuclear weapons, at also reduce our arsenal (we don't need hundreds). If they seem to be cooperating, then let them have a little more and let them be included in the "list" of nations.

Candy, all you've done is insulted all the young people on this board. :evil:

Musashi
2005-Feb-22, 08:14 AM
Here is another question. Why not keep the nuclear button in as few hands as possible?

Also, most, if not all of the countries that already have nukes have a stake in the world community. They have very good reasons to only use them as a last resort. Most, if not all of the countries that want them do not have these reasons.
There is also a very good argument to be made that only democratic countries should be allowed to have them. Assuming that most people can see the danger of using them, a democratic leader would be subject to more pressure not to.

I would honestly prefer that no one had them. Since that is the case, I wish that only the USA had them. It doesn't frighten me when countries like the UK and France develop them. Pakistan and India is troubling but less of a global threat than Iran or NK.

Stereotype. Come on, Middle Easterns and Koreans aren't as evil as they look. I'm South Korean myself. :)

Maybe limit nuclear weapons to something like 1 per nation, incase of a global emergency (think Deep Impact)

Global emergency? Hmmm... no. We have more than enough to handle a global emergency like that. What is one nuke going to to for NK in a case like that? Nothing.

Also, What stereotype? Where did I say Koreans were evil. Or middle-easterners? I don't remember typing that. Am I going senile? Perhaps you should look at the actions of the leaders of those countries.

I don't see any reason for the US to reduce their arsenal. I don't see any pressing need for these nations to have nuclear WEAPONS. None. THere doesn't need to be a compromise. As long as we are bargaining from the strong position, we should seek to keep it that way.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 08:18 AM
I guess you're a Repubican and I'm a Democrat. Peace through negotiation vs. peace through strength..

I don't think it's any use to keep going here. I'll call it a draw here. :)

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 08:18 AM
Ok, if you can't google the 190,000 hits that appeared, then I will! JFK on Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation (http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/11/17_carnegie_jfk-nuclear.htm), and I am not a democrat. But JFK demonstrated an ability you, nor I, will ever duplicate!
Oh, sorry, never mind. If JFK said it, it will obviously remain correct and applicable till the end of time.

I have already explained why I don't think Cold War assumptions necessarily apply any more. If Kennedy quotes are all you can come up with to counter that, then I don't really need to say any more.
They do when they are being compared to why this conversation is even being discussed. Look back on the previous posts.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 08:21 AM
I guess you're a Repubican and I'm a Democrat. Peace through negotiation vs. peace through strength..

I don't think it's any use to keep going here. I'll call it a draw here. :)
Actually, JFK's views are more Republican than Democrat. But OK.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 08:25 AM
Strangely, I agree with most of Bush's policies, except for the nuclear weapons talks. The War in Iraq is for a good reason, I think, and he is really seeing beyond what Democrats are doing right now.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 08:28 AM
Anyway, I have to go to sleep. Good discussion I guess. At least nobody got banned this time. :x (not yet at least)*shivers*

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 08:30 AM
Strangely, I agree with most of Bush's policies, except for the nuclear weapons talks. The War in Iraq is for a good reason, I think, and he is really seeing beyond what Democrats are doing right now.
I feel strongly in my heart that President George W. Bush is doing the right thing. Give it time, and you will see the good this president is doing. I would PROUDLY die for this country and my president!

Fram
2005-Feb-22, 11:27 AM
Could we leave politics, rhetorics and patronizing replies out of this discussion? I have a feeling that this thread is heading straight for a lock otherwise...

papageno
2005-Feb-22, 12:07 PM
That is not what they are thinking. They are thinking, If we had nukes, we could threaten people with them and get things from them. If we had nukes, people would give in to our childish demands and we wouldn't have to join the world community to get what we want. If we had nukes, think of the bargaining power we would have. We wouldn't have to lose in a conventional war, we could just escalate it into a nuclear war. No one will ever tell us no again! At least, that may be what they are thinking. Why find out the hard way?
You are describing them as schoolyard bullies ("If only I had a gun...").




They don't need it.
Then that should be the end of the conversation. They don't need it, so they shouldn't have it.
One could say the same about the US.
Think about it from the point of view of the those countries: the US give the impression of bullying them (even if it is unintentional).

Sheki
2005-Feb-22, 01:21 PM
Sheesh, I missed alot while I was away last night. That's quite a debate that's been worked up. Anyhow, way back at the top of page two Candy responded to one of my posts with some questions, to which I should respond, even though the intervening posts may prove this pointless (shrug):


Are you suggesting Iran is using Nuclear ‘power’ for warfare?

Certainly not. Perhaps you should review the previous posts. The discussion had shifted to the possibility (likelihood) that Iran's nuclear power program was a front for a weapons program, and whether or not such a weapons program was justified. I interpretted your comments "different issue" as trying to draw a distinction between the USA's past nuclear weapons programs, and Iran's probable activities today. In short, my comment was intended to compare the morality/necessity of the USA's nuclear weapons programs to the morality/necessity of any program that Iran might consider. My point was that the issue was not so terribly different.


It depends on which countries you are talking about. I believe world civilization is a reality. Whether 3rd world countries believe it or not, is the ultimate question, but it is here. I’m just glad I will see the beginning of world democracy in my lifetime.

The existence of a "world civilization" is irrelevant (not that you have provided any arguments for why it might be important). I fail to see how this affects the morality/necessity of Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would appear that you are suggesting that this "world democracy" is now beginning, and that the USA is somehow in charge of it. (And by extension has the moral authority to dictate policy to other countries). While I wouldn't necessarily be surprized to see such become reality someday, to accept it as a foregone conclusion at this point seems (to my opinion) somewhat delusional. Certainly the USA wields significant power in the world, but it is not through divine or moral right, it is by economic and/or political force - the same way that power has always been wielded.

