Russia Sells Weapons to... SYRIA!! Yay!

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050216/ap_on_re_eu/russia_syria

Well, looks like we've got ourselves another few decades of conflict ahead. Regardless of how you see the US, selling weapons to countries like North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc... is a stupid move. Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm volatile regimes like this? ESPECIALLY with the current situation between Syria, Iran and Lebanon. As much as people say our support for Afghanistan against the Russians and Iraq against the Iranians has bit us in the ass... do you think that this kind of arms deal will eventually bite Russia and China in the ass? Or will it be just the first few steps in the Euro-Russo-Sino-Islamic war agains the US and Israel?

EDIT: Add the brilliant Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to that list: http://www.latinamericanpost.com/index.php?mod=seccion&secc=38&conn=3805

Do you believe that an armed society is a polite society? I do, so why can't we say an armed world is a polite world? What stopped the Cuban Missle Crisis? Was it the fear of WWIII ending in the exchange of Nukes? Sure. The US will have to curb its Imperialistic ways if the world is armed, so that is one of the upsides. But I do see the damgers, as smaller countries have a greater propensity to shoot before all other possibilities have been exhausted.

Get used to it folks, all these little things we biy that are made in Chona are going to fule the Chinese-Russian war marrige.... maybe this little American fiscal move to ship our manufacturing to China was a bad ides in more ways that just lowering corporate costs.....

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

We are so pre-occupied with this struggle, mother Russia might see is as a grand oppurtunity to regain their lost prominance in the world. After all, isn't that what we did to them?

Russia you have got to be joking.......One word for ya CHINA!!!!!!!!..........Theres gonna be some very serious competition for resources coming up.

No, they have a marriage that is solidifie by their ideology - which makes them that much more dangerous. When we partnered with Russia in WWII we split after it was over due to ideological diffs -

About 2 months ago CNN reported that China and Russia are in the works to plan military operations. It's perfect for them, Russia has the military knowledge and China has the manpower and financial backing. And there will be little bickering since they are aligned ideologically.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Do you believe that an armed society is a polite society?

Unless a cracked out criminal gets his hands on a weapon, and everyone is playing by the same rules, that might be true.

Quote

so why can't we say an armed world is a polite world?

Because, you see, we have the crackheads of world regimes DYING to get their hands on nukes. These fucks are MUCH more likely to use them offensively than we are.

Quote

What stopped the Cuban Missle Crisis? Was it the fear of WWIII ending in the exchange of Nukes? Sure.

Yeah, the US and Russia were playing by rules and it was pretty clear from both sides that neither wanted a nuclear war. With the geniuses in NK, Syria, Iran, wherever... it seems they simply don't care. No one has any business letting these volatile regimes have nukes. Can't you see the headlines?
"NK Demands 100 Billion $'s in Food Aid, Threatens to Nuke Japan"
"Syria Demands Israelis Kiss Own Asses, Threatens to Launch"
Just look at their ridiculous government and think that any of that is not possible.

Quote

Get used to it folks, all these little things we biy that are made in Chona are going to fule the Chinese-Russian war marrige.... maybe this little American fiscal move to ship our manufacturing to China was a bad ides in more ways that just lowering corporate costs...

I agree with that, bad idea. They basically have slave labor there and are bootstrapping their whole economy with labor. We can't compete with that since we have to pay our workers minimum wage, or union wages, plus insurance, plus make sure we have good working conditions that meet OSHA standards. Imagine the handcuffs that Kyoto would've put on us in addition to the handcuffs we made for ourselves. Ask Canada, it's hurting them already.

Although Russia and China trade weapons, I don't think that we'll see a longstanding, solid alliance between them. For one, they've never really trusted each other. Two, they're not that ideallogically close anymore. Three, the Chinese (govt) feels that China is superior to the world, almost a master race type thing. Before you get mad, go there and see. Ask their neighbors. They would use Russia for tactics and resources, then take them over. I know you probably don't like Tom Clancy, but go read The Dragon & The Bear, it is actually pretty insightful as to what we may see happening over there.

Oh, hello again!

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"All the Venezuelans I know are great"

I only really know the ones I met down your part of the woods, very nice folks. Just goes to show, people are people , eh?

As for the rest of the discussion, I don't really know.
I'm not 100% sure Syria/Iran want to fuck over the US, maybe they are afraid of the US fucking them over.....A formal, organised, Islamic coalition?
Now that's a scary thought.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Trent 0]

Quote

Just goes to show, people are people , eh?

