North Korea launched a long range missle.

[YOhio]

My acting like my points are good ones is anything but ironic. You should all expect nothing less by now.

By the way, rank the following countries in order of how many innocent people they have killed with nuclear bombs, most to least...

1. USA
2. Rest of world combined

This should definitely preclude the U.S. from ever registering an opinion on any other nation developing or possessing a nuclear weapon.

[TripletDaddy]

This should definitely preclude the U.S. from ever registering an opinion on any other nation developing or possessing a nuclear weapon.

I agree.

I think the US has every right to develop nuclear weapons, use them to destroy two large cities and kill about a quarter million people, amass thousands of them over the past few decades, negotiate with other countries to launch them on their soil so we can have a strategic advantage everywhere on the planet, and then tell the rest of the world to not have them at all.

[UtahDan]

How many countries have actually detonated a nuclear or atomic bomb in an act of aggression?

Pretty ironic that we are basically the only ones.

And yet we are all worried that others will get them and use them.

So the fact that we used them (well not really we, no one in leadership or any of us were over 18 back then) disqualifies us from being concerned that others do? That is a nonsequitor. Since we once had slaves should we stop being concerned about human rights around the world? Obviously that isn't what you believe.

Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of aggression? Don't answer that.

[YOhio]

I agree.

I think the US has every right to develop nuclear weapons, use them to destroy two large cities and kill about a quarter million people, amass thousands of them over the past few decades, negotiate with other countries to launch them on their soil so we can have a strategic advantage everywhere on the planet, and then tell the rest of the world to not have them at all.

To quote The Happiest Millionaire, "What's Wrong With That?"

[UtahDan]

Your use of 9/11 is ironic in that it seems to support my point, not yours.

Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, not Iraq. And Al Qaeda operated in secret, lying in wait, planting sleeper cells several years in advance in different parts of the world.

They weren't out hiacking airplanes as dry runs for Sep 11.

I think you are trying to connect the events of Sep 11 with the failed UN sanctions against Saddam Hussein, which have since been proven to not really have much connection at all.

Back to your regularly scheduled paranoia.

Mmmm, you're reading a lot in there I didn't say. I am not trying to connect 9/11 to anything other than the idea that just because conventional wisdom is that we are safe on a particular front doesn't mean that we are. We never thought we could be attacked that way and we were wrong. Do you remember all those hearings that were held afterwards that pointed out all the ways we could have seen it coming but didn't? We now have made changes that would help us prevent another such attack. But the warning signs were all there.

My only point is that the warning signs are all there that a nuclear attack is possible from a non-state actor or a state actor (NK or Iran). If it happened tomorrow could anyone really say "wow, who could have ever seen that coming." That is hasn't happened has made us complacent. I have already said I'm not sure we have the capability to do anything about it at this point. you are anticipating an argument that isn't coming, I believe.

[MindfulCoug]

So the fact that we used them (well not really we, no one in leadership or any of us were over 18 back then) disqualifies us from being concerned that others do? That is a nonsequitor. Since we once had slaves should we stop being concerned about human rights around the world? Obviously that isn't what you believe.

Also, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of aggression? Don't answer that.

The united state is not practicing slavery any more ,well ,not in the real sense of the term, but is not you the one who has the richest atomic arsenal and has actually proudly used it ?

[YOhio]

Mmmm, you're reading a lot in there I didn't say.

The great irony is that the TripleDad is the first to mock us as being paranoid. Yet he infers that that you or I have advocated invasion when we didn't.

[YOhio]

The united state is not practicing slavery any more ,well ,not in the real sense of the term, but is not you the one who has the richest atomic arsenal and has actually proudly used it ?

Great point Mindful, but I think TripleDad beat you to the punch. More than once.

[MindfulCoug]

Great point Mindful, but I think TripleDad beat you to the punch. More than once.

Well ,I actually enjoyed reading his posts .And to be brutally honest ,this does not happen most of the times.

[YOhio]

Well ,I actually enjoyed reading his posts .And to be brutally honest ,this does not happen ,most of the times.

I hear you there sister.

[UtahDan]

The united state is not practicing slavery any more ,well ,not in the real sense of the term, but is not you the one who has the richest atomic arsenal and has actually proudly used it ?

Yes indeed we do, and yes we did use it and perhaps proudly, but context is important. We developed that capability when we learned that Hitler was well on his way (or so we believed) to having that capability and we knew that if he got it first, that the world would very quickly be under his thumb. As it turned out, he didn't get it and was defeated without it.

