Australian Politics Forum

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: Nukes
Reply #15 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:28pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:23pm:

Gandalf your whole argument is an unrealistic fantasy. Your opening position that no countries should have nukes is unviable, naive, idiotic etc.

Thank you for contradicting your rather offensive claim in another thread that my desire was for evil Islamic regimes to have nukes.

I like being naive, idiotic etc - when it means literally standing up for our very survival as a species.

You are being naive, idiotic etc because your opinion position would cause a nuclear armageddon, and you don't seem to realise.

Your position is no less idiotic than asking everyone in the world to give up guns.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

polite_gandalf Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 20027 Canberra Gender:	Re: Nukes Reply #16 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:31pm freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:28pm: Your position is no less idiotic than asking everyone in the world to give up guns. baby steps FD. Today nukes, tomorrow guns, insha allah
Back to top	A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said: Quote: Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51285 At my desk.	Re: Nukes Reply #17 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:51pm I cannot tell whether you are joking or you really are that naive.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #18 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 1:24pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:51pm:

I cannot tell whether you are joking or you really are that naive.

What is wrong with dreaming of a arms-free world FD?

I can live just fine without killing or threatening to kill anyone else - and so does everyone I associate with. There's no reason I can see that the rest of the world can't live by the same code.

I suspect that in 1000 years people will be looking back at our time with disbelief and horror at how barbaric we were.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146062
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #19 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 1:49pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:23pm:

Gandalf your whole argument is an unrealistic fantasy. Your opening position that no countries should have nukes is unviable, naive, idiotic etc.

Thank you for contradicting your rather offensive claim in another thread that my desire was for evil Islamic regimes to have nukes.

I like being naive, idiotic etc - when it means literally standing up for our very survival as a species.

You are being naive, idiotic etc because your opinion position would cause a nuclear armageddon, and you don't seem to realise.

Your position is no less idiotic than asking everyone in the world to give up guns.

Okay, I'll bite: how is that idiotic?

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 52889
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #20 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 2:13pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 2:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

But the Israelis are the good guys.

Sure of that Bobby? I wonder what the Palestinians think about that? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Who would you rather trust with an atom bomb -

the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Israel has held the threat of nuclear annihilation over the heads of Arab nations. Does that fit in well with your description of them as the "good guys"? Roll Eyes

Absolutely. David and Goliath.
1o million, attacked many times, constantly harrased, versus 1.6 billion who are left alone by the 10 million.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 112958
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #21 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 3:05pm

Samson Option

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samson_Option

In 2003, a military historian, Martin van Creveld, thought that the Al-Aqsa Intifada then in progress threatened Israel's existence.[31] Van Creveld was quoted in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch (2003) as saying:

We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force.

Let me quote General Moshe Dayan:

'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.

Back to top

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 44684

Re: Nukes
Reply #22 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 6:50pm

Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 2:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 2:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

But the Israelis are the good guys.

Sure of that Bobby? I wonder what the Palestinians think about that? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Who would you rather trust with an atom bomb -

the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Israel has held the threat of nuclear annihilation over the heads of Arab nations. Does that fit in well with your description of them as the "good guys"? Roll Eyes

Absolutely. David and Goliath.
1o million, attacked many times, constantly harrased, versus 1.6 billion who are left alone by the 10 million.

Unless you're a Palestinian, the owners of the land that they have stolen. Tsk, tsk, amazing how you overlook them, Soren, really? Roll Eyes

Back to top

It seems that I have upset a Moderator and are forbidden from using memes. So much for Freedom of Speech. Tsk, tsk, tsk... Roll Eyes

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 112958
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #23 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 6:59pm

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 6:50pm:

Frank wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 2:13pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:57pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 2:49pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 1:54pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 11:55am:

But the Israelis are the good guys.

Sure of that Bobby? I wonder what the Palestinians think about that? Mmmm? Roll Eyes

Who would you rather trust with an atom bomb -

the Israelis or the Palestinians?