Just what are you trying to point out here, D? I know that, I've travelled all over. I bet there are fantastic people in Syria, Iran, and NK... but their governments are the problem. Unfortunately, people who don't do enough on their own to watch what their government is doing, get steamrolled by it later. Same thing happened in Venezuela.

Quote

I'm not 100% sure Syria/Iran want to fuck over the US, maybe they are afraid of the US fucking them over.....

Come on... if they had a chance to do it, they would. Remember, they already think that we've fucked them, and they BELIEVE to the core that Israel has. If they really don't want to get fucked with, then they should stop doing things that get them fucked with... like occupying Lebanon, funding Iraqi terrorism, trying to get their hands on Nukes, talking as much shit as Saddam did before the first Gulf War... stuff like that. But that's to logical and reasonable, so they'll never see it.

Quote

A formal, organised, Islamic coalition?
Now that's a scary thought.

Amen.

Oh, hello again!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>Aside from a short-term profit motive, why would anyone want to arm
>volatile regimes like this?

We armed Saddam Hussein, the terrorists of the Mujahideen, and the Contras in Nicaragua. Russia may now be making the same mistakes we made years ago.

You love pointing this out, all while seeming to forget the context of what the world was like then. Who was Saddam fighting back then? What was our relationship with his opponent at the time? Who was the Mujahideen fighting at the time? What was US policy regarding that foe at the time? Who were the Contras fighting at the time? What was US policy regarding the political climate at the time?

Now regardless of all that, Syria has been a customer of Russia, and the now defunct USSR for decades. So, the fact that there are sales between the countries doesn't surprise me in the least. I do find it disappointing that Russia is not able to consider political consequences in its policies like this. This is not the same thing as the US selling weapons to Israel, Iraq, the Contras etc.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,076]

>Because, you see, we have the crackheads of world regimes DYING to get
> their hands on nukes. These fucks are MUCH more likely to use them
> offensively than we are.

There's only one country in the world who has ever used nuclear weapons offensively against civilians. Can you name that country?

>Yeah, the US and Russia were playing by rules and it was pretty
>clear from both sides that neither wanted a nuclear war. . . .

>With the geniuses in NK, Syria, Iran, wherever... it seems they simply
>don't care. No one has any business letting these volatile regimes
> have nukes. Can't you see the headlines?
>"NK Demands 100 Billion $'s in Food Aid, Threatens to Nuke Japan"
>"Syria Demands Israelis Kiss Own Asses, Threatens to Launch"

Kruschev - "we will bury you"

We survived that time. And if you were to go back to the 50's and 60's and you claimed that the USSR were NOT cracked-out criminals, that in fact they were reasonable people who would use nuclear weapons for deterrence only, you'd probably have been arrested as a communist.

There's one reason we don't want our enemies to have nukes - fear. We're afraid of them. And as a previous poster pointed out, fear can make you more polite. If we were really afraid of unstable regimes having nuclear weapons, we'd be concentrating on Pakistan right now, a country ruled by a military warlord. They have at least 24 fission based HEU nuclear warheads per our intelligence, and have stated publically that they would use them if pressed. We don't fear them currently since they are our allies, so we don't worry about it. Just keep in mind that Saddam used to be our ally, too.

[billvon 3,076]

> Who was Saddam fighting back then? What was our relationship with
>his opponent at the time? Who was the Mujahideen fighting at the time?
> What was US policy regarding that foe at the time? Who were the
>Contras fighting at the time? What was US policy regarding the
>political climate at the time?

The thrust of all your questions is "shouldn't the enemy of our enemy be our friend?" I think that's a bad philosophy. If Al Qaeda started launching attacks on Iran, should we start supporting them?

Arming and supporting terrorists has come back to bite us in the ass before. I THINK we've learned our lesson on that. If you give a crazed terrorist some surface to air missiles so he can attack the USSR, at the end of the day, you still have a crazed terrorist with surface to air missiles. And they do sometimes change their minds on who the enemy is.

Like I said, I think we've learned that that's a bad idea. It may take a Russian 9/11 for them to learn it's a bad idea, too. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.

[Trent 0]

Quote

There's only one country in the world who has ever used nuclear weapons offensively against civilians. Can you name that country?

Nice one, Bill! Wow, that's great. Tell me, Bill... how likely do you think it is that the one country that has used nukes, WILL use them again as anything other than a last resort? You're either deliberately trying to be inflammatory, or you're really can't see past your focus on pointing fingers at the US.

