Pakistan

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:

The question is whether in today's geopolitical climate, are nuclear weapons safer from possible use when in the hands of stable governments or unstable governments? It's fine if you think that Packastan has a stable government. I'll not pass judgement. But the basic argument is still a valid one. For whatever reason, one feels safer when only stable governments have nuclear weapons.

Judd

---

I missed this by first time around. To consider whether its should be stable OR unstable countries to have nukes, is missing the real base point here and that is whetther its okay for the US to create unstable countries in the first place. For a moment here let the stable countries have the nukes, but then what happens when these stable countries dont agree with US policy/economics - the US will undermine them and create situations of unstableness or further unstable countries that are struggling so they never will become stable. So for whatever reason I would feel safer if the US were not the only superpower and change its foriegn policy.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:
I say it again, US is the ONLY country to have actually used nuclear weapons!!

---

This is true, and carries with it a lot of rhetorical value, but it has little currency beyond that

---

Tell that to the japanese - I couldnt.

I stick by my original position.

In an argument with a Japanese person about whether stable or unstable governments should possess nuclear weapons, I would have no trouble suggesting that only stable governments should have them. My guess is that even the Japanese would prefer that the US, rather than, say, Iran, have nuclear weapons.

What do you think, Haroon? You're not Japanese, but you'll do. Feel safer with only the US having nuclear weapons, or with, say, Iran or Syria having nuclear weapons? Remember, The US is the only country to have ever used one (and, BTW, is one of the few to rule out a "first use" in the future). Be honest now. Safer with the US or with Syria/Iran (or even NK, though I don't think the issue with them in stable government, per se)?

If your honest answer is that you just assume Syria as the US, I'll concede this argument. You be the final judge.

Here's something to chew on in the meantime. Something for debate: Is "total" non-proliferation inherently more safe than, say, one country maintaining a nuclear capability. I'd feel quite safe if every country on the planet denounced nuclear weapons, pledged to destroy what weapons they had, and promised not to develop anymore. But I'd feel safer still if, instead, all nuclear power were vested in one country (say, the UK or France) as a universal deterent. Otherwise, what deters nuclear development?

Just a theory. I'm still working on it.

Judd

Also, I'm not convinced that the US is responsible for the destability of all unstable countries.

This line of reasoning can get murky in a hurry. For instance, arguably Pakistan has been unstable since partition. Certainly, in addition to the war in Aphganistan, Kashmir has quite a bit to do with the geopolitical climate along the Indo-Pakistani axis.

Judd

I meant that it might be easy for you or us to dismiss the US use of nukes as having only rhetorical value and none much further, but not to to a japanese person whose family has suffered as a result. Im not japanese, so i guess I cant comment on their behalf, but if it was my family involved id be pretty upset if someone said what you wrote, and thats why i said i couldnt tell what you said to the japanese - it would be some nerve.

Are you saying either USA or Syria/Iran? Given that US have used them then I would say Iran or Syria. Fact is the world views Iran or Syria as being unstable or opressive regiems, but you got to ask what lead to that? US and UK foriegn policy thats what - if the west didnt bugger things up royally around the world we wouldnt have half as much grief with terrorists as we do now. So yeah id go with Iran/Syria, as it would probably make a swift change in US foriegn policy and a better world for us all.

Total non-capacity of nukes world-wide is the way forward - not non-proliferation (thats just saying the countries who do have it keep it to themselves). To tell the truth I wouldnt be happy with any one country having nukes - its only a deterent if your willing to use them, and any use of nukes is bad. If one country has it then another will want to have it, then what are france/uk supposed to do in that case use their nukes because another country challenges their position - no good. And what if the politics of France/UK take a change to the far right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justin:
Also, I'm not convinced that the US is responsible for the destability of all unstable countries.

Judd

---

Not all but a heck of a lot e.g. include Iran/Iraq, South america - Bolivia, Chile, Cuba, Far East - vietnam, laos. Along with UK and France - damage they have casued in their former empires/colonies, China and Russia to some extent too in far east and estern europe. Whoops there the 5 permanaent security council members now thats a coincidence - NOT!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:

Are you saying either USA or Syria/Iran? Given that US have used them then I would say Iran or Syria. Fact is the world views Iran or Syria as being unstable or opressive regiems, but you got to ask what lead to that? US and UK foriegn policy thats what - if the west didnt bugger things up royally around the world we wouldnt have half as much grief with terrorists as we do now. So yeah id go with Iran/Syria, as it would probably make a swift change in US foriegn policy and a better world for us all.

---

Fair enough. You'd feel safer with Syria/Iran having nukes rather than the US.

Judd

Im also assuming there that the other countries that have nukes would keep them, just usa and iran/syria switch. Might also if i can put on the condition that syria/iran eliminate terrorism and opression in exchange for the nukes Well we'd be here all day with what-if's ....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haroon:
Im also assuming there that the other countries that have nukes would keep them, just usa and iran/syria switch. Might also if i can put on the condition that syria/iran eliminate terrorism and opression in exchange for the nukes Well we'd be here all day with what-if's ....

---

Takes the wind out of it, don't it, Haroon. As you say,

Judd

Ludwig -

'Lighten up'? Oh I see. All these things where you remind us how much you dislike GWB are jokes. That explains it then.

PS I never criticise my own Government because everything it does is simply marvellous.

Tim-lite

No, my GW comments in general are not jokes. The response to Simon's post, though, was in humor. Got it now? Can one not criticize a foreign government and criticize how one's own government deals with it? Or did I miss the sign on the door here?

It appears you have a little hard-on for me Jones. Get over it.

Ludwig.

Yes I get it. Gee you're funny. And cute too.

Tim

Down boy!