davidk14: .

Jack,

The munitions to destroy those underground bunkers explode underground. I do not believe that the Iran have civilian population centers in their underground bunkers.

.

Comrade_:
Davidk, read the topic heading to see what I meant by bombing of civilians.

Comrade_: You got it now...or it should be further explained?

davidk14: .

Oh, I know what the thread name reads. Many if not most would agree that eliminating the handful of designers of Iran's nuclear weapons program, as well as introducing computer viruses are acceptable options compared to an all out attack on Iran.

.

OCD_OCD: Jack Ethan: No Princesa, you've not progressed, you've only changed the weapons of choice. Progress is something different.

The reality is every country with Nuclear weapons are not controlled by your country, regardless of how many you may have, you still wouldn't be safe from an attack. As much as you will depend on the 'good nature' of another country, you're still not exempted from an attack.

******

In response, Jack....it has worked so far, has it not? The U.S. and all other nuclear-capable countries have used political means to work things out. We will not be going back to sticks and rocks as weapons of choice. To think that's going to happen is a bit short-sighted on your part.

I did not say that all other countries with nuclear capabilities are "controlled" by the U.S. I said that we worked our conflicts through political means, rather than nuclear means.

Seriously, Jack. I really regret that you feel you have to either change what I'm saying or put words into my mouth. If you ask a question, I will answer it. But it is pointless to try to skew my words. If it's unclear, then you can ask for an explanation, but don't go off the hook and just blast out words that aren't mine.

Oh, and BTW. Don't call me "Princesa". The name is OCD or Monkeyface. Your choice.

Comrade_: "Many if not most would agree" aka "in my opinion".
Ok DavidK, we accept those as your opinion and that being the only 2 choices in your opinion. Thank you for your contribution.

Comrade_: You do not know if it is 'working' the fact that nuclear weapons have not been used in modern times(beyond WW2) as an attack doesn't give indication that it wouldn't be used when necessary or that it is working as an intimidation tactic to prevent any sought of attacks.

No one suggested bring sticks and stones, I'm not sure what conversation you're having.

I was telling you that they're not controlled by the US so the decision to use it is really still up to them. Nothing stating you insinuated that you were in control of it.

OCD_OCD: We are still here. We haven't nuked anyone and they haven't nuked us.

It's working, Jack.

And again, I NEVER said they were controlled by the U.S. THOSE are the words you put in my mouth. They are not mine.

Comrade_: You think if another country wants to nuke you that they'll be worried about being nuked back? There is no use as yet for nuclear weapons hence they haven't been used...as yet that is.
I trust they're not there for show and tell.

Comrade_:
Jack -"The reality is every country with Nuclear weapons are not controlled by your country, regardless of how many you may have, you still wouldn't be safe from an attack. As much as you will depend on the 'good nature' of another country, you're still not exempted from an attack."

OCD- "I did not say that all other countries with nuclear capabilities are "controlled" by the U.S. I said that we worked our conflicts through political means, rather than nuclear means. "

Jack- "I was telling you that they're not controlled by the US so the decision to use it is really still up to them. Nothing stating you insinuated that you were in control of it. "

OCD-"And again, I NEVER said they were controlled by the U.S. THOSE are the words you put in my mouth. They are not mine."


Where did I put these words in your mouth? I stated that they were my words "I was telling you..." Telling being the main word.

ok I have to leave work now.

OCD_OCD: There is a use, Jack. You just refuse to see it. The point of the current superpowers having nukes is that it keeps the playing field level. They have them, we have them. They don't want to be nuked and neither do we, so that leaves the channels of communication open for political discussions rather than nuclear reactions.

nellie77: In 2002 the United Stetes went to the UN and claimed that Iraq was buliding weapons of Mass Destruction, the US and the UK was succesful and bought the downfall of the regime..

Later it was found there was no evidence that Saddam was buildin WMD, leading to many questioning the jusitce of this invasion...
My point is this was a PRE EMPTIVE which seems allot more contoversial than detterrence.
Critics of deterrence maintain that the United States should not threaten war in order to maintain peace, and that by maintaining a large nuclear arsenal, the United States undermines international nonproliferation efforts. Critics of preemption charge that the policy may actually lead other nations to develop WMD in order to deter the United States from invading.

So the world has decided to play a dangerous game, in the end they make fatal mistakes...

