Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 11
Send Topic Print
Nukes (Read 8638 times)
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Nukes
Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:59am
 
issuevoter wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:26am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:09am:
issuevoter wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
You believe the religious tyrants of Iran should have nuclear weapons.


Not true issue - but I've already pointed that out to you several times.


Not true? You questioned why it would not be fair for Iran, under religious fanatics (like yourself), to have nuclear weapons, because the West has them. You were not being either pragmatic or impartial, you were obliquely supporting nuclear weapons for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the clerical leaders of which, have stated Israel will not exist in 10 years. That is now down to about 7. You are a liar for Islam, and you are so shallow, you are not even aware of your own transparency.


Issue raises a couple of important issues (so to speak) that I think are relevant to the global problem of nuclear proliferation.

He alludes to the evil Iranian regime and how abhorrent it is for them to acquire nuclear weapons on account of their alleged threat to wipe Israel off the map.

I agree with one thing - how abhorrent it would be for Iran to acquire nukes. Thats something I think we can all agree on. But for me the real issue is that of incentive and what drives nations to acquire nukes. In my view it is the most infantile and crass argument to merely point at Iran, or for that matter North Korea and say "evil regime - bad - they want to acquire nukes to destroy us and spread their evil - because their evil - gah!" Sure, nukes are evil, and yes, being evil per se would undoubtedly be a reason in and of itself to acquire nukes.

But lets get real - it is simply absurd to try and understand the motivation for acquiring nukes without considering the global nuclear monopolies that exist today. Iran is a particularly salient case in this regards. Focusing only on a completely mythical existential threat to Israel is laughable - when ignoring the fact that Israel is literally the only nation in the region with the military capability of "wiping" a country "off the map" - courtesty of being the sole nuclear power. The only actual existential threat that exists in the middle east, is that posed by Israel towards its neighbours. Thus to dismiss this as the most relevant factor in understanding Iran's (alleged) desire to acquire nukes, is simply absurd. Yet, in most mainstream discussions on the topic, it is only viewed through the prism of Iran the aggressor.

So the question I posed, which issue so badly mutilated - is how can we expect Iran to give up nuclear ambitions while the country that openly threatens and taunts them has a huge arsenal of them, and is allowed to keep them? And even more absurdly, how can we not understand Iran's nuclear ambitions within the context of simple self-defense/deterrence against this overt existential threat that they face? It has nothing to do with "not fair" or "its their right" - its just a common sense way of approaching a workable solution to what we all want - non-proliferation of nukes.

How do we expect *ANY* non-nuclear nation to not want and pursue nukes while ever other nations - especially nations they see as a threat - maintain exclusive rights to their existing arsenals of nukes?

Basically, you want a realistic and workable roadmap to global denuclearisation? Start with existing nuclear powers at least conceding that its not reasonable or practical to stamp out proliferation/attempted proliferation by non-nuclear nations until they relinquish exclusive rights to their nukes.
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
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 94104
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #1 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 11:55am
 
But the Israelis are the good guys.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:48pm by Bobby. »  
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Nukes
Reply #2 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 11:55am:
But the Israeles are the good guys.


Sure of that Bobby?  I wonder what the Palestineans think about that?  Mmmm?    Roll Eyes
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 94104
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #3 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:49pm
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 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?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #4 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:51pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:49pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 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?


Did you read the OP and understand what was being said, Bobby?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 94104
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #5 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:58pm
 
Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:51pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:49pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 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?


Did you read the OP and understand what was being said, Bobby?



Aussie,
The fact is that no country should have evil nuclear weapons.
The trouble is you can't put the genie back into the bottle.
If the world hasn't been annihilated by nuclear weapons
in say 100 years you can bet there will still be plenty of them in existence.

It's an awful fact of life that we have to live with.
There is no impetus by any of the nuclear powers to get rid of them.
They all think that if they don't have them other countries will nuke them.
How can you answer that?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #6 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 3:38pm
 
Sure.....get rid of them all but until then...what Gandalf said.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Nukes
Reply #7 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:23pm
 
Quote:
So the question I posed, which issue so badly mutilated - is how can we expect Iran to give up nuclear ambitions while the country that openly threatens and taunts them has a huge arsenal of them, and is allowed to keep them?


That's pretty much the only way we can expect them to.

Quote:
How do we expect *ANY* non-nuclear nation to not want and pursue nukes while ever other nations - especially nations they see as a threat - maintain exclusive rights to their existing arsenals of nukes?