Quote

Kruschev - "we will bury you"

Since you like past performance as an indicator of future events... DID THEY DO IT? No. Did the USSR launch a nuclear attack on us? NO. Okay, now here's where it'll get tricky for you....

...we've seen the extreme governments in the ME demonstrate that they do not care about sacrificing themselves or their people to "win". Sometimes it's because they're sure Allah will let them enter paradise, other times... just because they don't care. NOW, put nukes in their hands, Bill. What the fuck do you think would happen?

And for the record, I had many debates in college about why Pakistan and India most absolutely should not have the bomb.

Ah screw it. You're always right, Bill. Give everyone a nuke and see those doves start flying and rainbows spanning the globe.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,076]

>Tell me, Bill... how likely do you think it is that the one country that
> has used nukes, WILL use them again as anything other than a
>last resort?

High. We used them to end a war sooner, a war we were not going to lose. Rather than use them as a weapon of last resort, we used them as a way to end a war quickly and reduce our losses.

Tell me, honestly - let's say we start a conventional war with China, and we manage to _keep_ it conventional. We eliminate all their retaliatory capability. We're going to win, but by using two nukes on civilian cities we could save the lives of, say, a million US soldiers. What do you think we would do? (History can give you a good hint here.)

>Since you like past performance as an indicator of future events...
> DID THEY DO IT? No. Did the USSR launch a nuclear attack on us? NO.

Exactly. A country that we called "the evil empire" did not use nukes against us, even though we thought them insane and bent on world conquest. MAD worked there.

Now we have countries we call "the axis of evil" that we think are insane and bent on our destruction. China sort of comes and goes in this particular axis

>...we've seen the extreme governments in the ME demonstrate that
> they do not care about sacrificing themselves or their people
> to "win".

We said exactly the same thing about communism. False then, false now. Take Hussein - an evil dictator, but one who always had his own self-interest at heart. He knew which side his bread was buttered on. He'd still be our bestest friend if our confused ambassador had not told him that the US didn't mind if he attacked Kuwait.

The biggest threat we will face in the coming years is not Iran building ICBM's and lobbing them at the US, it's a terrorist group coming across one of our 11 lost nuclear weapons (or one of Russia's dozens) and figuring out how to set it off. Even a half-wit could figure out how to ignite the conventional explosives inside such a weapon, and at best we'd have one heck of a dirty bomb going off inside the US. Why is this a bigger threat? Because we have no one to go after. We can't instantly destroy their country. We can't even find OBL.

>And for the record, I had many debates in college about why
>Pakistan and India most absolutely should not have the bomb.

I agree there. Unfortunately they do. So we can make plans for a world in which no one has nuclear weapons, or we can try to figure out how to live in the real world where a lot of people do.

>Ah screw it. You're always right, Bill. Give everyone a nuke and see
>those doves start flying and rainbows spanning the globe.

In an ideal world, no one would have nukes. We are not living in an ideal world. If you think that you can keep Iran from ever getting nuclear weapons (or if you think Pakistan will always be our ally) I have a bridge for sale, real cheap. We better figure out how to live in a world where countries who hate us can fight back pretty fast, because even if we do a good job in slowing down nuclear proliferation, that's the best we will be able to do - slow it down.

[EricTheRed 0]

You are aware that inthe 2005 budget there are still funds for the development of RNEP weapons?

These really don't seem like the weapons of last resort.

The point is, nukes only work if people are afraid that you will use them. It's a good idea to scare your enemies, just don't do it too well...

illegible usually

[Trent 0]

Quote

We eliminate all their retaliatory capability. We're going to win, but by using two nukes on civilian cities we could save the lives of, say, a million US soldiers. What do you think we would do? (History can give you a good hint here.)

I don't think it'd happen. There will always be people in the government and fully 50% or more of the population who wouldn't support that action, and no politician has the balls to let it happen on their watch. Even if it was the only way to end a war, it still probably wouldn't go down. Why didn't we nuke Hanoi, or Pyongyang? Kinda throws that logic out the door doesn't it?

Quote

Exactly. A country that we called "the evil empire" did not use nukes against us, even though we thought them insane and bent on world conquest. MAD worked there.

Maybe we should just give everyone nukes and just patiently wait for someone to push the button. Even though Russia was the "Evil Empire", we knew that they played by a set of rules. With Gorbachev, we also learned that they did not want to destroy the entire world any more than we did.
Better the enemy you know...