Israel has held the threat of nuclear annihilation over the heads of Arab nations. Does that fit in well with your description of them as the "good guys"? Roll Eyes

Absolutely. David and Goliath.
1o million, attacked many times, constantly harrased, versus 1.6 billion who are left alone by the 10 million.

Unless you're a Palestinian, the owners of the land that they have stolen. Tsk, tsk, amazing how you overlook them, Soren, really? Roll Eyes

The Jews live on the land promised by God himself -
or so they would tell you.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: Nukes
Reply #24 - Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:36pm

From the other thread:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:48pm:

Is it that the existing nuclear weapons currently act as a deterrent to such an arms race? Because if it is, it would take about 2 seconds of actual rational thought to debunk such logic. Firstly, most nuclear armed nations are more than capable of wiping out any tinpot dictatorship who tries to acquire nukes with conventional/non-nuclear weapons. The US have proved that several times in the last few years. That serves as more than enough deterrent, and such a deterrent will still exist in a post-nuclear world.

It did not deter 9/11.

Quote:

Secondly, in the case of North Korea and (if the US claims are true), Iran, the US nuclear deterrent hasn't worked against them has it? And almost certainly, it has spurred them on.

Crap. NK is not motivated by US actions. This is you attempting to re-write geopolitics around your doctrine of fair access for every idiot to nuclear weapons.

Quote:

And thirdly. no tinpot dictatorship will be capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own

This is incredibly naive Gandalf. NK is a tinpot dictatorship. The only remaining difficulty is entirely attributable to nuclear non-proliferation efforts, which you would take away. It is old technology now.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 1:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:51pm:

I cannot tell whether you are joking or you really are that naive.

What is wrong with dreaming of a arms-free world FD?

Nothing. But if you pretend it is anything more than a naive dream, you are lying. Now ask me what is wrong with lying.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:23pm:

Gandalf your whole argument is an unrealistic fantasy. Your opening position that no countries should have nukes is unviable, naive, idiotic etc.

Thank you for contradicting your rather offensive claim in another thread that my desire was for evil Islamic regimes to have nukes.

I like being naive, idiotic etc - when it means literally standing up for our very survival as a species.

You are being naive, idiotic etc because your opinion position would cause a nuclear armageddon, and you don't seem to realise.

Your position is no less idiotic than asking everyone in the world to give up guns.

Okay, I'll bite: how is that idiotic?

Because then any despot with guns could conquer the world. You create a power vacuum and something will inevitably fill it.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

tickleandrose

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4186
Gender: female

Re: Nukes
Reply #25 - Jan 9^th, 2019 at 10:50am

North Korea had long since wanted a nuclear capability dating back to its founding father. Ultimately, even if North Korea have nuclear weapon, using it would mean total self destruction before their warhead can land.

Nuclear weapon in that case becomes a bargaining ship.

With a nuclear weapon, the attitude of the west would change. If i am planning for the long term in the West, I would plan for 'normalization' of relationship within say a 20 year period. Lure the regime into development, making its leaders rich to make them happy. And if everything goes right, in 30 to 40 years time, suddenly, you have an relatively friendly country with a nuke on China's doorsteps!

China, of course, will see that as well. And will also do everything in their power to lure North Korea to ally with them.

So at the end it would be a win win situation for North Korea.

It is no coincident that after a year of trading insults over twitter between Trump and Kim, they met and shook hands in Singapore. I think its a smart move by US, but its probably made possible by people behind the themes who had been working on those issues for decades.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 146062
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #26 - Jan 9^th, 2019 at 11:26am

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

From the other thread:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:48pm:

Is it that the existing nuclear weapons currently act as a deterrent to such an arms race? Because if it is, it would take about 2 seconds of actual rational thought to debunk such logic. Firstly, most nuclear armed nations are more than capable of wiping out any tinpot dictatorship who tries to acquire nukes with conventional/non-nuclear weapons. The US have proved that several times in the last few years. That serves as more than enough deterrent, and such a deterrent will still exist in a post-nuclear world.

It did not deter 9/11.