Note that I am not saying that it is wrong for the USA to attempt to prevent its (real or percieved potential) enemies from obtaining better weapons technology. It would be irresponsible of the USA's government not to do everything in its power to secure its safety from a nuclear threat. However, it should be recognized that it is their economic and political might that enables them to pursue these ends, not some global social licence - as you seem to have suggested (I apologize if I have read too much into your remarks here).

Now, as always, might makes right. As such, it is to be expected that the USA would seek to limit nuclear proliferation. But by the same token it is to be expected that non-nuclear states that feel threatened would seek nuclear capability. If the USA has the wherewithal to stop them, well more power to them. Just don't expect me to volunteer for any resultant wars.

One final note: I take great exception to your comments regarding the age of those that have attempted to debate you. This is clearly a form of "argument from authority" - a type of logical fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html . An argument is accepted or rejected on its own merit, and not by the qualifications of the proponent. If you feel that grey hair better qualifies one to speak on a subject, that's fine. But it is insufficient to merely point at one's wrinkles as a refutation to an argument.

Such remarks could, were one to be particularly uncharitable, also be construed as ad hominem attacks http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html . As one could interpret what you have said as the equivalent of saying "of course you have those opinions, you are just a punk kid". [-X

Sheki

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:06 PM
Sheesh, I missed alot while I was away last night. That's quite a debate that's been worked up. Anyhow, way back at the top of page two Candy responded to one of my posts with some questions, to which I should respond, even though the intervening posts may prove this pointless (shrug):


Are you suggesting Iran is using Nuclear ‘power’ for warfare?

Certainly not. Perhaps you should review the previous posts. The discussion had shifted to the possibility (likelihood) that Iran's nuclear power program was a front for a weapons program, and whether or not such a weapons program was justified. I interpretted your comments "different issue" as trying to draw a distinction between the USA's past nuclear weapons programs, and Iran's probable activities today. In short, my comment was intended to compare the morality/necessity of the USA's nuclear weapons programs to the morality/necessity of any program that Iran might consider. My point was that the issue was not so terribly different.


It depends on which countries you are talking about. I believe world civilization is a reality. Whether 3rd world countries believe it or not, is the ultimate question, but it is here. I’m just glad I will see the beginning of world democracy in my lifetime.

The existence of a "world civilization" is irrelevant (not that you have provided any arguments for why it might be important). I fail to see how this affects the morality/necessity of Iran developing nuclear weapons. It would appear that you are suggesting that this "world democracy" is now beginning, and that the USA is somehow in charge of it. (And by extension has the moral authority to dictate policy to other countries). While I wouldn't necessarily be surprized to see such become reality someday, to accept it as a foregone conclusion at this point seems (to my opinion) somewhat delusional. Certainly the USA wields significant power in the world, but it is not through divine or moral right, it is by economic and/or political force - the same way that power has always been wielded.

Note that I am not saying that it is wrong for the USA to attempt to prevent its (real or percieved potential) enemies from obtaining better weapons technology. It would be irresponsible of the USA's government not to do everything in its power to secure its safety from a nuclear threat. However, it should be recognized that it is their economic and political might that enables them to pursue these ends, not some global social licence - as you seem to have suggested (I apologize if I have read too much into your remarks here).

Now, as always, might makes right. As such, it is to be expected that the USA would seek to limit nuclear proliferation. But by the same token it is to be expected that non-nuclear states that feel threatened would seek nuclear capability. If the USA has the wherewithal to stop them, well more power to them. Just don't expect me to volunteer for any resultant wars.

One final note: I take great exception to your comments regarding the age of those that have attempted to debate you. This is clearly a form of "argument from authority" - a type of logical fallacy http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html . An argument is accepted or rejected on its own merit, and not by the qualifications of the proponent. If you feel that grey hair better qualifies one to speak on a subject, that's fine. But it is insufficient to merely point at one's wrinkles as a refutation to an argument.

Such remarks could, were one to be particularly uncharitable, also be construed as ad hominem attacks http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html . As one could interpret what you have said as the equivalent of saying "of course you have those opinions, you are just a punk kid". [-X

Sheki
If I offended the young, then I apologize. It just seems to me that the young have a lot to say, but come to election day - they seemed to have just disappeared. Where were they? :-?

I certainly don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. You may give others the impression that I called people 'punk kid'. Not very nice. :(

farmerjumperdon
2005-Feb-22, 05:07 PM
Hail you Sheki. I'd be interested to hear why Candy thinks we are on the brink of world democracy. Been working on it for 1000's of years and are nowhere close. Wars and other assorted conflicts over resources spring up just as fast as they ever have. Genocidal attacks occur more often and in more places than ever before. In what way are we moving closer to world democracy? Because it's our turn to carry the big stick? And since we've got the big stick, we must be "right." This being "right" and making everyone who disagrees "wrong" is exactly the root of all conflict. That attitude and a victory ensure only one thing, . . . the next conflict.

It appears to me, as a student of history and human behavior, that where we are at is just the current cycle of imperialism. It's our turn to be The Emperor, and so why not make the most of our turn? We won't be Emperor forever, we'll go down just as every other Emperor has - just a matter of time given our current behavior. I mean really, we've only been around for 200 years, and only been on top of the heap for 50. Others ruled for centuries before being taken down. Does anybody really think that now that we are on top, the world will go static and the hierarchy will never again change? COME ON!!!! How egocentric (and ethnocentric) can you get?

I see on the horizon a great awakening in the East. The sheer volume and momentum will be hard to stop. The financial clout will eventually simply overwhelm the rest of the world. I give it 3 or 4 decades at most, possibly less given the constantly increasing rate of change. It would be great to still be alive to see the changes. I hope the violence will not be too much for civilization to survive.

I had at one time been relatively optimistic that we (USA) would be a different kind of ruler, and possibly set the tone for a new world order. But we've succombed to the seductions of power, just like all past powers. We take what we want, by economic or military force, than gape slack-jawed when we come under attack. I think we've botched our turn already; no coalition of significant size and power can be salvaged, based on the level of mistrust we now garner.

