Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Iran to build 10 more nuke facilities
Eventually, some organization or state is going to have to become Earth's police force, and ENFORCE a worldwide ban on nukes.
But that time isn't now.
I figure there'll have to be a nuclear war or two before there develops sufficient political will to implement and enforce such a ban.
Humanity seems it is only capable of learning things the hard way.
Nations never go to war for moral reasons. Only idiots (like some people here) think they do.
Banning nukes would result into allout conventional war.
> Banning nukes would result into allout conventional war.
Its my honest opinion that nukes have saved the world from hundreds of millions
of deaths. They are a gift from the heavens.
> Eventually, some organization or state is going to have to become Earth's police
> force, and ENFORCE a worldwide ban on nukes.
I doubt it, unless this organisation is formed from the hot ashes of WW3.
M.A.D. is just that: MAD.
"formed from the hot ashes of WW3."
Probably, but necessarily? Not so sure.
I would argue that there is another possible more optimistic alternative scenario. Firstly, there is coming a re-organisation of the world economy and government, occuring because of increased interdependance between increasingly autonomous and self-determined tech-savy individuals. This will render more traditional structures of societal institutions (both private sector and public sector) redundant, namely national nuke-toting militaries. Secondly, this reorganised economic and political model will blurr borders between nations and obscure societal differences to the extent that only 'extremism' (currently known as 'terrorism') will remain as the only real threat to the peace and security of human populations. Joint cooperative taskforces from many 'nations' would be involved in policing these extremist factions - an international police force, successfully held to account by some sort of political mechanism yet to be fathomed. If both the restructuring of world economic and political institutions as well as an international police force successfully held to account, it could work out that a planet-wide ban on nukes could be implemented and enforced without humanity having to suffer learning its necessity the hard way (ie. ww3).
We can never remove "extremism". There will always be two factions, sides, clans,
countries, states or people who have such a dislike and negative attitude towards
one another will inevitably use violence to attempt to solve their problems (Not that
you are suggesting otherwise, i just think its important to note).
Perhaps we will see a more centralised policing in the future: The European Union and
African Union are both examples. Over time they might achieve more power, who knows.
I prefer the good old nation state over your global tyranny.
re 'global tyranny'
What's your solution to nuclear weapons proliferation, esa?
Or do you deny it's a problem?
I don
The Borg society doesn't care what you think. That makes it great.
esa,
"A Borg society would certainly not be worth living in.,"
I'm in full agreement that an international police STATE without checks and balances on its power would not be desirable. However, if successfully held to account and successfully kept under strict and transparent oversight, an international police FORCE enforcing a ban on nuclear weapons might be a better alternative to humanity learning the hard way.
"I don
The problem with sovereign states owning nukes is such:
There exists a chance, no matter how remote, of nuclear weapons (or control over nuclear weapons) falling into the wrong hands, and thus there is always a chance that nuclear war or nuclear terrorism may result merely by the very existence of such weapons, regardless of who possesses them. This constant chance of nuclear war has caused psychological stess (albeit subconcious, perhaps) on generations since the 1950s. We don't know what effects this subconcious stress has had, nor what other problems this constant stress has caused.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900992.html
Is there enough justification for a preemptive strike on Iran yet? If so, would the West stomach yet another front on the 'War on Terror?' <
Not until someone can prove that A) They are enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons, B) They are going to use these nuclear weapons without provocation on an undeserving nation, and C) They have no right to self defence in this nuclear powered world.
@Red Fokker
"Not until someone can prove that A) They are enriching uranium to make nuclear weapons, B) They are going to use these nuclear weapons without provocation on an undeserving nation, and C) They have no right to self defence in this nuclear powered world."
Bullshit
You should use 'or' instead of 'and'
And, secondly, Iran should not be recognized as a sovereign state, as it forfeited its status as a representative government in the last election.
Xeno, I must ask you something:
You advocate a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons. How would having absolutely 0 nuclear weapons in the world allow the Earth to protect itself from near earth object (asteroid, comet) threats?
Theres only a remote theoretical probability we can do that now Zarf...
> Morbo the Annihilator wrote:
> Theres only a remote theoretical probability we can do that now Zarf...
Not really... there's tons of models on the effect of both surface and standoff detonations on NEOs... although nukes don't prove to be effective in all instances (especially against soft-surface asteroids, where the result would usually be simply to break up the asteroid, but not change its course), but it still has some utility.
And even if you're right on it, as of now, it's the best possible weapon due to the sheer size of the blast relative to object size...
I say we throw Chinese at it until it breaks apart
With nukes you only have one try .A giant laser would do the job much better.
Happened to have a giant laser on you, esa?
"How would having absolutely 0 nuclear weapons in the world allow the Earth to protect itself from near earth object (asteroid, comet) threats?"
Attach a 'solar-wind kite' to the asteroid to alter it's orbit.
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> "How would having absolutely 0 nuclear weapons in the world allow the Earth to protect itself from near earth object (asteroid, comet) threats?"
Attach a 'solar-wind kite' to the asteroid to alter it's orbit.
Know what? This calls for a new thread, actually...
indeed....
Therefore, returning to the issue at hand, if a) a nation's legitimacy as a sovereign state is in question (due to election fraud or other reasons), if b) it is producing nuclear fissile material, and if c) that nation's authorities are deemed likely to sell or even inadvertently allow that fissile material to fall into the hands of terrorists, completely and utterly irrelevant becomes that nation's claim that the production of fissile material is merely an unwanted by-product of their 'peaceful' nuclear-energy production program. The only determining factor becomes the question as to whether or not they are in fact producing fissile material. If they are, I think it would be enough justification for a pre-emptive strike.
However, this would not apply to just any sovereign state, only those who would meet the conditions a, b, and c, above.
>that nation's authorities are deemed likely to sell
Deemed by whom?
> xeno syndicated wrote:
> The problem with sovereign states owning nukes is such:
There exists a chance, no matter how remote, of nuclear weapons (or control over nuclear weapons) falling into the wrong hands, and thus there is always a chance that nuclear war or nuclear terrorism may result merely by the very existence of such weapons, regardless of who possesses them. This constant chance of nuclear war has caused psychological stess (albeit subconcious, perhaps) on generations since the 1950s. We don't know what effects this subconcious stress has had, nor what other problems this constant stress has caused. <
Sorry to butt-in:
This can be said about, and is true for, any weapon. Take World War One and the gun, for example.
Sovereign states having nuclear weapons should be all or nothing, simply for reasons of self defence. It is the only way to be fair.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Iran to build 10 more nuke facilities
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.