And do you really want to be involved in a game of MAD with Iran and N.Korea? Really?

Quote

We said exactly the same thing about communism. False then, false now.

Is it? Let's say a wacko like, mmmmm say, Kim Jong Il decides that the rest of the world has made too much fun of his hair.... nuke. Or how about the radical ayatollah regime in Iran decides that, yeah, Allah does want all infidels destroyed. Not that far fetched really. How much proof do you need that places like this WILL kill themselves to get at their enemies? How much MORE proof do you want that they will do whatever they can to destroy their enemies, even if they know they will lose and kill many innocents in the process?

By all means, start sending nuke secrets and supplies to Iran (like Russia's doing). It's funny that people who are anti-gun on one hand, are pro-proliferation on the other, since it'd make everyone "act" nice. Guess what? Making sure EVERYONE has the bomb, ensures that the criminals do.

What do YOU think the world will be like when everyone is armed to the teeth? I guarantee you it'd mean a nuclear launch at some point.

Why is it that you have such a low opinion of your own country, but put so much faith in those countries that have demonstrated themselves to be, well, nuts?

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,076]

>I don't think it'd happen. There will always be people in the
>government and fully 50% or more of the population who wouldn't
> support that action, and no politician has the balls to let it happen
> on their watch. Even if it was the only way to end a war, it still
> probably wouldn't go down.

?? It DID go down. I assumed you had heard about our nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an action ordered by Harry Truman to end the war early. There was no question that we were going to win, but he figured that destroying two civilian cities would break the will of the enemy. Which it did.

So history has shown us that we are willing and able to do that.

>Maybe we should just give everyone nukes and just patiently wait
>for someone to push the button.

Again, it pays to read my previous post _before_ hitting the reply button.

>Even though Russia was the
>"Evil Empire", we knew that they played by a set of rules.

Perhaps you didn't grow up during the 70's and 80's. The russians were portrayed as insane. Take any statement today about terrorists, replace 'terrorist' with 'communist' and that's exactly what we were telling people back between 1950-1980. The USSR would stop at nothing to destroy us. There would be a nuclear accident. Sputnik could be used to detonate a nuclear weapon directly over Chicago. Just look what they did in Cuba! And Afghanistan! They were power hungry lunatics.

Of course, this was primarily a story created for our benefit; it justified any manner of defensive measures. Per what we have learned from the former USSR, they were telling their people the same stories about us, and using that to justify _their_ defense spending spree. In the end, that spree was one of the things that destroyed them. We could afford it; they couldn't.

>With Gorbachev, we also learned that they did not want to destroy
> the entire world any more than we did.

That's exactly right. We will discover the same thing about Iran eventually.

>Is it? Let's say a wacko like, mmmmm say, Kim Jong Il decides that
> the rest of the world has made too much fun of his hair.... nuke.

Just like Kruschev might get mad at us because we love freedom, and send a nuke our way. It got so bad that people were URGED to build fallout shelters, and schoolchildren practiced getting under their desks before the shockwave hit. We were told it could happen any second, that the insane and unstable Kruschev might stub his toe and say "That's it! Launch the ICBM's!"

>Or how about the radical ayatollah regime in Iran decides that, yeah,
> Allah does want all infidels destroyed. Not that far fetched really.
> How much proof do you need . . . .

You have provided me with much less proof than the US had during the 1950-1980 time frame. Fear is a potent weapon, but unless your audience is uninformed, you have to back up your scary pronouncements with something other than "Scary! Death! 72 virgins!" Iran has far less reason to want us dead than the USSR did, and they have far less means to do so.

>By all means, start sending nuke secrets and supplies to Iran (like
> Russia's doing).

I don't suggest that; surely you have better straw men than that?

>It's funny that people who are anti-gun on one hand, are pro-
>proliferation on the other, since it'd make everyone "act" nice.

I'm anti-proliferation, just like I'm anti-death. But it's inevitable.

I find it _very_ funny that pro-gun people think an armed society is a polite society, but an armed world is scary and deadly. Sure, Timothy McVeigh is responsible enough to own any manner of weapon, but governments - well, there's only one government responsible enough to own big weapons!

>What do YOU think the world will be like when everyone is armed to
>the teeth? I guarantee you it'd mean a nuclear launch at some point.