I think it will be China's turn next.

This has been a very interesting thread.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 05:26 PM
If I offended the young, then I apologize. It just seems to me that the young have a lot to say, but come to election day - they seemed to have just disappeared. Where were they? :-?
In the voting booth. The young turned out in quite high numbers this past election. But their elders also came out in force, so the youth vote was no bigger a share of the total than in past elections.

(As a young voter who went door-to-door on election night trying to get people to the polls, I have a certain sensitivity to this common misapprehension. The news media, unfortunately, are made up mostly of "word people" who tend to screw up statistics.)

farmerjumperdon
2005-Feb-22, 05:29 PM
Oh yes, the solution. I'll post it now before someone asks.

If there is a way for humanity to escape the cycle of violence, it will only come through establishment of a society based on trust instead of power. When being trusted becomes more valuable than being number 1, the door will be open for a peaceful Earth (or world democracy or whatever).

We can no longer be the catalyst. We have only repeated history and have gone too far down the road of behaving like a typical world power to ever recover the level of trust needed to forge a new world order. We will keep trying to forge an order based on power, but that will only beget others to acquire more power than us, which they will, and we will tumble.

What's needed is for a group to come to the precipice of having the power, and then not to use it. That will take a very special mix of character attributes, or principles. Chief among them will be the belief that all people be treated fairly and equally. That has never, ever, ever, ever happened. From the most blatant example of slavery, to the subtle way people language their differences (including on this board), groups of people repeatedly show that they are not capable of treating all other humans as equal.

Some group, some day, some where is going to have to show that they have the power to abuse, and then not do it. If that ever happens, and if the rest of the world can possibly believe it, we will have the makings of a civilization based on trust instead of power. If a person thinks that can never happen (because of genetic based greed, or because no one would ever want to, or just because it sounds corny), then they are relegated to cycles of violence that go on ad infinitum. This much is proven by history.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:33 PM
I'd be interested to hear why Candy thinks we are on the brink of world democracy. Been working on it for 1000's of years and are nowhere close.
We have computers now. We didn't have those 100 years ago.

I don't think we can compare the past to the present any longer - nice concept while it lasted, though.

Communication is so much easier and faster for 'world' democracy.

The World is shifting to a paradigm of total technology.

The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition.

It's not about who is the great leader, even though people feel the need to compete. This outdated concept will soon pass, too.

We should all be working toward the same peaceful goal.

We need to move beyond petty dominance and focus on our future generations.

These are my observations, so I don't have "links" or "quotes" to back up original thoughts. :D

[edited for grammar and last minute thought]

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:42 PM
If I offended the young, then I apologize. It just seems to me that the young have a lot to say, but come to election day - they seemed to have just disappeared. Where were they? :-?
In the voting booth. The young turned out in quite high numbers this past election. But their elders also came out in force, so the youth vote was no bigger a share of the total than in past elections.

(As a young voter who went door-to-door on election night trying to get people to the polls, I have a certain sensitivity to this common misapprehension. The news media, unfortunately, are made up mostly of "word people" who tend to screw up statistics.)
From what I remember, being an elderly voter and all, the younger's percentage of voting was slightly higher than previous elections. Even though, advertisers spent millions targeting our youth.

BTW, I still have my I VOTED sticker hanging on my refrigerator. I'm darn proud of it, too. :D

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 05:47 PM
The World is shifting to a paradigm of total technology.

The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition.
If you're talking about robotic war, I think the human factor will persist. Many people have described a future where machines do all the fighting and no one gets hurt. I don't think that makes strategic sense; I think it will be more a matter of machines attacking people. Why attack your enemy's robots if you can attack his people instead?

Or if you meant that war, as a human factor, will slowly disappear, I sure hope so, but I haven't noticed it happening yet.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 05:49 PM
From what I remember, being an elderly voter and all, the younger's percentage of voting was slightly higher than previous elections. Even though, advertisers spent millions targeting our youth.
Do you mean the percentage of youth who voted, or the percentage of the voters who were young?

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:51 PM
The World is shifting to a paradigm of total technology.

The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition.
If you're talking about robotic war, I think the human factor will persist. Many people have described a future where machines do all the fighting and no one gets hurt. I don't think that makes strategic sense; I think it will be more a matter of machines attacking people. Why attack your enemy's robots if you can attack his people instead?

Or if you meant that war, as a human factor, will slowly disappear, I sure hope so, but I haven't noticed it happening yet.
NO WAR! WAR will be something our future generations will only read about on a futuristic 'eduweb' link. :wink:

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 05:54 PM
From what I remember, being an elderly voter and all, the younger's percentage of voting was slightly higher than previous elections. Even though, advertisers spent millions targeting our youth.
Do you mean the percentage of youth who voted, or the percentage of the voters who were young?
What's the difference? :-k

I mean the age group ~18-25. Sorry, I am going from memory, but I believe that is the age group folks like MTV were targeting.

Nicolas
2005-Feb-22, 05:55 PM
I'd be interested to hear why Candy thinks we are on the brink of world democracy. Been working on it for 1000's of years and are nowhere close.
We have computers now. We didn't have those 100 years ago.

I don't think we can compare the past to the present any longer - nice concept while it lasted, though.

Communication is so much easier and faster for 'world' democracy.

The World is shifting to a paradigm of total technology.

The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition.

It's not about who is the great leader, even though people feel the need to compete.

We should all being working toward the same peaceful goal.

We need to move beyond petty dominance and focus on our future generations.

These are my observations, so I don't have "links" or "quotes" to back up original thoughts. :D

EDITED TO ADD: seriously toseeked while responding here, but I won't change it as this is my opinion, though somewhat made redundant by other replies and clarifications

Computer Communications (I think you mean the internet mainly by that) have negative effects as well. I don't think we need to count too much on it for world peace, though it certainly affects our lives. While the BABB unites people over the world in quite a peaceful environment, on other webplaces on the internet hate increases, or people come together as a group with as goal to remain a separate group in the world to say the least. So I don't think internet can be seen as a general catalysator of world peace.

