11 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioOn the basis of having the technological and economic resources.
On what basis should a country (any country) be able develop a nuclear
program? On what basis should a country be able to develop nuclear
weapons?
Nemesio
On what basis should a country be able to develop an automobile industry?
11 Jan 06
9 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzNot really -- I've only supported the program to the extent that I've contributed to its technological and economic resources.
So basically both you and DrS support Iran's nuclear program then?
That is unless you think an opinion constitutes support, in which case I support Iran's program by virtue of holding the opinion that they have the right to pursue it.
But if that is your sense of support, then you also must find that I support both Democratic and Republican politcal agendas, since I hold the opinion that those parties have the right to pursue them. You must also find that I support every bad pop musician, since I hold that they have the right to produce and offer for sale crappy music.
So, is that what you mean by support, or not? In your mind, does an opinion that something is a right constitute support of the exercise of that right?
I would prefer that the Democrats, Republicans, musicians and Iranians didn't exercise the rights in question, but I acknowledge that they have the rights. You decide if this means that I support them.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesMy mother has a friend who goes around saying 'I can make distinctions!'.
Not really -- I've only supported the program to the extent that I've contributed to its technological and economic resources.
That is unless you think an opinion constitutes support, in which case I support Iran's program by virtue of holding the opinion that they have the right to pursue it.
But if that is your sense of support, ...[text shortened]... but I acknowledge that they have the rights. You decide if this means that I support them.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you feel that different countries should have different criteria when
So basically both you and DrS support Iran's nuclear program then?
being evaluated for the appropriateness of having a nuclear program?
What criteria should be included? Whether they've used nuclear force
before? Whether they've ever invaded another country?
Nemesio
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioDevelopement of a nuclear program should not lead to development of weapons.
On what basis should a country (any country) be able develop a nuclear
program? On what basis should a country be able to develop nuclear
weapons?
Nemesio
Any country with the resources and ability to do it as safe as possible should be allowed to develop nuclear power.
No country should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.
- Joined
- 20 May 05
- Moves
- 2728
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioOn every basis should a country be able to develop a nuclear program. Seriously.
On what basis should a country (any country) be able develop a nuclear
program? On what basis should a country be able to develop nuclear
weapons?
Nemesio
And more or less is it up to the country to decide whether it wants to join the club of the "YOU BETTER BEHAVE OR I NUKE YOUR @SS TO HELL" boyos.
Why should one listen to critizing states which have their nuclear weapons for a long time (and even possibly used them as a thread in cold war). Please note that I am not referring to the US alone but to all states having nuclear capacities. Its clear why they want to keep their boys club exclusive.
What would you do when in charge for security in a state where other states are threating you (Iran) or other states even deny to sign a non-agression pact (North Korea).
Let them do it. AFAIK I heard these rockets are not even fueled. When they get fueled everybody can notice (somehow I think via Satellite monitoring).
Even when they are fueled. Every state knows what it means when just one rocket goes up.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by NemesioHey Nem,
Do you feel that different countries should have different criteria when
being evaluated for the appropriateness of having a nuclear program?
What criteria should be included? Whether they've used nuclear force
before? Whether they've ever invaded another country?
Nemesio
Nice threads! Thought I'd go all a bit cultural there for a sec.
Anyhoo, I believe any and all countries should have both the right and be afforded the necessary expertise to develop nuclear reactors [with UN backing], but only ones that cannot be used as a cyclotron for the development of nuclear weapons.
The IAEA or similar dispensing the technology and expertise would help to ensure that reactors that are produced would be as safe as possible.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd what of those countries that already make use of cyclotron technology and have
Anyhoo, I believe any and all countries should have both the right and be afforded the necessary expertise to develop nuclear reactors [with UN backing], but only ones that cannot be used as a cyclotron for the development of nuclear weapons.
nuclear weapons? What should the UN recommend for them?
Nemesio
11 Jan 06
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI guess you'd just have to have the IAEA have a monitorium on those facilities.
And what of those countries that already make use of cyclotron technology and have
nuclear weapons? What should the UN recommend for them?
Nemesio
It's not like cyclotrons are only used for nuclear enrichment. They're also used routinely for medical and scientific supplies, both stable isotopes (15N, 2H, 18O, 13C, 34S) and radioactive isotopes, such as 14 or 11C. Medical usage includes the production of 'barium meals' etc.
Personally I'd like to see all nuclear weapons decommissioned, the problems with that are twofold. One, countries with nuclear weapons (US, UK, France, Russia, amongst others) will be unwilling to surrender this technology (the US want to built 'tactical' nukes! They wouldn't give a damn who they fire them at then!), and two, there would be too much chance of a renigade nation building them, and in the absence of deterents effectively holding the world hostage. Again, custody by the UN is, i feel, the best way. That should prevent unilateralism.
11 Jan 06
Nuclear weapons exist.
It is better had they never been made but they have.
Some countries have them. One country has even used them.
That doesn't mean that every country should be allowed to have them, just like because a few kids take knives or guns to school it shouldn't mean that all of them should be able to.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by VargWhat right do the kids with knifes have to tell the kids without knifes not to get knifes? None but they do.
Nuclear weapons exist.
It is better had they never been made but they have.
Some countries have them. One country has even used them.
That doesn't mean that every country should be allowed to have them, just like because a few kids take knives or guns to school it shouldn't mean that all of them should be able to.
I think every country should disarm nukes they are a very stupid invention even in war are used to kill civilians not solders. Any country using them on another country with nukes would be suicide and if they used them on a small defenceless country the rest of the world would hate the country refuse to trade with them and the countries who got the fall out might go even further (this might be a large part of the world)
I do not see any situation that could arise that would use nukes as the best way to sort it out all we are doing is providing materials for destroying the world. I think if you are concerned about your country then ideally give no other country a reason to go to war with you and problem solved don’t give them another reason to go to war with you.
11 Jan 06
Originally posted by Will EverittFair point.
What right do the kids with knifes have to tell the kids without knifes not to get knifes? None but they do.
Those that hold the weapons certainly don't hold the moral high ground.
But that shouldn't stop what they are saying from being true i.e. more people have the weapons = bad.