Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by itachi, May 10, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. itachi

    itachi Well-Known Member

    Just curious
    Do countries that have them really have any right to be high and mighty and try to stop others obtaining them?
  2. Skyfire

    Skyfire Active Member

    Depends on the philosophy you live by. 'Do unto others'? Or 'Might makes right'?

    If you live by the first, its wrong.
    If you live by the second, its right.

    Nothing annoys me more than people who claim to live by the first, then act by the second. They get right under my freaking skin, spouting off about liberty and equality, but when that grows inconvenient, they just swat the less powerful out of the sky like bugs and go back to sermonizing about how fair and generous they are. Yuck. If you want to live by the 'might makes right' philosophy, then be honest with yourself and OWN it. Stop being such a hypocrite.
  3. itachi

    itachi Well-Known Member

    That's a very eloquent way of putting it and i am inclined to agree wholeheartedly.
  4. snarrylover

    snarrylover Well-Known Member

    I have very limited knowledge on the subject but I believe it depends on the country. The leaders of some countries would use them if they had them. I don't think there is any hypocrisy in a country having them yet stopping others - what matters is the intent behind it and how likely it is that certain places will use them.

    Though I don't think any country should have them because how can their use ever be justified?
  5. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    I write too much. Basically - You have to earn it. It's a failure for us to allow children to play with tools and information when they can inadvertantly use it to affect surrounding people in a negative way.

    Information is great, but it can be like a child with a firearm. If you don't teach and appricate the dangers and abilities of what you are attempting to make or learn, you have a very insecure foundation.

    Alot of people dedicate a vast majority of their time into things, they learn, they layer information and skills, they build on them, they appricate them and they continue. This allows them to move forward and interact/create delicate devices, techniques, and even become aware of certain events in life.

    These people generally write or keep records of their trails, achievments and failures. Eventually they get broadcasted, and distributed to more open access mediums for regular people who access. One of the major problems is that some people just do but they have no apprication for what needs be done along side what they want. It's not a simple case of developing nuclear technology, it's a practical sense of security, development, long term stability in a civilsation/political structure and many other factors.

    Philosophy, morals and ethics are essential but the are not the soul primary concerns. If you have a society that is prone to violence in some fashion, then a nuclear program will become a target, be it for assault or a pawn used in verbal political threats. There is no margin for error with nuclear technology, and as such the releastic standards we have developed must be maintained indefinatly, and in all truth expanded upon so we can better harness the energy while making it safer.

    Nuclear weapons are a massive political issue. Where the end line threat has been there, it helps to discourage war or certain areas of warefare against poluations that house nuclear weapons. While the current countries that house nuclear weapons do not publically flaunt their weapons, the deterent is surely used or a factor in many situations, which in someone sense allows two countries to find a common ground instead of allowing a destructive situation to arise.

    It's not exactly high and might to stop an idiot or faction who is geared into violence and control from getting them. I'd rather help them reach the stability where they would be responsbile to have them if they truly needed to have them. The problem if a country is mor geared ina war mentality, or fears aggressive action from a neighboughring country, they are more prone to consider their "high and mighty" weaponary to shine against their enemies.

    Despite the shit alot of the countries in the world get for their actions and stances, they are disciplined. They know the rammifications of their actions. IF you can't appricate the destructive nature of a nuclear weapon on both a worldwide and national front, it is inevitable you will use it inappriopriately. You can use nuclear weapons inappriopriate just by sheer suggestion. The west has grown through the cold war, today we trust and appricate the impact of nuclear weapons and have grown past it. Where as.. say if a threatening country suddenly has a nuclear arsenal at their disposal, our entire populace will tunnel in on nuclear prevention, nuclear targets, nuclear response, nuclear this nuclear that.