The paradigm of total technology (and the linked Utopia thoughts) have long been proven wrong. technology does notsolve all our problems.

Indeed we should all be working towards peace. You won't hear me discussing the positive effects of world peace:) (though one could argue that conflicts have pro's as well, but I won't go into that).

"The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition." I thought that already happened at the start of WW1? Done with heroic knights, in comes the nameless soldier. Or are you talking about robot/internet warfare? That still includes people to decide against who's robots to fight, so the human factor remains (unless you really got outthere future visions). ONly the casualties will disappear in that reasoning.

my 2cts

Nicolas
2005-Feb-22, 06:02 PM
From what I remember, being an elderly voter and all, the younger's percentage of voting was slightly higher than previous elections. Even though, advertisers spent millions targeting our youth.
Do you mean the percentage of youth who voted, or the percentage of the voters who were young?
What's the difference? :-k

I mean the age group ~18-25. Sorry, I am going from memory, but I believe that is the age group folks like MTV were targeting.

MTV starts targetting way below 18.

And their is a BIG difference. Let's take it extreme:
Suppose there are 250.000.000 americans who can vote, from which 70.000.000 young people (I just make numbers up).

Say You've got 10 voters in total.
8 of them were young. That are 80% young voters, but only 0.00001% of young people voted.
Now say you've got 180.000.000 voters. 60.000.000 voters were young. That are 33% young voters. But about 90% of young people voted!

You see the difference?

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 06:35 PM
MTV starts targetting way below 18.

And their is a BIG difference. Let's take it extreme:
Suppose there are 250.000.000 americans who can vote, from which 70.000.000 young people (I just make numbers up).

Say You've got 10 voters in total.
8 of them were young. That are 80% young voters, but only 0.00001% of young people voted.
Now say you've got 180.000.000 voters. 60.000.000 voters were young. That are 33% young voters. But about 90% of young people voted!

You see the difference?
I see you making my head hurt. :P

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 06:48 PM
USA Today: Big voter turnout seen among young adults (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-11-08-under30_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA)

Under-30 voters came through in big numbers this year, with more than 20 million casting a ballot for president, researchers found. The turnout bested their 2000 showing by more than nine percentage points and heartened activists who worked to get young voters to the polls.

. . .

Turnout increased among other age groups, too, leaving young voters with roughly the same proportion of the total electorate nationally as in 2000. But activists who were part of an unprecedented effort to get out the vote — from Rock the Vote and Declare Yourself to the Youth Vote Coalition — felt that didn't detract from their accomplishment.
(Of couse, like many news stories, this one talks about percentage points as if they were an absolute measure. Numbers are really not the media's strong point.)

farmerjumperdon
2005-Feb-22, 06:59 PM
Candy: We have computers now. We didn't have those 100 years ago.

How is that relevant? Again, egocentric thinking that somehow some material item makes us invulnerable. 100 years ago they probably said "Now we have steam engines. So what?

Candy: I don't think we can compare the past to the present any longer - nice concept while it lasted, though.

By what logic can we no longer compare the past to the present? Is there some magic bullet that suddenly has made the past irrelevant? If so, why do we keep repeating it?

Candy: Communication is so much easier and faster for 'world' democracy.

It's also so much easier and faster for people to take advantage of others. Communication has not helped those being massacred in Darfur. Faster communication means faster propoganda too.

Candy: The World is shifting to a paradigm of total technology.

Again, what's the relevance?

Candy: The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition.

War is not about tradition, it is about greed. Almost all wars have been about greed. And what's the difference if war is fought by people or people running machines?

Candy: It's not about who is the great leader, even though people feel the need to compete. This outdated concept will soon pass, too.

Based on what? Hope and desire? Wishing it away?

Candy: We should all be working toward the same peaceful goal.

Agreed, so why don't we? Rhetorical question, we don't because we all want our turn at the top.

Candy: We need to move beyond petty dominance and focus on our future generations.

Agreed, but again, we are not. And it is not an accident. We behave the way we do as a matter of choice.

Candy: These are my observations, so I don't have "links" or "quotes" to back up original thoughts.

OK, but you did not refute a single point I made about the current situation and where it looks like we're headed based on the path we are on. Objective observation and extrapolation based on current behavior does not suggest our behavior as a civilization is changing. Yes, we have computers, and fast communication, and machines that can do more and more of the dirty work. How do you logically deduce from there that things will suddenly change? The method of execution keeps evolving (which can also be predicted from studying history), but the behaviors in general remain constant.

I just heard something on the radio about a high ranking officer talking about knocking out satellites as a means of protecting national security. Nuetral country satellites too, because they can be used by the enemy.

Yes, we are really making progress.

(I'll figure out the quote buttons later).

pghnative
2005-Feb-22, 07:10 PM
Regarding the building of a nuclear reactor when they have vast stores or oil/natural gas --- perhaps they are trying to save the world from AAGW? Maybe they've read Glom's "Freedom for fission" thread?

My 2 cents worth is that it is perfectly understandable why Iran would pursue nuclear weapons. Security. Does anyone here think that North Korea would EVER be invaded so long as it is thought that they have nukes? Does anyone here think that Iraq would have been invaded if they had had nukes?

And it's completely understandable why the rest of the world would prefer Iran not have nukes. Security. The more countries that there are with nuclear weapons, the more likely that one might be used.

That's it, plain and simple. All other arguments are just political grandstanding. They have a good reason to want it --- we have a good reason for them not to want it. The only win-win is to convince them (some would say be force, but hopefully by negotiation) that they can get other things they want if they stop pursuing nukes.

