Al Gore, what a loser.

[TX Bill]

TX, I certainly haven't had a go at the USA, I never do because I really like you lot and I am fully aware of the good you do and you are right in reminding people of that. However at no stage do you address my concerns about the proliferation of matters nuke which scares the crap out of me although the older I get the less it should bother me, I just think what the future may hold for my family and you lot round the world, the conclusion I come is not that nice mate.

Sorry, not intentional as I must have glazed right over it.

I would be extremely concerned if a country (other that the ones now that currently have nuclear weapons capabilities) obtained nukes.

I'm not concerned about the current powers that have them (a bit nervous about Pakistan though) because the current powers that have them aren't calling for the destruction of certain countries. Their leaders don't believe that if you don't submit to their way of life, that you should be wiped off the map. Their leaders don't believe that you spend eternity in paradise for killing innocents (not in their eyes mind you.)

So yes, I share your concerns about nukes, especially falling into the hands of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Kind of a rambling response but I believe that you and I are on the exact same page on this subject.

 

[monty]

Sorry, not intentional as I must have glazed right over it.

I would be extremely concerned if a country (other that the ones now that currently have nuclear weapons capabilities) obtained nukes.

I'm not concerned about the current powers that have them (a bit nervous about Pakistan though) because the current powers that have them aren't calling for the destruction of certain countries. Their leaders don't believe that if you don't submit to their way of life, that you should be wiped off the map. Their leaders don't believe that you spend eternity in paradise for killing innocents (not in their eyes mind you.)

So yes, I share your concerns about nukes, especially falling into the hands of countries that sponsor terrorism.

Kind of a rambling response but I believe that you and I are on the exact same page on this subject.

We are mate

 

[TX Bill]

I forgot one point I wanted to make.

The good thing about nukes (if you really want to call it that ) was that back in the day, the idea of mutually assured destruction (i.e. deterrence) was enough to keep the Cold War from breaking out into a real live nuclear war.

Each side knew that if they launched, the other would respond in kind and wah la, no more earth.

The problem now is that you cannot "deter" terrorism. If a terrorist somehow manages to get a nuclear device into the USA (however unlikely) and detonate it, who do you retaliate against? Worse, say you find someone who's responsible and hit 'em back, they probably think they're going to spend eternity in paradise with 72 virgins so to them, that's a good thing. So they have no concern about that. Scary but that's how it is right now.

You can hit countries that sponsor terrorism but at the end of the day, mutually assured destruction and deterrence really aren't applicable.

I read a really good essay on the subject and if I can find it, I'll reply with a link as I think you'd appreciate it.

(Edit: Here's the link below. Fair warning that the website generally espouse conservative views but he writes a reasoned essay about the topic above. Scroll down on the right hand side and you'll see some of his essays. The essay is in fact titled "Deterrence" and it's in two parts. Take a moment (or two) and read his thoughts on the subject.)

http://www.ejectejecteject.com/

 

[monty]

In the main I can go with most of that as well but, and this is were I must ask you to change your mind set for a second, if you were not American, say Belgian, your outlook would differ because your country will never have nukes, you will only ever be the victim..........that mind set applies to the majority of humanity. Its something that cannot be changed for obvious reasons but it can't be ignored either. I refer back to that helpless feeling I had aged 14/15, two super powers were about to blow the planet and all that lives on it to smithereens over Cuba (no Chico references please), my future didn't exist for the duration of that crisis and I wouldn't wish that emotion on anyone anywhere for any reason

It did help keep the peace in the long term, it did endorse the fact that only the strong win but for mass of humanity, the weak nations, it was an unfortable nightmare, one I will never forget

 

[TX Bill]

In the main I can go with most of that as well but, and this is were I must ask you to change your mind set for a second, if you were not American, say Belgian, your outlook would differ because your country will never have nukes, you will only ever be the victim..........that mind set applies to the majority of humanity. Its something that cannot be changed for obvious reasons but it can't be ignored either. I refer back to that helpless feeling I had aged 14/15, two super powers were about to blow the planet and all that lives on it to smithereens over Cuba (no Chico references please), my future didn't exist for the duration of that crisis and I wouldn't wish that emotion on anyone anywhere for any reason

It did help keep the peace in the long term, it did endorse the fact that only the strong win but for mass of humanity, the weak nations, it was an unfortable nightmare, one I will never forget

No doubt that that's one of the many problems with nuclear weapons.