The world will require more diplomacy and fewer pre-emptive invasions. I agree there will be a nuclear launch at some point; we've done it before and we (or someone else) will do it again. Better work on our diplomacy skills, eh?

>Why is it that you have such a low opinion of your own country, but
> put so much faith in those countries that have demonstrated
> themselves to be, well, nuts?

I have a tremendous amount of faith in our country. Heck, I designed some of the weapons we now use in our military. But it also makes mistakes sometimes. We've made some in the past; now it looks like Russia is making some of the same mistakes we made.

Imagine a friend of yours discovers he has leukemia (god forbid.) And he goes to doctor #1. Doctor 1 says "the outlook is not great. Your immune system is compromised. With a combination of chemotherapy and radiation treatment, we can get a five year survival of 50%, but there is a new therapy which may work as well." Doctor #2 says "OK, we have to start RIGHT NOW. I think you have a pretty good shot as long as we do X, Y and Z - but it will be painful." Doctor 3 says "Hey, it will probably go away on its own! You're fine. Come back if it gets really bad."

Would your conclusion be that doctors #1 and #2 hate your friend, and #3 supports him? After all, the first two doctors said bad things about him!

[Trent 0]

Quote

?? It DID go down. I assumed you had heard about our nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an action ordered by Harry Truman to end the war early. There was no question that we were going to win, but he figured that destroying two civilian cities would break the will of the enemy. Which it did.

So history has shown us that we are willing and able to do that.

That is a stupid comparison and yet you cling to it. I should have said "I don't think it'd happen again" so you could let it rest or move on to discuss why you think we are more likely to launch nukes than an armed Iran. And you still conveniently avoid responding to my question of why, if we'd nuke just to get out of a war earlier, did we not do it in Korea or Vietnam? Think about that.

Quote

Again, it pays to read my previous post _before_ hitting the reply button.

Sorry, I thought you were saying that everyone WILL have them so we have to learn how to appease the volatile regimes every time they start acting up because they have nukes. Oh wait, that's what you are saying. I disagree with your assumption that everyone WILL have nukes, because I think you can keep them out of the wrong hands with coordinated help from our less scrupulous friends in Russia and China. Not that it'll happen, but it doesn't make them right to speed up the process of proliferation.

Quote

Perhaps you didn't grow up during the 70's and 80's.

You're right, I was born yesterday.

Quote

The russians were portrayed as insane. Take any statement today about terrorists... blah blah

You're making the fundamental mistake of comparing the Cold War between 2 countries that were SUPERPOWERS at the time, to Iran and North Korea having nukes. A nuclear war between the US and the USSR would have pretty much ended the world as we know it. That's a difference. With the little wacko countries, they've got (maybe) something they can threaten 1 or 2 cities with to get what they want. See a difference yet?

Quote

That's exactly right. We will discover the same thing about Iran eventually.

You sure about that? Saddam Hussein had his armies commit suicide against our forces TWICE just to show people he had balls. You think Iran would think twice about sacrificing some of us infidels in a nuclear launch? You think they wouldn't take a shot at us, at their own peril, just to show the world they meant business? This is a cultural concept in the middle east, and has been demonstrated over and over again. You need specifics? Read the news.

Quote

I find it _very_ funny that pro-gun people think an armed society is a polite society, but an armed world is scary and deadly. Sure, Timothy McVeigh is responsible enough to own any manner of weapon, but governments - well, there's only one government responsible enough to own big weapons!

I don't know any pro-gun people that support selling guns to criminals and people who have proven themselves mentally unstable. People like Tim McVeigh, in your example, would be like France losing its mind and launching nukes. Not really likely, but it could happen. Surely YOU have better strawmen than THAT.

Quote

The world will require more diplomacy and fewer pre-emptive invasions. I agree there will be a nuclear launch at some point; we've done it before and we (or someone else) will do it again. Better work on our diplomacy skills, eh?

We've actually never "launched" nuclear weapons on another country. They were dropped. While they caused horrible damage and loss of life, compare it to what could have been. Millions more on both sides could've lost their lives in the land invasion of Japan. Then you'd be sitting here probably using THAT as an example of how the US is guilty of genocide since Japan was planning to use civilians to repel an immenent invasion.

Remember, since you're such a fan of big deplomacy... it means nothing if you cannot back it up. Only 2 things work here... military, and economy. Apparently, economy doesn't work real well as long as you have leaders that will starve their people to keep up the impression that they have a strong military. The only way international diplomacy will work in the future, is if a great number of countries gang up to get a rogue state to talk nice. So far, that looks pretty hard to do with Europe trying to sell military shit to China (hence NK), and Russia selling to whoever, and Europe wanting to keep volatile regimes in place as long as they can get some backdoor oil deals.