Being the only country in the world with nukes is a far greater incentive to have them than being one of many. Gandalf your whole argument is an unrealistic fantasy. Your opening position that no countries should have nukes is unviable, naive, idiotic etc.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jasin
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 45560
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #8 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:43pm
 
The tiny Islands of Pitcairn have a Hyper-Fusion Core Annihilator. One blast to the core of the planet with this - and the whole world implodes.
As you can see - the entire world, does as the Pitcairn Islanders deem fit. Being a Super Power with 'the power of destruction over others'...


Back to top
 

AIMLESS EXTENTION OF KNOWLEDGE HOWEVER, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK YOU REALLY MEAN BY THE TERM 'CURIOSITY', IS MERELY INEFFICIENCY. I AM DESIGNED TO AVOID INEFFICIENCY.
 
IP Logged
 
Frank
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 39921
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #9 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:49pm
 
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:59am:
issuevoter wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:26am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:09am:
issuevoter wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
You believe the religious tyrants of Iran should have nuclear weapons.


Not true issue - but I've already pointed that out to you several times.


Not true? You questioned why it would not be fair for Iran, under religious fanatics (like yourself), to have nuclear weapons, because the West has them. You were not being either pragmatic or impartial, you were obliquely supporting nuclear weapons for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the clerical leaders of which, have stated Israel will not exist in 10 years. That is now down to about 7. You are a liar for Islam, and you are so shallow, you are not even aware of your own transparency.


Issue raises a couple of important issues (so to speak) that I think are relevant to the global problem of nuclear proliferation.

He alludes to the evil Iranian regime and how abhorrent it is for them to acquire nuclear weapons on account of their alleged threat to wipe Israel off the map.

I agree with one thing - how abhorrent it would be for Iran to acquire nukes. Thats something I think we can all agree on. But for me the real issue is that of incentive and what drives nations to acquire nukes. In my view it is the most infantile and crass argument to merely point at Iran, or for that matter North Korea and say "evil regime - bad - they want to acquire nukes to destroy us and spread their evil - because their evil - gah!" Sure, nukes are evil, and yes, being evil per se would undoubtedly be a reason in and of itself to acquire nukes.

But lets get real - it is simply absurd to try and understand the motivation for acquiring nukes without considering the global nuclear monopolies that exist today. Iran is a particularly salient case in this regards. Focusing only on a completely mythical existential threat to Israel is laughable - when ignoring the fact that Israel is literally the only nation in the region with the military capability of "wiping" a country "off the map" - courtesty of being the sole nuclear power. The only actual existential threat that exists in the middle east, is that posed by Israel towards its neighbours. Thus to dismiss this as the most relevant factor in understanding Iran's (alleged) desire to acquire nukes, is simply absurd. Yet, in most mainstream discussions on the topic, it is only viewed through the prism of Iran the aggressor.

So the question I posed, which issue so badly mutilated - is how can we expect Iran to give up nuclear ambitions while the country that openly threatens and taunts them has a huge arsenal of them, and is allowed to keep them? And even more absurdly, how can we not understand Iran's nuclear ambitions within the context of simple self-defense/deterrence against this overt existential threat that they face? It has nothing to do with "not fair" or "its their right" - its just a common sense way of approaching a workable solution to what we all want - non-proliferation of nukes.

How do we expect *ANY* non-nuclear nation to not want and pursue nukes while ever other nations - especially nations they see as a threat - maintain exclusive rights to their existing arsenals of nukes?

Basically, you want a realistic and workable roadmap to global denuclearisation? Start with existing nuclear powers at least conceding that its not reasonable or practical to stamp out proliferation/attempted proliferation by non-nuclear nations until they relinquish exclusive rights to their nukes.



You are dishonest - nothing new.  You want the 'shia dogs' to do the dirty work by wrangling nukes to wipe Israel.  You are an open book of lies and deceit, son of Mohammed.
You cannot be a Muslim and be honest. Contradiction in terms.






Back to top
 

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.
 