Of course, the classic tactic would be to agree with that, then once they get those other things, they can start pursuing nukes again to try to get more.

This isn't a condemnation of Iranians --- this is how humans work.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:31 PM
From farmerjumperdon post:


Candy: We have computers now. We didn't have those 100 years ago.

How is that relevant? Again, egocentric thinking that somehow some material item makes us invulnerable. 100 years ago they probably said "Now we have steam engines. So what?
Good point, but I think 100 years from now, we’ll be still talking via computers. What’s a steam engine again?


Candy: I don't think we can compare the past to the present any longer - nice concept while it lasted, though.

By what logic can we no longer compare the past to the present? Is there some magic bullet that suddenly has made the past irrelevant? If so, why do we keep repeating it?
That’s my point, we won’t continue to repeat it. Time will tell.


Candy: Communication is so much easier and faster for 'world' democracy.

It's also so much easier and faster for people to take advantage of others. Communication has not helped those being massacred in Darfur. Faster communication means faster propoganda too.
Again, this computer communication is new. It will eventually get regulated to deter ‘hate’, etc…


Candy: The World is shifting to a paradigm of total technology.

Again, what's the relevance?
The human factor of a need for war will decrease with technology. There’s a much greater need for world survival, and it doesn’t involve petty fighting.


Candy: The human factor of war will slowly disappear - it's no longer about historical tradition.

War is not about tradition, it is about greed. Almost all wars have been about greed. And what's the difference if war is fought by people or people running machines?
I said historical tradition. Include greed if you want. Include religion if you want. Just don’t take what I say out of context.


Candy: It's not about who is the great leader, even though people feel the need to compete. This outdated concept will soon pass, too.

Based on what? Hope and desire? Wishing it away?
Sure, if that’s what it takes. But I would base it on reality. I don’t think I’m better than someone else based on being an American. I know that my heritage is traced back to the same heritage as you. We are the same.


Candy: We should all be working toward the same peaceful goal.

Agreed, so why don't we? Rhetorical question, we don't because we all want our turn at the top.
I believe we are working toward the same goal. There are just a few others living to far in the past.


Candy: We need to move beyond petty dominance and focus on our future generations.

Agreed, but again, we are not. And it is not an accident. We behave the way we do as a matter of choice.
Behavior is changing. I’ve seen it in my lifetime. The man is no longer the bread winner. I make more money than 95% percent of the men I date and/or know. I see men cry. I see men cook. I see behavior changing in almost everything that was once dominated by the male. This is just an example of what I am talking about as a whole.


Candy: These are my observations, so I don't have "links" or "quotes" to back up original thoughts.

OK, but you did not refute a single point I made about the current situation and where it looks like we're headed based on the path we are on. Objective observation and extrapolation based on current behavior does not suggest our behavior as a civilization is changing. Yes, we have computers, and fast communication, and machines that can do more and more of the dirty work. How do you logically deduce from there that things will suddenly change? The method of execution keeps evolving (which can also be predicted from studying history), but the behaviors in general remain constant.
I have no idea of what you are talking about. I am giving my personal views. I am going by what I see.


I just heard something on the radio about a high ranking officer talking about knocking out satellites as a means of protecting national security. Nuetral country satellites too, because they can be used by the enemy.

Yes, we are really making progress.
I guess I will have to see this to believe it.

I don't think I need to go into great detail to get across simple thoughts and ideas. Perhaps, more people should practice being less complicated. :D

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-22, 07:45 PM
I believe we are working toward the same goal. There are just a few others living to far in the past.
How many of those "others" are Americans?

Nicolas
2005-Feb-22, 07:52 PM
Candy,


I believe we are working toward the same goal. There are just a few others living to far in the past.

Candy, dou you really believe working towards peace is something from these days, that wasn't done in the past?


Again, this computer communication is new. It will eventually get regulated to deter ‘hate’, etc…
And do you believe regulation will deter the existence of hate?


The human factor of a need for war will decrease with technology. There’s a much greater need for world survival, and it doesn’t involve petty fighting.
Do you mean that you think that technology will bring us to the edge of selfdestruction (I'm not talking nukes here, it can be things like pollution as well), and that saving ourselves will bring us together? If that is you reasoning, why won't it be the trigger for some groups to kill all the rest and finally get complete power? If you meant that technological advances will lead to peace by themselves, can you explain how? This prediction has been made numerous times in the past, and history always proved it wrong. Please further explain the meaning of this quote.


Behavior is changing. I’ve seen it in my lifetime. The man is no longer the bread winner. I make more money than 95% percent of the men I date and/or know. I see men cry. I see men cook. I see behavior changing in almost everything that was once dominated by the male. This is just an example of what I am talking about as a whole.
Behaviour is changing indeed. Do you think equal rights thoughts will lead to world peace? Don't you see women able to be boodthirsty dictators? Or both men and women? Acceptance of women includes the possibility to "double the troops" for evil purposes as well...

We're not trying to be complicated, we just ask further clarifications of your thoughts, for the sake of the discussion. Letting someone work out his/her thoughts is very interesting for other people as well.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 07:58 PM
I believe we are working toward the same goal. There are just a few others living to far in the past.
How many of those "others" are Americans?
Probably a lot, that's why I called them others to discontinue labeling.

Candy
2005-Feb-22, 08:28 PM
Candy, do you really believe working towards peace is something from these days, that wasn't done in the past?
Now, that you mention it, yes, I do think it is different from the past. With so much more communication out there, people are actually making decisions for themselves. It's a slow process, but I see some progress.


And do you believe regulation will deter the existence of hate?
Eventually, yes. It sounds sad to have to be regulated, but it seems necessary to filter out certain beliefs deemed immoral by the majority.