Quote

I have a tremendous amount of faith in our country. Heck, I designed some of the weapons we now use in our military. But it also makes mistakes sometimes. We've made some in the past; now it looks like Russia is making some of the same mistakes we made.

But you insist that we are the most likely country to start a nuclear war? That's some faith for ya. You make an argument that, while it's bad, proliferation will happen, and it'll be okay because we can trust Iran and NK and Pakistan and India and China to not use nukes before we would? Come on.

Quote

Imagine a friend of yours discovers he has leukemia (god forbid.)...

This is your "I love my country by dissenting" argument. It has nothing to do with the fact that you just seem to see things completely differently than I do. I think it is more dangerous to have these weapons in the hands of every wackjob regime, you think that it'll be okay as long as we know how to talk nice to them for the sole reason that they have a nuke.

To the point of the thread, Russia SHOULD NOT be selling weapons to regimes like Syria. They should not be giving Iran reactors. While proliferation MAY happen anyway, why let some greedy countries speed it up?

Oh, hello again!

[crozby 0]

Quote

To the point of the thread, Russia SHOULD NOT be selling weapons to regimes like Syria. They should not be giving Iran reactors. While proliferation MAY happen anyway, why let some greedy countries speed it up?

I'm not sure if people here are aware of this but:

Iran is not breaking any international laws building nuclear power plants.

Russia is not breaking any international laws selling weapons to Syria.

[billvon 3,076]

You have stopped reading my replies, so I won't reply point to point to yours. To sum up:

1. Russia has as much right to sell weapons to whoever they want as we do. We might hope that they do so wisely.

2. We've made the same mistakes/done the same thing in the past. We armed the Mujahideen to "give Russia their Vietnam." Russia may be trying the same thing to keep us mired there. You may consider the results of our arming the Mujahideen (i.e. Russian problems there, and eventually 9/11) to be worth it. I don't, but that's just my opinion. Russia may seem the same sorts of benefits, and they may see the same sort of problems we've seen when we did that.

3. We should strive to slow down nuclear proliferation. Even if we do a good job, though, the best we can do is slow it down. Eventually everyone will have them. We tried to keep supercomputers out of the hands of our enemies as well; that was doomed to failure too. Nowadays Sony Playstations contain what we used to define as supercomputers, and trying to keep Sony Playstations out of Iran's hands would be an exercise in futility.

4. We do not have the moral high ground when it comes to nuclear weapons. We are the only country to use nukes against civilians. A great many people have written a lot of words to justify it, but at the end of the day there is only one country who has used them in anger against civilians - not to win a war, but to make certain victory come sooner.

Now, that does not mean our opinions on their use are worthless; indeed, we have more control over their use than any other country. But that is not due to our moral superiority, it is due to our military and economic superiority. Do not confuse the three.

Today we have 8-9 members of the nuclear club. That number will grow. We should use our influence to try to keep this number growing as slowly as possible (short term planning) but also be prepared for the day when most countries have nukes (long term planning.) This means strengthening international agreements/organizations/relationships to allow problems to be worked out in embassies and conference rooms rather than on battlefields.

5. In the end, we did not go to war with russia. Even though we portrayed them as insane immoral godless zealots bent on our destruction, in the end we discovered (to paraphrase Sting) that they loved their children too, just like we do. We will discover the same thing about Iran in time.

[Trent 0]

You make some valid arguments, as have I, IMO. For you to say:

Quote

You have stopped reading my replies, so I won't reply point to point to yours.

seems a bit arrogant to me, considering I just went down your last post, point by point, it would seem that you are the one not reading here.

Right or wrong at the time, we did not break any international law by supplying the mujahideen in Afghanistan either. Many people seem to feel that it was a bad idea, in retrospect. So, does the fact that Russia is selling to Syria and Iran seem like the right thing to do, regardless of its legality? Not by any stretch, IMO. Disagree with that all you want.

From the start of this thread, I've said that it was not a good idea, and that I did not agree with Russia doing what it is doing. Is your disagreement that you think they SHOULD be doing it, or did you just want to argue down the twisted path that would take you to the usual conclusion that you're right and that's that?

Oh, hello again!

