The end of non-proliferation?

[Almighty Colin]

If NK develops/tests a nuclear weapon, what nation will be next?

I would think that every nation with the weapon increases the chances of the weapon eventually being used. Insane.

Unbelievable to me is the stance that many people in the world are taking that since the current nuclear powers have such weapons that all nations should be able to have such weapons. Theis is the great principle of equality that we try to apply within our liberal democracies applied to the world as a whole. All nations are not equal though. While logical in one sense the end result sounds quite frightening. Totalitarian governments are not equal. Such nations are assaults on human dignity that exist only because of coercion. The argument has been made over and over in the past that people in such nations wish to live that way and yet for some reason these nations continue to fall and become democracies. People do not wish to be governed as such. Nuclear weapons and totalitarian states are a recipe for disaster.

Is there a solution or will more and more nations join the nuclear club until eventually they are once again used? Could it be possible that many nations - more than the current handful - will have nuclear weapons? What is the best hope in such a scenario? That all nations will so fear the weapons of other nations that wars will not occur anymore? I seriously doubt that. Someday, somewhere, someone will get desperate.

Can this end well?



Last edited by Colin at Aug 30 2003, 06:04 AM

[Winetalk.com]

Colin,
the only good thing come out of it is that in the next war the weapon of choice will be...
sticks and stones
;-))

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Serge_Oprano@Aug 30 2003, 06:18 AM
Colin,
the only good thing come out of it is that in the next war the weapon of choice will be...
sticks and stones
;-))
Just as long as we don't fight with words. ;-)

[Rolo]

Civilizations rise and fall - that is a never ending process... I´m sure in 100 years there will still be nukes, and probably even more powerful weapons, but I´m also sure that we will not have all of these totalitarian governments/civilizations, because they will self-destruct at some point in time. Some of these totalitarian governments will probably go out with a big bang, other will collapse from the inside.

I think it would be very wise to do *everything* in our power to prevent any of these totalitarian civilizations to get powerful weapons, because when they start their self-destruct process, then no one will able to predict the short term outcome.

[Vick]

Rolo - are you sure of the next 100 years?

I often wonder how many civilizations have inhabited this planet Earth. How many times has a bi-ped, carbon based, organic life form roamed this planet only to destroy their own civilization

How many times has a one celled creature evolved into the life forms we know today?

Once again, the planet can take care of it's self, it's the life forms on the planet that can't

[Rolo]

Humans are very clever animals and until this date in time, we are probably the most successful animal to ever have lived on earth (if success is measured in survival chances).
In just the last 100 years we have gone thru changes in politics and technology, which will forever change how humans delvelop their future civilizations... even if we have to start from scratch.

Yes, we will probably face huge problems in the next 100 years, but I think we will solve most of them. We change so fast now, that new technology does not even spread around the world before it is outdated.
Almost everywhere you go on this earth, then you will be able to find humans... Humans adapt extremly well to their surrounding environment, we can eat almost everything, and we are basicly none aggressive animals - as long as we are not threaten.

The only thing I fear is that, if humans do not continue to evolve in the same speed as we are currently, then major problems will catch up with us, and we will enter a long dark time of in human history... but humans will not go away or be extinct :)



Last edited by Rolo at Aug 30 2003, 07:34 AM

[Mike AI]

Bottom line is N. Korea needs a major ass kicking - they cannot be allowed to develop and sell nuclear weapons. Even if this means we must use nukes as a first strike.

The same goes for Iran as well.

One reason we need Bush to win in 2004 - I feat a democrat president would just hide his head in the sand and ignore the problems, and by then nuclear weapons will be out everywhere.

[Vick]

Rolo - we have different views of the human animal

You seem sure in your opinion another civilization has never existed on this planet and that our current species will last

I am at the other end of the spectrum

As for N. Korea developing and possessing nuclear weapons - bad idea. The USA is the leader in the balance of power and we should do everything in our power to remain as such

Edit - example of human intelligence - given the incredibly powerful technological advance of the rapid and almost instant transference of information what does the human animal do with it?
Turn it into a junk flea market ......
See the internet for prime example, then look at network television

the roaches are laughing




Last edited by Vick at Aug 30 2003, 10:48 AM

[PornoDoggy]

Originally posted by Mike AI@Aug 30 2003, 10:40 AM
Bottom line is N. Korea needs a major ass kicking - they cannot be allowed to develop and sell nuclear weapons. Even if this means we must use nukes as a first strike.

The same goes for Iran as well.

One reason we need Bush to win in 2004 - I feat a democrat president would just hide his head in the sand and ignore the problems, and by then nuclear weapons will be out everywhere.
Mike, I suspect you think that another reason for Bush to win in 2004 is that he is anti-acne, and the Democrats want to promote it in order to satisfy the powerful dermatologist lobby. Well, that and you don't believe that Democrats are real Americans and that they support anti-American causes. :rolleyes:

With regard to North Korea ... unilateral action must be the last resort. A successful and peaceful resolution is much more likely to be achieved by joint action with China and Russia.

And a first strike using nuclear weapons against North Korea will guarantee that anyone else on the planet who has them will no longer be restrained from using them - which is not a good idea.

As far as Iran goes ... I don't believe a word out of this administration's mouth when it comes to the region. Doesn't mean I don't think Iran is working toward a nuclear capability - just means that before I believe it coming from the Bush Administration Terhan's nuclear reactors better be fucking glowing in the dark.

[Mike AI]

As far as Iran goes ... I don't believe a word out of this administration's mouth when it comes to the region. Doesn't mean I don't think Iran is working toward a nuclear capability - just means that before I believe it coming from the Bush Administration Terhan's nuclear reactors better be fucking glowing in the dark.

Israel will take care of this one.....

We will have to deal with N. Korea - obiously diplomatic pressure from Jpan, S. Korea, China and RUssia will help. But if this does not work, we will have to take it out. Probably with conventional arms.... but I would not be against small tactical.... especially if the pentagon was worried about a failed attack, then N. Korea going nuclear before we can.....

[JR]

maybe we will all die soon.