Talisker wrote:Get Real! wrote:Paphitis wrote:Perhaps the Paphitis scale of Nuclear Armament fitness is a good way of making such assessments!
It is a very simple philosophy and it goes something like this:
If you yourself are willing to live within a particular society, such as the US for example, because you believe that their society is somewhat democratic and generally good, although not perfect because there is no such thing, then these societies are "fit" for nuclear armaments.
If you yourself are NOT willing to live in a particular society, such as Iran for example, because you deem it to be a gross violator of human rights, its people are oppressed, live in difficult circumstances, and because the country is run by a religious tyrant hell bent on staying in power at all costs, women are stoned to death for being raped, and has vowed to crush The Israeli State whilst its own people live in poverty etc etc...then such a country is not fit for nuclear armaments.
Of course, it is better if no nation had nuclear armaments, but this unfortunately is unrealistic and impossible for the time being...
All just common sense really....
Paphitis, thanks for the free tour of how your
irrational mind works which is purely based on stereotypical western racist hype, because while it is true that Iranian citizens don’t have as good a lifestyle as American citizens, it’s hardly a factor in determining which country is more likely to use a WMD!!!
What you need to look at is a country’s
FOREIGN POLICY and history of military aggression, because after all we are talking about the likelihood of launching nuclear missiles, not enforcing the burkha on one’s citizens!
Once again, here’s how a RATIONAL mind works…
1. The US is the ONLY country in the world to have ever used WMDs against humanity, killing 140,000 people in Hiroshima, and 80,000 in Nagasaki in one go!
2. The US is also the biggest abuser of the “Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty” which was intended to control the spread of nuclear weapons, by assisting India, Pakistan, Israel, and God knows who else to attain them!
3. No other country in the history of mankind has setup so many coups in other nations, installed so many puppet governments, erected so many military bases to enable meddling in other countries, and manipulated UN Security Council and General Assembly resolutions to their favor, conducted countless financial aid blackmails, and so much more, than the US!
4. Overall, the US is responsible for more death & destruction in the last 60 odd years than the rest of the world put together!
5. The US has the UNNECCESSARY NUCLEAR CAPABILITY to destroy the world many times over!
Now wake up!
Paphitis, what you talking about? This is one of your 'bolt-from-the-blue-complete-bollocks' posts.
I find myself in agreement with GR! on this one!!!!!!!
I find this difficult to believe Talisker...
Did you not notice how GR! manipulated my post or derived a different meaning to suit his argument. Defeats the purpose of debate really. Where did I say that Iranians were unfit for weapons grade uranium because Iranian citizens have a lower standard of living than Americans...
It is a society's morality I was referring too. And that is not to say that the Iranian people are immoral, but their despotic Government is, and for many reasons. Not to mention their strong rhetoric identifying their Strategic Position about destroying Israel. So what are the options?
Well, the US will certainly try and manipulate Iran to not produce a bomb but allow them to obtain the capability of nuclear grade fuel for their own national pride, and to also produce electricity. This would probably suit the US, as they would be keen to avoid another costly war. So perhaps the US is Engineering Iranian Nuclear Policy (Interesting!).
But if the Americans believe that this is not the case, then I'm certain they would be considering a preemptive strike, because if they do not, Israel will. Not a very good picture. I'm certain there are thousands analyzing every single possible outcome, and the actions of the US (or Israel) will be dictated by this very analysis.
GR! likes to portray himself as wanting the best for Iran and its people. This is not the case, because if he did, then he would have supported the Iranian dissidents efforts to end the Tyranny in Iran after the last "election". He would have supported Iran fulfilling its true potential and become a wealthy, vibrant, and powerful nation within the region. But as you can see, GR! does not give a damn about Iran or its people. GR! just tries to push his own selfish agenda and crusade against the west...
Back to ww2. This war was basically 2 wars rolled into one. There was the war in Europe, and the war in the Pacific. In the Pacific, Japan was fighting both the US and Australia, whilst these 2 nations were fighting on 2 fronts, the Pacific and Europe.
The allies were very fortunate in the fact that the Germans and Japanese did not really collaborate and formulate a combined strategy in WW2. The Japanese waged their own war for their own self interest. For example, when France fell, the Japanese took advantage of this and invaded Vietnam. When Holland fell, they invaded the Dutch colonies.
If the Japanese did develop a combined strategy with their Nazi ally, then the Japanese would have moved west from China towards the Russian front, thus surrounding the Russians. If this happened, then it would have been all over for Europe and no doubt Hitler would have won the war.
That is one thing, but in 1945, as the war in Europe was ending, there was no sign of an unconditional Japanese surrender. This left us with the ghastly option of invading Japan itself, killing a huge number of allied troops and civilians. The cost was deemed far too high, especially after D Day, and allied forces were already tired. An invasion of Japan could have gone on for years, possibly even a decade. The Japanese do not believe in surrender. So the option was a nuclear strike on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don't like the fact that nuclear weapons were used, but what was the alternative?
Europe must accept its share of the responsibility in all this. Because the Pacific nations sent vital assets to Europe to fight the Nazis, which even left Australia exposed to Japanese invasion at one point. Our forces were already depleted. So when America dropped this bomb on Hiroshima, they did it on behalf of all allies, including Australia. It ended the war! And thankfully, these nuclear weapons have never been used since then by any nation.
So what is the difference between that and the Allied blitz and invasion of Nazi Germany? How many Germans were killed as a result of this blitz. And how many allied troops were KIA?
Obviously, it was no different. It is just that the Hiroshima, and Nagasaki Hydrogen Bombs were a much more efficient way of killing people and ending the war, without jeopardizing our troops in a costly invasion which would have went on for years. Both America and Australia just did not have the nerve.
And whilst the Americans and Australians were running from the Japanese gauntlet. where were our European allies? Both countries assisted Europe as much as possible, and Europe was not willing to offer anything in return, even after the war in Europe had ended.
So when our European "allies" thank us for our contributions in ww2, don't expect this to be reciprocated from either the US or Australia.
All I can say is thank heavens for Pearl Harbor! What a stupid blunder...