[dorbie 0]

The U.S. use of A-Bombs saved countless lives, both U.S. and Japanese, the circumstances matter, it's not merely words. It would not have been a superior moral decision to send millions of Americans in to be killed while killing even more millions of Japanese.

w.r.t. the Soviet Union, they were oppressive and expansionist (ask the people in Afghanistan) and eventually they were stopped (in Afghanistan with the man portable Stinger missiles you object to the U.S supplying the Mujahideen). Some abstract systems of government care not whether the people love their kids. In contrast the U.S. leaves democracies in it's wake which are then free to do what they like rather than act as puppets (witness France now). We were damned lucky to come through the cold war as unscathed as we did (luck, the CIA, the DoD and trillions in treasure).

One longer term strategy to avert proliferation problems is the one the US is successfully implementing in the Middle East today. Seed genuine freedom and democracy in the greater middle east and have faith that it will give rise to accountability and rationality. WMD and terrorist sponsoring theocracies like Iran (and Syria to a degree) don't mix well. The whole concept of deniability and asymmetric warfare makes it untennable and that's exactly what Iran (for example) has specialized in since they freed the U.S. hostages snatched from the Embassy. They've been sponsoring terrorism in Lebanon and denying it for years, including seeding the suicide bombing obsession in returning Palestinians. You are absolutely right proliferation cannot be stopped. The best we can do is shape the world in which we must deal with it (opinions differ on the best way

• Quote

[billvon 3,076]

> The U.S. use of A-Bombs saved countless lives . . .

I am not arguing that. However, that's a dangerous justification. If Iran could detonate a single small weapon over NYC, and wipe out our electrical systems there (and kill say 10,000 people in the process) but might discourage a pre-emptive invasion that might kill 100,000 Iranians, wouldn't that be worth it as well? And they could even claim they were far more lenient than we were since they only killed 10,000 instead of 350,000. We would see it differently, of course, but they'd be using the same logic.

The problem with the justification "using this weapon can help end a war quickly" is that it can be used by both sides. That's why I made it a point to mention that we are NOT morally superior in this case; we can't say "do as we do" because that would result in a lot of dead americans. However, we _are_ militarily superior, and that's why no one will use nukes against us. It's worth remembering that as we plan for our future. It's an uncomfortable position to be in - to hope that other countries have more restraint than we did in 1945 - but it's the world we live in.

>w.r.t. the Soviet Union, they were oppressive and expansionist (ask the
>people in Afghanistan) and eventually they were stopped (in
>Afghanistan with the man portable Stinger missiles you object to the
> U.S supplying the Mujahideen).

Among other things, yes. The Mujahideen also gave rise to Bin Laden. Perhaps some believe that 9/11 was a fair tradeoff for driving the Russians out of afghanistan, and that's a valid opinion. However, it's not a valid comparison if you consider only the good outcomes of any decision while ignoring the bad ones. Everything has to be weighed.

>Some abstract systems of government care not whether the people
>love their kids.

As we do not yet have any countries ruled by computer, that's not the case. Governments are made of people. People love their children.

>You are absolutely right proliferation cannot be stopped. The best we
> can do is shape the world in which we must deal with it (opinions differ
> on the best way).

Well, we can try to shape the world. We tried to shape North Korea in the 50's; that ended up backfiring. Funding the Mujahideen had some good and bad results, as mentioned above. So we have to make good decisions, and anticipate both the good and the potential bad in each decision we make. To that end it hurts the US (I think) to claim that anyone who points out the potential bad outcomes of a decision is a traitor, or hates america.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

However, we _are_ militarily superior . . .

Which is exactly why we do in fact hold the moral high ground regarding the use of nukes.

Although we've been armed to the teeth with them for sixty years, we have refrained from their use despite involvement in many types of war and threats of war, during which time our government could've found "justification" for their use numerous times were we NOT on any sort of moral high road.

Yea, we used them back in '45, but every year since then has proven unquestionably that the threshold for the decision is very high, certainly much higher than some scenario involving Iran letting one go over NYC in a "premptive" strike.

To say the US has no moral high ground regarding the use of nukes requires that you ignore our related behavior over the last 60 years.

. . =(_8^(1)

[dorbie 0]

Well I disagree. The US showed a lot of restraint when it let the Soviet Union build up it's nuke program and it almost cost us everything.

w.r.t. making valid comparrisons I think it's a bit of a stretch to say my comparrisons are invalid. You can't know all outcomes and you can't conduct policy based on the unknown. Bin Laden or someone else may have arisen anyway, probably would have. Should we have left SH in Kuwait to assuage Bin Laden over US presence in Saudi? That was his real flashpoint.