Do you mean that you think that technology will bring us to the edge of selfdestruction (I'm not talking nukes here, it can be things like pollution as well), and that saving ourselves will bring us together? If that is you reasoning, why won't it be the trigger for some groups to kill all the rest and finally get complete power? If you meant that technological advances will lead to peace by themselves, can you explain how? This prediction has been made numerous times in the past, and history always proved it wrong. Please further explain the meaning of this quote.
I mean technology in the sense of computers. We've never had this kind of technology before, so I don't believe we can compare it to past history. This technology is so fresh and fast paced, I don't believe anyone can remotely guess our future's outcome. Not even me. I just am giving my two cents.


Behaviour is changing indeed. Do you think equal rights thoughts will lead to world peace? Don't you see women able to be bloodthirsty dictators? Or both men and women? Acceptance of women includes the possibility to "double the troops" for evil purposes as well...
That's just it, I don't see a dominator in our future. I don't see war.


We're not trying to be complicated, we just ask further clarifications of your thoughts, for the sake of the discussion. Letting someone work out his/her thoughts is very interesting for other people as well.
Is what I am saying helping you to understand my thoughts? 8-[

Nicolas
2005-Feb-22, 09:05 PM
Yes Candy, it is helping me to understand your thoughts.

Some more questions:
Why do you think people now actually make decisions for themselves (and didn't in the past). Because they have access to more information? What information you got from the web that altered your feelings about peace? I'm not saying that information is a bad thing, but I don't the world peace necessarily needs things like the internet. Wars weren't started because the internet didn't exist. Things like Kuklux neither. It was based on a belief that did not need no information. Try convincing a die-hard hoax believer, it's essentially the same problem. :D.

And do you think that the fact that we filter out beliefs deemed immoral by the mature from the internet will actually stop these beliefs from existing? Would forbidding them stop them from existing? I think only convincing people can do that.

I still don't see how computers (communication) will stop the "need" for war and make world peace by itself. The internet unites those who want to be united, but certainly not everyone in 1 single group.

Just some more thoughts (off topic but interesting enough I hope 8-[ ).

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-22, 11:02 PM
Eventually, yes. It sounds sad to have to be regulated, but it seems necessary to filter out certain beliefs deemed immoral by the majority.

Are you trying to imply that human emotions must be regulated? This is becoming like Big Brother.

Whatever you do, you don't regulate human emotions. For someone who is excited about world democracy, your ideas are authoritarian.

paulie jay
2005-Feb-23, 01:25 AM
Quote:
Candy: I don't think we can compare the past to the present any longer - nice concept while it lasted, though.

By what logic can we no longer compare the past to the present? Is there some magic bullet that suddenly has made the past irrelevant? If so, why do we keep repeating it?

That’s my point, we won’t continue to repeat it. Time will tell.

"...Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it..." - George Santayana.
I think in many respects we must continue to compare the past to the present, even if it is soley to ensure that we won't continue to repeat it.

Just an idle thought.

As much as I'd like to jump up and down about the issue of the USA playing global policeman, or that no nukes is good nukes, or that it's not fair on Iran, or that the USA is actually responsible so it's ok for them to have nukes, or that Iran can't be trusted... in the end none of that matters much because I am also a realist. My ideals of what is right or what is fair won't change the reality - some countries will always get their own way. It doesn't mean that I like it, but there you go. And at the end of the day I'd just rather that the world's net nuclear weaponry was less than it currently is.

Edited for clarity

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-23, 01:30 AM
"...Those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it..." - George Santayana.
Isn't it "Those who do not learn their history are condemned to repeat it"?

paulie jay
2005-Feb-23, 01:33 AM
I suppose that there are several versions of essentially the same message!

Musashi
2005-Feb-23, 01:34 AM
Iran or North Korea gets nuclear weapons:

Pros: None.

Cons: Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used.

Hmm. Doesn't seem balanced.

Candy
2005-Feb-23, 01:43 AM
This will be way off topic.



Eventually, yes. It sounds sad to have to be regulated, but it seems necessary to filter out certain beliefs deemed immoral by the majority.

Are you trying to imply that human emotions must be regulated? This is becoming like Big Brother.

Whatever you do, you don't regulate human emotions. For someone who is excited about world democracy, your ideas are authoritarian.
The way you phrased your question, I will have to say yes. If regulations are placed on, for example, hate and child pornagraphy websites, then I am not opposed.

------------------------------------

As I think back over the years, I have always been taught how I am different from everyone else. Meaning, I was taught how countries, cultures, and beliefs are different from mine. "Mine" meaning, white and christian. These are memories from my education, church, and parents. The African Americans were taught their differences from mine, and so on.

I was never taught how much I am like everyone, until I got older. I had to figure it out for myself, though, with books (library or bookstore) and the internet (over the past few years).

I don't think much has changed in the educational system, even my college teaches only our differences. Yet, the school prides themselves on their diverse enrollment figures. No wonder, kids 'segregate' themselves with seating or friendships.

In my BUSN410 course, we were asked to break into teams (groups of two). Can you guess what happened next? I just realized this today, too, and I was guilty of 'segregating' myself without even thinking. Here's the breakdown:

Team 1 - African Americans
Team 2 - Caucasian
Team 3 - Middle Eastern
Team 4 - Caucasian
Team 5 - Hispanic
Team 6 - Caucasian
Team 7 - Asian
Team 8 - Indian
Team 9 - Caucasian

I am now sad to think not much has changed in over 30 years, with regards to education. It's like we are programmed to only see our differences, perhaps, that is why we keep repeating history. :(

[edited to change word]

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-23, 03:28 AM
The way you phrased your question, I will have to say yes. If regulations are placed on, for example, hate and child pornagraphy websites, then I am not opposed.

You said beliefs, not actions.

I don't understand where your ideas are coming from. When you said yes if you believed regulation would deter hate, I don't know what to say. If you seriously think forcing people to think different thoughts will bring about peace, I can't say much.


Good point, but I think 100 years from now, we’ll be still talking via computers. What’s a steam engine again?

You can't predict the future. Nobody can.