Comrade_: OCD_OCD "if I refuse to see" it then show me, show me an incident where nuclear weapons would've been used but instead the world leader decided to sit down and think about what weapons the other one has and used your reasoning.
Do you understand what I mean?
I believe that nuclear weapons are not used as yet because there is not yet any need to use them by those who own them. This means that they may be used in the future.

OCD_OCD: What you are refusing to see is that we have the weapons and have not used them. Whether that continues in the future is something no one can tell. But you don't hear the U.S. and China or Russia threatening to blow each other off the planet like N. Korea and Iran have done.

OCD_OCD: You have no proof that it won't work in the future, where I have proof that it has worked up until now.

Comrade_: OCD, I see that the weapons have not been used. I just don't accept your opinion that they haven't been used due to one side being scared of the other. China & Russia also US has very little to gain from a war, hence they'll avoid it and choose a diplomatic way, they're not doing it due to fearing 'nukes'.

OCD_OCD: Then you must have missed the entire 20 or 30 years of the US/Russia arms race.

Comrade_: We are talking about present times, isn't that why we didn't mention that nuclear weapons have been used before. The US have used nuclear weapons but it wasn't brought up in the discussion because you were speaking about the present times when you said "we have the weapons and have not used them". Right? Hence I stick to present times...no fishing here. <--[This is concerning your take on the arms race]

In present times there is no use for the nuclear weapon to settle disputes between countries as China, Russia and the US, it can be settled in other ways and it is. This is in no indication that nuclear weapons are preventing them from using nuclear weapons (unless you can show something differently). The threat of nuclear weapons being used is still real, can't pat it down and hope for the best.

*Edit: to put simpler.

OCD_OCD: Again, the purpose of having them is to level the playing field. The technology is there. It has been used to build these weapons. No nation is going to disarm themselves and rely on the kindness of other nations to do the same; therefore, everyone keeps an eye on everyone else and the fact that nukes exist is the reason why political channels are used.

The U.S. won the arms race, not necessarily because we had so many more weapons than Russia did but because Russia had to keep up with our weapons store and they broke their economy trying to keep up. That's why the arms race ended peacefully.

And Jack, no, again, I cannot prove something that hasn't happened, nor can you.

nellie77: There is no point for any country to have WMD, Maintaining control of WMD development requires a global initiative. The United Nations needs to develop a system where countries do not feel a need for a nuclear deterrence. However, there has only been one country that has dismantled their nuclear WMD program (South Africa). South Africa dismantled their program only after they believed the need for deterrence was gone.

Terrorists can and may obtain nuclear technology from states that have already developed the technology to develop and deliver WMD. Moreover, these terrorists may not be interested in the traditional role of deterrence of WMD. Even states that dismantled their WMD may still have technology and knowledge available to restart a WMD program without the world community knowing. Finally the WMD program may go unnoticed even when it is being tested.

References:

Ackerman, Gary, A., Bale, Jeffrey M. Bale (2002), Al-Qaida and Weapons of Mass Destruction

OCD_OCD: In a perfect world there is no need, but this is not a perfect world. It has never been a perfect world and it is never going to be a perfect world.

Comrade_:
I do agree with you that no nation will disarm themselves, what I disagree with is nuclear weapons being a preventative for attacking.
We haven't been to that stage where a country will need to use a nuclear weapon, doesn't mean that someday that 'need' wouldn't appear. Saying that since nuclear weapons haven't been used in modern times is an indication that it is a preventative or the cause of peace talks, requires proof or some line of reasoning.
China doesn't need a war, it is more useful for them to settle disputes without a war and without using nuclear weapons. They prefer to build on their economy and not disrupt their trade. I'm sure the US prefers settling simple disputes without a war and nuclear weapons as will Russia. To suggest that countries are only being diplomatic because they fear another country's nuclear weapon just falls short for me, there's more to politics than war and there is more to a country than settling disputes via weapons. It will be as suggesting that without nuclear weapons we'd settle disputes via weapons and only nuclear weapons prevents that.

OCD_OCD: Then you'll just have to believe that, Jack. Obviously every nuclear nation disagrees with you.

Comrade_: Disagrees with what exactly?

OCD_OCD: If the purpose of gaining nuclear weapons were not for bargaining power, then no other country would feel that they need them. It gives them either 1) a position at the bargaining table; or 2) an ability to annihilate their enemies as is the case with Iraq.