Abstract governmental systems and people enforcing doctrine and rules blindly can have a devastating effect on individuals. To argue otherwise seems naive. The dehumanizing effect of this is as bad as computers running a society, it happens in all countries in authoritarian states it is unbridled. I'd rather not trust my future to that if it can be avoided. If two guys had not compromised painfully over the Cuban Missile Crisis my country would have been wiped off the map, the wrong guy in charge in the wrong place under a bad set of circumstances could lead to equally terrible things down the line.

Freedom of thought and expression is the best safeguard IMHO.

North Korea had heavy backing from China & Russia or the US would have won outright and shaped them into the success South Korea is. NK fighting the USA into an impasse was the worst thing that ever happened to their nation. We did jack about Chinese and Russian support for NK and it cost us dearly. I think the days of fighting the U.S. by proxy are over.

[rhys 0]

do you really think that they think it is a good idea for the U.S. to have such a huge amount of weapons either?

do you not think the U.S. is kinda ignorant and arrogant to think they way they do things is right?

the U.S. is only a few hundred years old, only a handful of lifetimes. do you not think countries like china that have had civilisation for thousands of years deserve global respect and the right to be a world power?

i think the reason china and other ancient countries have lagged behind in technology is because of the ancient traditions and structure they are used to could not adapt as quickly as newer (adolecent) colonial countries such as the U.S. australia and new zealand

watch out!

they have a third of the worlds population, they are beginning to adapt to the modern world and i think the U.S. has proven itself as a shitty role model and countries like china will be happy to fuck up the U.S. if they carry on the way they are going, the same goes for smaller countries such as cyria, iran etc.


i think they tink the U.S. is pretty whack too and a threat to thier freedom!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[dorbie 0]

Quote

do you really think that they think it is a good idea for the U.S. to have such a huge amount of weapons either?

do you not think the U.S. is kinda ignorant and arrogant to think they way they do things is right?

the U.S. is only a few hundred years old, only a handful of lifetimes. do you not think countries like china that have had civilisation for thousands of years deserve global respect and the right to be a world power?

i think the reason china and other ancient countries have lagged behind in technology is because of the ancient traditions and structure they are used to could not adapt as quickly as newer (adolecent) colonial countries such as the U.S. australia and new zealand

watch out!

they have a third of the worlds population, they are beginning to adapt to the modern world and i think the U.S. has proven itself as a shitty role model and countries like china will be happy to fuck up the U.S. if they carry on the way they are going, the same goes for smaller countries such as cyria, iran etc.


i think they tink the U.S. is pretty whack too and a threat to thier freedom!

The US can be arrogant but those who assume the US is always wrong are profoundly ignorant and arrogant too. I trust the motivation of the US before most other countries. It has a track record that puts them all to shame.

I don't think China has much to offer from millenia of "culture". They have a communist dictatorship running their country and their record on human rights is attrocious. There's not a leader there over 100 years old and it's evident that their millenia of culture barely makes an impact. I'll take America's 250 years of freedom over their culture any day.

China is currently being bank rolled by the US, instead of isolating the band of thugs running that country we're pouring manufacturing dollars and turning them into a force to be reckoned with, yes they may relish turning around and fucking the US one day as you say. The hope is that it will remain in their crucial economic interests to maintain ties with the US, as the Brits hooked them on opiates the US hope to hook them on $$$$, but you don't need gunboats to make someone take your $.

[rickjump1 0]

Quote

Get used to it folks, all these little things we biy that are made in Chona are going to fule the Chinese-Russian war marrige.... maybe this little American fiscal move to ship our manufacturing to China was a bad ides in more ways that just lowering corporate costs.....

Do you think we can come to our senses before all our underwear and toilet paper comes from China?

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jdhill 0]

Quote

do you not think countries like china that have had civilisation for thousands of years deserve global respect and the right to be a world power?

Communist China is hardly a civilisation of thousands of years... they are less than 100... Is the PRC influanced by China's dynasties of the past, sure... but they are hardly the heir of that legacy... they shun the traditions of their ancestors... they lag behind because of it, and noother reason... from 1949 to now, they have done nothing but repress as quarter to a third of the world's population... they do not deserve a place on the world stage, certainly not at the level they have now.

J

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke