- Joined
- Sep 24, 2005
- Messages
- 8,260
- Reaction score
- 1,064
- Location
- Whitewater, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.
What do you folks think?
Vader said:I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.
What do you folks think?
knicksin2010 said:No! I don't want to be the one's responsible for starting WWIII. We should let Israel and Iran duke it out alone if it comes to that and use our power to make sure no-one else gets ivolved.
Or else
TimmyBoy said:If Israel and Iran duke it out, they will nuke each other and other countries, whether they want to get involved or not, will be forced to get involved because of the willingness of both Israel and Iran to nuke each other, which the effects of the use of those nuclear weapons will spread to other parts of the globe.
MrAchilles said:Now you would think after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States should have seperated itself from all nuclear connections right? But i guess since we're big bad America we get to keep ours. Well that's not fair to third world countries. How can America expect the Middle Eastern nations t give up their nukes when we still carry them! America has to get rid of their nukes then they should ask other M.E. nations to do the same.
MrAchilles said:Now you would think after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the United States should have seperated itself from all nuclear connections right? But i guess since we're big bad America we get to keep ours. Well that's not fair to third world countries. How can America expect the Middle Eastern nations t give up their nukes when we still carry them! America has to get rid of their nukes then they should ask other M.E. nations to do the same.
Vader said:I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.
What do you folks think?
Kelzie said:I completely had this mind set until I learned about the difference between first and second strike capabilities. First strike capabilty is being able to hit first and limit your enemy's abillity to retaliate to acceptable levels. Second strike capabiltity is the ability to absord an enemy's attack and still have enough weapons to inflict unacceptable damage on them. The US and Russia have second strike capabilty. All developing nuclear powers have first strike capability. Big deal you say. Well, say you're a country with first strike capability and you here news that your enemy is planning on attacking your weapons silos. What do you do? If they attack it, that's it. You won't be able to attack them anymore. So you attack first. That's the danger of countries with first strike capability. It is too easily taken away, so they become trigger happy. A country that only has first strike is tempted to attack by the belief that his opponent could not retaliate. A county that has second strike capabilty knows that it can strike back so it is not tempted to strike first.
teacher said:Yea, well...
MrAchilles said:First off I want to say that Skilmatic has some anger management issues and needs to learn how to conduct himself on public forums. Secondly I want to thank Kelzie for clearing that up for me. My political science teacher taught us about first strike last year but i guess he failed to mention second strike. It's actually common sense once you think about, being how strong America is and all.
Kelzie said:Freakin people. I swear. I never said that the Russian military is anywhere near equal to the US's. Not that it is in any way relevant to the disccusion, but they have over 7,000 nukes. Even if we could wipe out...say 5/6 of their missiles in our first strike (which is very optimistic), that would leave about 1200 nukes left for them to retalitate with. Do you think that is acceptable damage? This is why the US and Russia would NEVER attack each other.
teacher said:Oh my..........
Kelzie said::lol: No problem. I just remember thinking the same as you literally a month ago. Like: where was the US getting off saying other countries can't have nukes.
My best choice would be that nobody has them. But my second best would be that only second strike capable countries would have them.
teacher said:Oh dear...
Kelzie said:What?!? That's not what I said. I said they shouldn't have first strike capability.
Hoot said:: Should the free world put together a military force to invade Iran?
If Bush wants to see his approval ratings drop down into the single digits, sure, then invade Iran.
We need diplomacy in this regard, not invasion...invading Iran would be absolutely the dumbest, stupidest thing our nation has ever done.
Why would Iran even want the bomb?
one 4-letter word...FEAR.
They see the U.S. attacking neighbors like Afghanistan and Iraq and know they could be next. Our foreign policy is literally forcing Iran to pursue the bomb. We armed Iraq in the past, expressly for keeping Iran in check. Why should they want to negoiate with the U.S.? The 'free world' doesn't need a united military force, it needs a united diplomatic force.
Besides, if Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, does anyone doubt that Israel will wage a pre-emptive attack on Iran's facilities...with or without U.S. approval?
Bush would have to be an idiot to get us embroiled in a mess with Iran now. If I could only hold my breath and keep my fingers crossed until Jan, 20th, 2009, when this spoiled little rich kid, who has failed at every facet of his life, is a fading memory in the minds of freedom loving Americans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?