And even this "cold-hearted" conservative would venture to say that there would be no "winners" in the event of any nuclear exchange, "warranted" or otherwise.

Personally I would prefer that no matter how justified someone may feel in using nuclear weapons, that they stick with conventional weapons to retaliate or to defend themselves.

And while no one would launch an attack against Belgium or another similar country, no doubt they'd get the fallout from such an attack elsewhere.

I agree with you 100% in this respect.

 

[Ct jr.]

No doubt that that's one of the many problems with nuclear weapons.

And even this "cold-hearted" conservative would venture to say that there would be no "winners" in the event of any nuclear exchange, "warranted" or otherwise.

Personally I would prefer that no matter how justified someone may feel in using nuclear weapons, that they stick with conventional weapons to retaliate or to defend themselves.

And while no one would launch an attack against Belgium or another similar country, no doubt they'd get the fallout from such an attack elsewhere.

I agree with you 100% in this respect.

I would prefer to end senseless wastes of life and try and figure things out diplomatically

 

[TX Bill]

I would prefer to end senseless wastes of life and try and figure things out diplomatically

Oh, I agree with that.

Problem is that diplomacy doesn't always work.

Then what? More diplomacy?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

This is the thing though isn't it? I mean who wants to blow up pacifist countries like Belgium or Japan?

Mankind has been blowing the crap out of each other for as long we've been on this planet. Perhaps it's time we looked at alternatives?

In many ways this is a big reason why I dislike governments because by their very nature they have to generalise in a huge way. Wars aren't fought between nations are they, lets face it, they're fought between politicians, yet they're always classed as nation vs nation to whip up political support. It's crap.

Look at the situation at the moment. You'll get people saying all 300 million Americans are tossers because Bush is. You'll get suggestions that all Muslims are terrorists, all Poles are welfare sponges and so on. It's garbage but it happens because governments, and the media, generalise because society is worked around this so called democratic majority, hence they're thought to speak for us all, represent us all.

I'm inclined to think that until we get away from this mass generalisation that we'll forever have conflict because misunderstanding is at the heart of conflict.

 

[TX Bill]

This is the thing though isn't it? I mean who wants to blow up pacifist countries like Belgium or Japan?

Mankind has been blowing the crap out of each other for as long we've been on this planet. Perhaps it's time we looked at alternatives?

In many ways this is a big reason why I dislike governments because by their very nature they have to generalise in a huge way. Wars aren't fought between nations are they, lets face it, they're fought between politicians, yet they're always classed as nation vs nation to whip up political support. It's crap.

Look at the situation at the moment. You'll get people saying all 300 million Americans are tossers because Bush is. You'll get suggestions that all Muslims are terrorists, all Poles are welfare sponges and so on. It's garbage but it happens because governments, and the media, generalise because society is worked around this so called democratic majority, hence they're thought to speak for us all, represent us all.

I'm inclined to think that until we get away from this mass generalisation that we'll forever have conflict because misunderstanding is at the heart of conflict.

Human nature. Doesn't make it right. I'm just sayin.

Mass generalizations, stereotypes.

 

[chicoazul]

Leave Cuba out of this, its ace.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Nah, you're all dog loving butt munchers

 

[TX Bill]

Leave Cuba out of this, its ace.

Give my regards to Fidel. Ask him how that's working out over there.

 

[chicoazul]

He's kept it together and defied the world biggest Superpower for nearly fifty years. I reckon he's done well.

Great healthcare, education (both free), safe enough to walk around after dark, very low unemployment.

Its a shame you guys dont get on, you would like him.

 

[Cardinal Albert Simon]

HOWEVER, this does not relieve us of the responsibility to find alternative energy sources. The US has a proven track record in Nuclear reactors, (I should know, working on Nuclear powered subs for so long), and while they don't have the best reputation, they are clean and provide an abundance of energy. I am pro-nuke (done the right way).

Problem with nuclear energy aside from the possibility of disaster (though I'll give you that we've learnt from Chernobyl) is what to do with the waste. The stuff is incredibly difficult to store safely and, sadly, there's no nice, clean option available.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Now, now Chico, nothing is ever free The NHS is 'free', providing you overlook the several thousand pounds we each pay towards it in national insurance each year