Once we had it we were still engaged with Japan who had a phenomenal warrior culture that was ready to expend every last soldier to avoid defeat. For some great insight on this, if it is available to you, see the movie Letters from Iwo Jima which is about that famous battle from the perspective of the Japanese (in fact all of the dialoug is in Japanese) and how ordinary Japanese men who were conscripted into military service one by one blew themselves up with grenades rather than be defeated.

There is some legitimate disagreement surrounding whether our use of them to end that war was necessary but many believe that in the end it saved lives (though again, this is debatable). What isn't debatable is that our previous firebombing of Tokyo killed several times more people than our nuclear weapons did.

In any event, as the War ended the Russian Army was in possession of East Germany (or what became it) and all of the countries in between. The other allies immediately became very concerned that if Stalin decided to seize the opportunity to invade western Europe that American and British troops would be badly outnumbered and could not resist for long. Because of this, the US made a very public display of deploying a bomber with a nuke on board in the UK and in fact lead Russia to believe that it had brought many when it fact it was only one or many two as memorty serves. In other words, not enough to have actually stopped Russia. Still, the bluff worked and the Cold War was on.

As the Russians developed their own capability an arms race ensued to ensure that neither side gained enough advantage to make attack tempting. In this way the two great powers held each other at bay until the 1980s when the USSR collapsed economically. At the time that happened we were left with many more nukes than we would ever need (though still only a fraction of what Russia had) and over the years we have significantly reduced the numbers of them we have. They are a vestige of teh COld War but because Russia still maintains their arsenal to some degree and other countries have developed them (China) and still others are seeking them (Iran and NK) it has made good sense for us to maintain them as a deterrent.

I go through this to show you that that the suggestion that you and DDD seem to be making that it is the USA that has the most nukes and thus represents the greatest threat to use them (or at least that by virtue of having them shouldn't mind others having them) could not be more misplaced. The USA gives no other country any reason to believe that we would use them in an offensive capacity. We simply say that if any nation uses against us, we will retaliate. Of course, some will say that other nations only desire them because we have them and they feel threatened and hence we should unilaterally disarm ourselves (as was suggest in this country during the 70s and 80s). This is impossibly naive. NK and Iran have and/or seek nuclear weapons to enhance their capabilities and to threated others with them and what the USA does or does not do plays not part in their desire to have them.

The threat that a nuke will be used is a real one, but does anyone really believe that the USA would strike first in this way? Really? Of course not. It may not be possible for us to prevent others from having them, but it is legitimate for us to desire (and for the world to desire) that unpredictable regimes who are telegraphing their desire to USE such a weapon not achieve the capability to do so. So if you are implying with your question (as DDD has stated) that our capability disqualifies us from wanting certain other regimes not to acquire that capability, we are not for the reasons stated. If that is not your point, then I don't understand why you ask that question.

(Now where is SU, he has been wanting a long, ponderous, plodding post from me. I have delivered it and I expect some appreciative words).

[YOhio]

Nice post UD.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Well said, UD.

[TripletDaddy]

My only point is that the warning signs are all there that a nuclear attack is possible from a non-state actor or a state actor (NK or Iran). If it happened tomorrow could anyone really say "wow, who could have ever seen that coming." That is hasn't happened has made us complacent. I have already said I'm not sure we have the capability to do anything about it at this point. you are anticipating an argument that isn't coming, I believe.

I am not implying that the US can't have an opinion. Who cares if they have an opinion? Be my guest and form opinions all day long.

Your initial post implies that a verbal rebuke is not sufficient. So if you would, go ahead and clarify. What would be sufficient in this specific instance. What do you want to see happen?

[UtahDan]

I am not implying that the US can't have an opinion. Who cares if they have an opinion? Be my guest and form opinions all day long.

Your initial post implies that a verbal rebuke is not sufficient. So if you would, go ahead and clarify. What would be sufficient in this specific instance. What do you want to see happen?

In my perfect world I would like to see China interceding to put an end to this. Barring that I wish there were international support for collective action to remove this capability through whatever means causes as little collateral damage as possible. There isn't. Barring that it would be nice if we were powerful enough to do the same thing unilaterally without the fear of massive losses and fall out from other nations, ones who aren't eager to see us in decline so that the their relative power is enhanced. Of course that is the opposite of the world we live in. So basically we are impotent. That was my point.

Our public can't get behind what needs to be done even if we were capable of it. Certainly the world won't get behind it and we need them to. The world didn't believe that Hitler would REALLY try to take over Europe until Czechoslovakia and Poland disappeared. People will believe that there is a nuclear threat when it materializes. It is 1939, FDR has just been re-elected and promised that he will not lead us into a foreign War, Hitler has been appeased at Munich and the Pacific fleet is sleepily at anchor at Pearl Harbor. My sense is that this is about the climate we are in now. Boy do I ever hope I am wrong.