15 Jan 06
Originally posted by flexmoreA strange question. If even rich individuals could make nukes then the country question is surely obviated. It wouldn't really matter.
imagine we all knew how to make nukes ( google) and rich people can turnthis into reality at will.
then
are we better off if noone has nukes?
or is it better if a dozen countries have nukes and the rest do not?
Taking the country question generally, the best situation is the one that prevailed until quite recently - a small number of responsible-ish countries having nukes. They prevent some conventional wars but are unlikely to be used.
As more unpredictable countries get them (India, Pakistan and perhaps Iran eventually) the situation starts to become a lot more worrying.
15 Jan 06
Originally posted by ivangrice'Unpredictable'.
A strange question. If even rich individuals could make nukes then the country question is surely obviated. It wouldn't really matter.
Taking the country question generally, the best situation is the one that prevailed until quite recently - a small number of responsible-ish countries having nukes. They prevent some conventional wars but are unlikel ...[text shortened]... ndia, Pakistan and perhaps Iran eventually) the situation starts to become a lot more worrying.
Curious choice of words.
Israel - Bullying war mongering country
Yet they aren't included in your description.
I don't think I'd be very happy if my rich neighbour had nukes.
I'd definitely stop flicking my cigarette butts into his yard
16 Jan 06
Originally posted by flexmoreBut where is Noone? I never heard of that country..
imagine we all knew how to make nukes ( google) and rich people can turnthis into reality at will.
then
are we better off if noone has nukes?
or is it better if a dozen countries have nukes and the rest do not?
And why would you wish it had nukes? Are they near Iran?
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIf no country had nukes then some country would make them in secret and distroy what is pleases and no1 would be able to resist. we need uncertanty to asure that we stop countries from attemting this.
We're best off if no one has nukes. However, that's not realistically possible any more.
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by flexmoredidn't South Africa successfully hide its nukes from the IAEA, giving them up voluntarily?
imagine we all knew how to make nukes ( google) and rich people can turnthis into reality at will.
then
are we better off if noone has nukes?
or is it better if a dozen countries have nukes and the rest do not?
why should we believe any country that claims to have given up its nukes or to not be pursuing them?
17 Jan 06
Originally posted by AlpineXazaxMan, I thought you were refrring to No!1Maurader there!
If no country had nukes then some country would make them in secret and distroy what is pleases and no1 would be able to resist. we need uncertanty to asure that we stop countries from attemting this.
Like I said in another thread the UN or similar should take control of all the worlds nuclear stockpile. No-one individual country has them and if anyone develops them in secret - BAM! Nuke em!