    Some people dont live by philosphy, but by the impact their actions and voice make in life. Giving them more tools that enchance that ability is dangerous, because some simply do not consider everything we can consider. Instead they focus on what they want.
  6. snarrylover

    snarrylover Well-Known Member

    What SBlake said. Perfect, and perfectly worded. "You have to earn it. It's a failure for us to allow children to play with tools and information when they can inadvertantly use it to affect surrounding people in a negative way." Fantastic analogy.
  7. itachi

    itachi Well-Known Member

    I'm to be honest to tired to reply properly atm, be i agree in some aspects, and not in others.

    It's a failure for us to allow children to play with tools and information when they can inadvertently use it to affect surrounding people in a negative way.

    i like the idea, but i don't agree that any of the country's that currently possess nuclear weapons really have any moral standpoint to make that kind of distinction of who constitutes a "child state" and who doesn't.

    To be honest i think they are a truely evil devices and should have never been developed or used.
  8. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    Sorry I write alot. Can skip the stuff below. But let's say you could deal with this situation your way. How would you do it?

    If I had to make sense of this PR mess that we're shown, they are essentially making a country struggle internationally if they attempt to not work with the international community in regards to Nuclear weaponry. The thing is it's not per say a child state, but a country with toxic environment. There have been alot of lessons learnt since the initial development of Nuclear technology, and we have created sensible guidelines.

    It's not a major case of nuclear technology, it's that when you start acquiring nuclear technology you are branching into a potentially deadly section, which doesn't just involve your own nation, but every nation in the world.

    The cold war was a introduction to a potential Worldwide catastrophic event because of Nuclear development programs. They learnt through hardship and exclusion how to respect the devices that they had. It took time, patience and extremely calm stances. Each country in some sense believes in continuality and tomorrow, so they forego threats and abuse publicly of their nuclear arms. These new countries.. they haven't gone through anything yet. Combining their responses to situations, verbal political threats against other countries.. having nuclear weaponry is a serious power shift. If that power shift is not respected or met with opposition right now, eventually there will be convergence of differing opinions. There's a big difference in enduring day after day crap about something, then all of a sudden having to face it out of the blue.

    This stuff isn't a moral standpoint, most countries moral standpoints are fuxxed. This is a practical standpoint. You appreciate that this technology doesn't affect your nation, but every ones.

    There's alot that goes into it, be it ways of deterring bio weapon development, to arms development, and such like that. It's very hypocritical if you are looking at it from one nation to the other. But idk why you believe that because our nations are seriously not the same. Our UN policies are a dream of a unified balanced world. But the reality is our countries are all divided, isolated, stronger in alot of other instances, more educated and societarily intune with technology, some more intune with social movements, some more intune with the environment. It's a mess, some breed more hate, some breed more ignorance, some breed more intellectual ignorance. So the introduction of a potentially devastating piece of technology is making the power houses worried. And with just cause in this stupid world.

    Anyhow I agree they have been twisted into becoming stupid devices. Like most things fear overshadows the brilliance of things. It twists and morphs something good into a weapon, and lets fear dominate where pride in today and hope for tomorrow should be at the forefront. But a nuke without the hostility is a very impressive open ended advancement in techology and scientific understanding. It's just a pitty we snapped the freedom of it and molded it around a tool of destruction and violence.

    It would be nice if we actually understood these countries and their hardships. Worked together to find the best possible usage of nuclear technology and spread it across the world without damaging the environment and making sure it was protected appropriately. Instead.. we worry about devastation, and make it our "reality". This worlds vision of understanding, apprication, forward moving and things alike is a mess. If a nuke went off i'd kill me one way or the other. From the blast or sheer knowledge that my species has failed to such an extent. Which is why they sorta bombard these countries with laws and dictations, but in the more extreme reality, bombard our societies with "potential realities" so in some sense we appricate the magnitude of these situations.

    I really can get that you don't agree with the situation, and I agree with that these situations are a hypocritical mess considering the position(s) our "morally" high ground countries take. But I tend to believe they state these positions because they want to someday be able to stand true to them. And because of the here and now, and that they have to respond to these developments, they are cutting themselves as they make these stances.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 12, 2013
  9. pickwithaustin

    pickwithaustin Staff Alumni

    Do you really want some of the less responsible countries (N. Korea, Iraq, etc.) to obtain these weapons? It seems that when other countries need the help from the "super powers," then it's okay. I'm really not too worried about the U.S., for example, having these weapons... but I sure as heck worry when N. Korea's dictator says he is going to send missiles to destroy certain U.S. cities full of innocent people.
  10. snarrylover

    snarrylover Well-Known Member

    Lol I seem to be just piggybacking on other people's comments but this is how I feel in a nutshell really. Like you, the thought of America having those weapons doesn't worry me. North Korea? Worries the hell out of me. These things can't be solved with morals because the countries in question have drastically different morals.
  11. Skyfire

    Skyfire Active Member

    Er...lets all remember that the only nation on Earth that has ever detonated nuclear weapons as an act of war (twice) was the United States... I am not saying everyone should have them - on the contrary, no one should have them - but what exactly indicates which countries are 'responsible' enough to be 'allowed' to have nuclear weapons? I mean other than the opinion of the nations that already have them - like I said previously, might makes right?
  12. Theodora

    Theodora Well-Known Member

    I am somewhat surprised that no one is worried at America having nuclear weapons. America is the only country that has ever deployed them. Twice. Hiroshima and Nagasaki ring any bells?
  13. justMe7

    justMe7 Well-Known Member

    yes... wait what? Well that sucks. Sure they used nukes,... like 70 years ago.. during a world war... when information about nuclear destruction was limited and there were no examples to stand against.

    What do you think would happen the moment 1 nuke goes off now? Why do you think Americas would even consider using a nuke?
  14. pickwithaustin

    pickwithaustin Staff Alumni

    And thank God that the use of them helped save the world and stop that war that others started.
  15. Lost

    Lost Staff Alumni

    Its Israel and Iran the world need to be watching right now. Israel scares me much more than NK ever could even with NK's "sea of fire" rants. Pakistan's nukes do not seem all that safe either, sitting where they are no matter how secure they seem to think they are.

    Sanctions/bullying does nothing. In NK's case, sanctions were a main instigator for NK's recent nuclear rants and rocket tests. Iran just don't give a shit and carry on enriching regardless under the guise of wanting it just for the energy. Time will tell but if it does happen, I'd say it will be Israel launching on Iran and then its WW3.
  16. Raven

    Raven Guest

    No matter how we want to control this technology the genie is so far out of the bottle there really is little that we can do, the time is coming that mankind must realize that hate, fear, all the things we once where must be discarded and we must move on. Me I think we are reaching the end of this blue little planet, I doubt we will handle the power we were given, we will other die like children or for once grow up.
  17. Skyfire

    Skyfire Active Member

    I'm sure the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't see it that way. I doubt there was anything of a benevolent god involved in that atrocity. Like most things in this world, 'responsibility' is clearly in the eye of the beholder.
    Barefoot Gen: Hiroshima Destroyed
  18. Skyfire

    Skyfire Active Member

  19. Raven

    Raven Guest

    [h=1]Curtis E. LeMay[/h]
    Look him up, look at the death delivered by firebombing of the cities of japan, the atomic bombs where a drop in the ocean of death that was delivered by strategic air bombing of the cities, look the the firestorms of Dresden Germany, atomic energy at the end of the war was no more horrific then the bombings we had already carried out. Oh what a glorious war, let us march o great men to death further, for south Korea, Vietnam, for the gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq and the next great patriotic war.

    war is obsolete
  20. Syn

    Syn Well-Known Member

    I think you could justify keeping other countries from obtaining nukes simply because this world doesn't need more nukes. Seriously, the fact that it's a giant bomb that can wipe out a city is pretty bad on it's own, but if you do some research on the effects of the radiation, it's pretty fucked. Oh, and this whole nuking a city and killing CIVILIANS, who are just trying to live their lives as best they can, is just a bit fucked too. I think nukes are a bit too much power for any given country, but at least more than one country has them, gives everyone more reason not to use them.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.