W.F. Tomba
2005-Feb-23, 03:54 AM
Good point, but I think 100 years from now, we’ll be still talking via computers. What’s a steam engine again?

You can't predict the future. Nobody can.
Actually, a steam engine is what those Iranians are trying to build. Funny thing, though---they want to use nuclear fission to heat the water! Now why would they want to do that, I wonder? :-k

Enzp
2005-Feb-23, 09:58 AM
You can't legislate morality.

I would agree we see more men crying and women with careers, but those are superficial changes. If a family is not making enough money, it doesn't matter which spouse is the breadwinner. Women with careers can embezzle or defraus as easily as men with careers. Sensitive men who cry will still envy the neighbor's lifestyle, go nuts and shoot up the workplace, and do all the other things non sensitive men do.

Human nature will not be changing any time soon. There will always be greed and avarice. People will want things they don't have. Religious fundamentalist fanatics will not fade away because instant communications become available - the internet. That just becomes a tool for their agenda. People will always be self righteous, they will feel superior, they will decide they should be in charge. There will always be debate between those who put the individual first and those who put the state first.

Brady mentioned that first strike with nuclear weapons is something the USA would NEVER do. (And I will overlook WW2 as it was a fight already underway) Unfortunately every time we discuss making "no first use" our national policy, the government refuses to sign it. They will not promise no first use even when asked. They want to keep the option open. We won't even sign the landmine ban. The USA will not promise not to use and deploy landmines. The administration says torture does not violate international standards and is OK.

We may be the arbiters of all that is decent and moral, but our hands are dirty. WE export "democracy" but reserve the right to abuse it.

Wars, nuclear or otherwise are not going to go away.

Sheki
2005-Feb-23, 02:02 PM
Actually, a steam engine is what those Iranians are trying to build. Funny thing, though---they want to use nuclear fission to heat the water!

Dang, you beat me to the punch! However, I was also going to point out that it would likely still be steam engines that will be powering a goodly percentage of those computers in a hundred years time. Actually, I strongly suspect that computing power will be quite distributed by that time - to the point that you probably wouldn't be able to point at a particular device and say "that's my computer". Rather, your "computer" would be housed in various places (your clothes, sunglasses, desk, walls, appliances, etc) all interoperating to provide the computing services you need. (But I digress).

Hey, I think that's 100 posts for me - been working on that since 2002.

Sheki

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-23, 05:05 PM
You can't legislate morality.

I would agree we see more men crying and women with careers, but those are superficial changes. If a family is not making enough money, it doesn't matter which spouse is the breadwinner. Women with careers can embezzle or defraus as easily as men with careers. Sensitive men who cry will still envy the neighbor's lifestyle, go nuts and shoot up the workplace, and do all the other things non sensitive men do.

Human nature will not be changing any time soon. There will always be greed and avarice. People will want things they don't have. Religious fundamentalist fanatics will not fade away because instant communications become available - the internet. That just becomes a tool for their agenda. People will always be self righteous, they will feel superior, they will decide they should be in charge. There will always be debate between those who put the individual first and those who put the state first.

Brady mentioned that first strike with nuclear weapons is something the USA would NEVER do. (And I will overlook WW2 as it was a fight already underway) Unfortunately every time we discuss making "no first use" our national policy, the government refuses to sign it. They will not promise no first use even when asked. They want to keep the option open. We won't even sign the landmine ban. The USA will not promise not to use and deploy landmines. The administration says torture does not violate international standards and is OK.

We may be the arbiters of all that is decent and moral, but our hands are dirty. WE export "democracy" but reserve the right to abuse it.

Wars, nuclear or otherwise are not going to go away.

I agree. More advanced technology doesn't necessarily mean a change for the better in human nature.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Feb-23, 05:15 PM
The pro of Korea and others having nuclear arms is that there is very little chance we will attack them. It's so easy to jump to judgements when considering only a narrow range (or only one) perspective.

Right on with the comment on legislating morality. Another lesson refused to be learned by Those Darn Humans (especially the right wingers and all politicians). For case studies just take a look at Prohibition. Also the current war on drugs. Provide the public with accurate information, and engage the entire community in efforts that will impart wisdom as part of growing up, and the results should be effective behaviors based on informed choices. But the fastest way to guarantee a bull rush to anything is to say it is not allowed.

I like the way the discussion came full circle with the comment about nuclear-powered steam-driven turbines.

pghnative
2005-Feb-23, 05:17 PM
Iran or North Korea gets nuclear weapons:

Pros: None.

Cons: Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used.

Hmm. Doesn't seem balanced.

Incorrect

Iran or North Korea gets nuclear weapons

Pros: Iran and North Korea have more power both to keep their respective governments secure and to influence countries around them. (This is from iran's and NK's perspective)

Cons: a) Iran and North Korea have more power both to keep their respective governments secure and to influence countries around them. (everyone else's perspective)
b) Nukes are more likely to be used. (depending on whether they are used for purposes that one desires, this of course might be a pro)

Candy
2005-Feb-23, 05:49 PM
Bush, Schroeder Denounce Iran Nuclear Aims (http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=050223&cat=news&st=newsd88eb4tg0&src =ap)

President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder insisted Wednesday that Iran must not have nuclear weapons, but remained divided on how to coax Tehran into giving up its suspected ambitions for such an arsenal.

"It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon," Bush said at a news conference with the German leader.
I thought I better get back on topic. :wink:

Sheki
2005-Feb-23, 07:46 PM
I thought I better get back on topic.

I'll drink to that. If I had a drink. Which I do not. More's the pity.

Interesting choice of words for GWB:

"It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon"

Notes
1. "It is vital" (ie. that to do otherwise would by necessity result in death). Unanswered: vital to whom? vital to the world? vital to iran? Implied is "vital to the world". That's a pretty weighty statement, but at least preferable to the alternate interpretation (vital to Iran), which could be construed as a threat.
2. "that the Iranians" - He does not say "the Iranian government", but "the Iranians". Perhaps indicating that the remarks are intended as much for the general population as for the Ayatollah.
3. "It is important...the world speak" is different than saying "We the world are speaking with one voice". So the message is both GWB putting forward his own opinion, and EITHER suggesting that he speaks for the world (or that he and the German Chancellor speak for the world), or that it is simply his wish that the rest of the world would speak up as well. My guess is the latter.
4. "That they shouldn't have" is different than saying that "they mustn't have". Which is a good non-threatening way to say it, but would be better if he provided an argument supporting the assertion. As is, he is making a statement about the absolute moral rightness or wrongness of any Iranian nuclear program.
5. "they" shouldn't have nuclear weapons? Seeing as "they" might be refering to "Iranians" (the actual people) rather than the Iranian government, that's a bit of a strange thing to say. Especially from a democratic leader. Were I an Iranian I would probably take offence. Perhaps my original comment about "Iranians" refering to the populace was incorrect? Or perhaps GWB is drawing no distinction between the populace and the administration?
6. "have a nuclear weapon". Nothing there about wishing them not to have nuclear power - just nuclear weapons. Indicating that for the USA, it is a foregone conclusion that their aim is nuclear weapons.

On the lighter side, there is an alternate interpretation that could be applied to GWB's quote:

"It's vital that the Iranians hear the world speak with one voice that they ["they" meaning "the world", rather than "iranians"] shouldn't have a nuclear weapon"

Fun.

Sheki

pghnative
2005-Feb-23, 10:38 PM
I thought I better get back on topic.

I'll drink to that. If I had a drink. Which I do not. More's the pity.

Interesting choice of words for GWB:..

I thought the topic was "why would Iran build a reactor for energy"

The Bad Astronomer
2005-Feb-23, 11:03 PM
I have not read this whole thread yet, but the last few posts are deeply in "locking" territory. Have a care here, please.

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-24, 01:16 AM
Of course, it's always the powerful countries who make the decisions for the smaller countries. Do I see Iran telling the US that they can't have nuclear weapons? No, and they should be able to say that! If there was an article that said North Korea told other countries to disarm nuclear weapons, we would think it was silly. That's how things work, unfortunately. It's all about what the self proclaimed "world leaders" say.

I'm so disgusted. What some countries (like USA and Germany) are saying is that we want to make a free and peaceful world, but you people need to sit there and listen to us, because we are better. It's good that freedom is being spread around the world, but we need to let the people have fundamental rights, and that is the right to security and development of a nation.

Musashi
2005-Feb-24, 01:44 AM
The pro of Korea and others having nuclear arms is that there is very little chance we will attack them. It's so easy to jump to judgements when considering only a narrow range (or only one) perspective.


Just so we're clear, do you think it would be a good thing or a bad thing for NK to have nuclear weapons?

Musashi
2005-Feb-24, 01:46 AM
Of course, it's always the powerful countries who make the decisions for the smaller countries. Do I see Iran telling the US that they can't have nuclear weapons? No, and they should be able to say that! If there was an article that said North Korea told other countries to disarm nuclear weapons, we would think it was silly. That's how things work, unfortunately. It's all about what the self proclaimed "world leaders" say.

I'm so disgusted. What some countries (like USA and Germany) are saying is that we want to make a free and peaceful world, but you people need to sit there and listen to us, because we are better. It's good that freedom is being spread around the world, but we need to let the people have fundamental rights, and that is the right to security and development of a nation.

Sadly, many people in countries like Iran and NK do not have fundamental rights. I wonder who is in charge of those things?

Mars
2005-Feb-24, 03:25 AM
I would rather no one had nukes. Since that obviously isn't the case, I would at least prefer that no one else gets them. Especially countries like North Korea and Iran. I would include Syria in my top three countries that I don't want to have weapons of mass destruction. Yes, the USA has nukes. However we, and the other nuclear nations have shown that we can restrain ourselves from using them. I would say we have been pretty lucky that we have dealt with mostly reasonable people. Kim Jong-Il is not someone that seems very restrained or reasonable. How do you think he would act if he had the ability to really threaten the entire world with nuclear weapons? We cannot afford to level the playing field regarding nukes. A mistake in that arena would be the end.

Regarding the comment about Kim Jong, he knows as well as anyone that nuclear war means the end of civilization. He is not using it as something to attack with, he is using it as a defense mechanism. He may be a crazy guy, but he's not going to endanger the whole world.

That's just common sense. Everyone realizes the dangers of nuclear war. That's what prevents people from using nuclear weapons.

People thought Hitler was rational too...

Brady Yoon
2005-Feb-24, 05:54 AM
Actually, my opinion might be starting to change. I'm not sure if we can trust a dictator with long lists of human rights violations..

Hmm, I'll really have to think this one over.

Sheki
2005-Feb-24, 12:12 PM
The BA wrote:


I have not read this whole thread yet, but the last few posts are deeply in "locking" territory. Have a care here, please.

Well, that's fair warning, I guess. I presume that this is because the discussion has crossed into the "political" arena. In the future it sure would be nice to see your definitions as to was is, and what is not, political. Hmmm maybe I should start a thread to debate the point...

Sheki

Manchurian Taikonaut
2005-Aug-12, 01:46 AM
quote:

The Iranians, incidentally, deny that they are developing nuclear weapons and were enriching uranium for use in civilian reactors.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05d.html

Archer17
2005-Aug-12, 02:13 AM
quote:

The Iranians, incidentally, deny that they are developing nuclear weapons and were enriching uranium for use in civilian reactors.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclear-doctrine-05d.htmlI don't presume to know what Iran's real intentions are but if they are planning on developing nuclear weapons, do you think they would admit it? Unlike North Korea who can hold much of South Korea's population centers (including Seoul near the border) hostage with their large number of artillery and SSMs, Iran would be asking for a military strike.