IP Logged
 
Brian Ross
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Representative of me

Posts: 39377
Re: Nukes
Reply #10 - Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:57pm
 
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:49pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 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
Back to top
 

Someone said we could not judge a person's Aboriginality on their skin colour.  Why isn't that applied in the matter of Pascoe?  Tsk, tsk, tsk...   Roll Eyes Roll Eyes
WWW  
IP Logged
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #11 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 8:38am
 
freediver wrote on Jan 7th, 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.
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
 
polite_gandalf
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 20023
Canberra
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #12 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 8:39am
 
Frank wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:49pm:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:59am:
issuevoter wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:26am:
polite_gandalf wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 8:09am:
issuevoter wrote on Dec 24th, 2018 at 5:30pm:
You believe the religious tyrants of Iran should have nuclear weapons.


Not true issue - but I've already pointed that out to you several times.


Not true? You questioned why it would not be fair for Iran, under religious fanatics (like yourself), to have nuclear weapons, because the West has them. You were not being either pragmatic or impartial, you were obliquely supporting nuclear weapons for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the clerical leaders of which, have stated Israel will not exist in 10 years. That is now down to about 7. You are a liar for Islam, and you are so shallow, you are not even aware of your own transparency.


Issue raises a couple of important issues (so to speak) that I think are relevant to the global problem of nuclear proliferation.

He alludes to the evil Iranian regime and how abhorrent it is for them to acquire nuclear weapons on account of their alleged threat to wipe Israel off the map.

I agree with one thing - how abhorrent it would be for Iran to acquire nukes. Thats something I think we can all agree on. But for me the real issue is that of incentive and what drives nations to acquire nukes. In my view it is the most infantile and crass argument to merely point at Iran, or for that matter North Korea and say "evil regime - bad - they want to acquire nukes to destroy us and spread their evil - because their evil - gah!" Sure, nukes are evil, and yes, being evil per se would undoubtedly be a reason in and of itself to acquire nukes.

But lets get real - it is simply absurd to try and understand the motivation for acquiring nukes without considering the global nuclear monopolies that exist today. Iran is a particularly salient case in this regards. Focusing only on a completely mythical existential threat to Israel is laughable - when ignoring the fact that Israel is literally the only nation in the region with the military capability of "wiping" a country "off the map" - courtesty of being the sole nuclear power. The only actual existential threat that exists in the middle east, is that posed by Israel towards its neighbours. Thus to dismiss this as the most relevant factor in understanding Iran's (alleged) desire to acquire nukes, is simply absurd. Yet, in most mainstream discussions on the topic, it is only viewed through the prism of Iran the aggressor.

So the question I posed, which issue so badly mutilated - is how can we expect Iran to give up nuclear ambitions while the country that openly threatens and taunts them has a huge arsenal of them, and is allowed to keep them? And even more absurdly, how can we not understand Iran's nuclear ambitions within the context of simple self-defense/deterrence against this overt existential threat that they face? It has nothing to do with "not fair" or "its their right" - its just a common sense way of approaching a workable solution to what we all want - non-proliferation of nukes.

How do we expect *ANY* non-nuclear nation to not want and pursue nukes while ever other nations - especially nations they see as a threat - maintain exclusive rights to their existing arsenals of nukes?

Basically, you want a realistic and workable roadmap to global denuclearisation? Start with existing nuclear powers at least conceding that its not reasonable or practical to stamp out proliferation/attempted proliferation by non-nuclear nations until they relinquish exclusive rights to their nukes.



You are dishonest - nothing new.  You want the 'shia dogs' to do the dirty work by wrangling nukes to wipe Israel.  You are an open book of lies and deceit, son of Mohammed.
You cannot be a Muslim and be honest. Contradiction in terms.


absolutely, never-ever, on stilts.
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
 
Bobby.
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 94104
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Nukes
Reply #13 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 10:13am
 
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 9:57pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 2:49pm:
Brian Ross wrote on Jan 7th, 2019 at 1:54pm:
Bobby. wrote on Jan 7th, 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


Google the Samson Option.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tickleandrose
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3867
Gender: female
Re: Nukes
Reply #14 - Jan 8th, 2019 at 11:47am
 
Ever since the USA developed nuclear capabilities, it is inevitable that the other opposing and allied world powers does the same.  Mostly for self preservation, and the overall treat of mutual destruction.   However, after those more advanced powers obtained those, they would not want other countries to have it either.   If everyone else have a nuclear warhead then what the worth of your own? 

Even world powers like Russia and China, who backs Iran, did not want Iran have nuclear weapons.  The reason is simple, people are playing the long game, who knows if allies of today, would be enemies of tomorrow.  And dont think for a moment that China is happy about nuclear capabilities of North Korea either.

The world is an interesting place.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 11
Send Topic Print