Quote:

Secondly, in the case of North Korea and (if the US claims are true), Iran, the US nuclear deterrent hasn't worked against them has it? And almost certainly, it has spurred them on.

Crap. NK is not motivated by US actions. This is you attempting to re-write geopolitics around your doctrine of fair access for every idiot to nuclear weapons.

Quote:

And thirdly. no tinpot dictatorship will be capable of developing nuclear weapons on their own

This is incredibly naive Gandalf. NK is a tinpot dictatorship. The only remaining difficulty is entirely attributable to nuclear non-proliferation efforts, which you would take away. It is old technology now.

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 1:24pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:51pm:

I cannot tell whether you are joking or you really are that naive.

What is wrong with dreaming of a arms-free world FD?

Nothing. But if you pretend it is anything more than a naive dream, you are lying. Now ask me what is wrong with lying.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 1:49pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 12:28pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:38am:

freediver wrote on Jan 7^th, 2019 at 9:23pm:

Gandalf your whole argument is an unrealistic fantasy. Your opening position that no countries should have nukes is unviable, naive, idiotic etc.

Thank you for contradicting your rather offensive claim in another thread that my desire was for evil Islamic regimes to have nukes.

I like being naive, idiotic etc - when it means literally standing up for our very survival as a species.

You are being naive, idiotic etc because your opinion position would cause a nuclear armageddon, and you don't seem to realise.

Your position is no less idiotic than asking

everyone

in the world to give up guns.

Okay, I'll bite: how is that idiotic?

Because then any despot with guns could conquer the world. You create a power vacuum and something will inevitably fill it.

Did you not see the word "everyone"?

Back to top

IP Logged

polite_gandalf

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20027
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: Nukes
Reply #27 - Jan 9^th, 2019 at 3:20pm

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

Crap. NK is not motivated by US actions.

This is you conceding that US nuclear deterrence doesn't work - thus literally destroying your own argument. Well done FD *slow hand claps*

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

your doctrine of fair access for every idiot to nuclear weapons.

thats literally the exact opposite of my doctrine. You could actually sum up my doctrine as "no fair access for every idiot to nuclear weapons - equally"

freediver wrote on Jan 8^th, 2019 at 8:36pm:

Nothing. But if you pretend it is anything more than a naive dream, you are lying.

LOL - if you are naive how can you be lying? Naivety is pretty much the polar opposite of lying. I happen to think an arms-free world is a realistic goal. I'm happy to cop the charge of being naive if thats what rocks your boat - but it makes no sense to say it is somehow simultaneously lying.

Back to top

A resident Islam critic who claims to represent western values said:
Quote:

Outlawing the enemy's uniform - hijab, islamic beard - is not depriving one's own people of their freedoms.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51285
At my desk.

Re: Nukes
Reply #28 - Jan 9^th, 2019 at 7:26pm

Quote:

This is you conceding that US nuclear deterrence doesn't work - thus literally destroying your own argument. Well done FD *slow hand claps*

No it isn't.

Quote:

thats literally the exact opposite of my doctrine. You could actually sum up my doctrine as "no fair access for every idiot to nuclear weapons - equally"

Are you agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time? You go on about how unfair it is for countries with nukes to tell other countries not to develop them, but it is not about fairness, but it is about fairness and equality.

Quote:

LOL - if you are naive how can you be lying? Naivety is pretty much the polar opposite of lying. I happen to think an arms-free world is a realistic goal.

Guns as well as nukes? I see now why you were so easily duped into becoming a Muslim.

Quote:

I'm happy to cop the charge of being naive if thats what rocks your boat - but it makes no sense to say it is somehow simultaneously lying.

You lie when you assert that countries like NK would have less incentive to develop nukes if everyone else gave theirs up. They would have more.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 52889 Gender:	Re: Nukes Reply #29 - Jan 9^th, 2019 at 8:18pm Israel never threatened anyone with nuclear annihilation as a fulfilment of its national mission. Iran has been, contunuously. You are full of lying deception, son of mohammed.
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged