• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

McCain joins Obama's call for 'nuclear-free world'

Tubub

Tubub

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 15, 2009
Messages
521
Reaction score
97
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
McCain makes speech on Senate floor endorsing a tougher stance on Iran and North Korea and calling for a nuclear-free world. Is that even possible... to have a nuclear-free world? And even if it was, why is it America's right to assert rules banning atom bombs on other soverign nations when America herself has nukes.

McCain joins Obama's call for 'nuclear-free world' - Yahoo! News
 
I'm ok with us having nukes and no one else having them. :shrug:
 
Agent Ferris said:
Realpolitik. Pax Americana.
Click to expand...

So might makes right?

The hardpower fan boys (and there are plenty here) should support Obama's plan. Kissinger has argued for a nuclear free world because it eliminates nuclear deterrence in conventional war. Meaning, US conventional forces are effectively free to do whatever they want.
 
obvious Child said:
So might makes right?
Click to expand...

In this instance yes. Our might to prevent rogue states from obtaining the bomb and sparking an arms race in the most volatile region in the world is right.

The hardpower fan boys (and there are plenty here) should support Obama's plan. Kissinger has argued for a nuclear free world because it eliminates nuclear deterrence in conventional war. Meaning, US conventional forces are effectively free to do whatever they want.
Click to expand...

Good luck getting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. I'm sure that once we disarm terror states will follow suit. :roll:
 
Agent Ferris said:
In this instance yes. Our might to prevent rogue states from obtaining the bomb and sparking an arms race in the most volatile region in the world is right.
Click to expand...

This sets a dangerous precedent. Are you willing to live in the future where another country's might defines the rules?

Good luck getting the nuclear genie back in the bottle. I'm sure that once we disarm terror states will follow suit. :roll:
Click to expand...

Tell me, how is a terrorist or terror state going to make a weapon without the necessary elements? No fuel = No bomb.
 
Tubub said:
why is it America's right to assert rules banning atom bombs on other soverign nations when America herself has nukes.
Click to expand...

Its been that way since a spiked club was the nuke of the day and age.
 
obvious Child said:
This sets a dangerous precedent. Are you willing to live in the future where another country's might defines the rules?



Tell me, how is a terrorist or terror state going to make a weapon without the necessary elements? No fuel = No bomb.
Click to expand...

The material is already out there. The knowledge is already out there. And trust me, the desire is all over the world. I think I would rather have nuclear proliferation at the fore of the world's politics where it can be scrutinized constantly rather than setting it aside and trusting to the Imademontard and Kim Jong Shrill's of the world to just agree to play by the same rules as the civilized world.
 
obvious Child said:
This sets a dangerous precedent. Are you willing to live in the future where another country's might defines the rules?
Click to expand...

A dangerous precedent? "Nukes for everybody" sounds a lot more dangerous to me.

Tell me, how is a terrorist or terror state going to make a weapon without the necessary elements? No fuel = No bomb.
Click to expand...

Iran is making the fuel, they are making the delivery systems, the only thing they aren't working on is the actual warhead, plans for which can be found on the internet or at your local library.
 
obvious Child said:
Tell me, how is a terrorist or terror state going to make a weapon without the necessary elements? No fuel = No bomb.
Click to expand...

You know how many nuclear reactors in the U.S. we have right? Same with France and many other countries.

There will ALWAYS be fuel and the means to refine it. The biggest problem IMO is places like Pakistan which are under threat from Islamic terrorists, and Russia because of their Lax accountability with their fuel.
 
Is that even possible... to have a nuclear-free world? And even if it was, why is it America's right to assert rules banning atom bombs on other soverign nations when America herself has nukes.
Click to expand...

No..it not possible.
...but saying it would be nice is easy politics for virtually any politician on the planet. McCain knows nukes aren't going anywhere.
If Obama starts trying to unilaterally monkey with the US nuclear stockpile McCain will be right there to say No.

IMO while a nuclear world in some future may/likely will have a major power war with nukes..a non-nuclear would have had a few more then 2 WW's by now.


...

America has the same -right- as any other nation state on this planet to assert its views.

-right- is only applicable if you assume that international law is actually some legal binding thing and not simply a written down set of beliefs applied during a particular time in History.
Now if you do take International Law to be deified as THE LAW Judge Dredd style...this is a United Nations Banning.
The USA is asserting the very standard that gives the USA the so called right to say "you can't have nukes"


He who has the most "______" wins.
That is the only rule on this dog eat dog planet.
You lose the game of nation states you lose hard....lotta ruins around to remind people of the costs of the overall game.
 
Last edited:
Would be nice if there could be a nuclear free world.

Would have been nice if Pandora could have closed the box.

Reality is sometimes not nice.
 
Tubub said:
McCain makes speech on Senate floor endorsing a tougher stance on Iran and North Korea and calling for a nuclear-free world. Is that even possible... to have a nuclear-free world? And even if it was, why is it America's right to assert rules banning atom bombs on other soverign nations when America herself has nukes.

McCain joins Obama's call for 'nuclear-free world' - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

Because our nukes kick ass and they fly over water... and stuff...:cool:
 
"I agree with Obama" was McCain's campaign, wasn't it?
 
obvious Child said:
This sets a dangerous precedent. Are you willing to live in the future where another country's might defines the rules?
.
Click to expand...

That has always been the precedent; the nation with the most combined military and economic power dominates the rest of the world. Been that way since before the Roman Empire. It is only in modern times that people have even seriously conceived of the world being any other way.... and frankly that is a pipe dream.

Tubub, it's nothing to do with us having the 'right', just do we have the 'might' (and the political will).

Might has always ruled... and it has been rare than anyone even tried to put "right" into their "might". To our credit the US does try to put some "right" into their "might", which is more than most other world powers have ever done, the Brit Empire possibly excepted.

The world is like that. Put aside arguments of moral equivalency and just ask who you want running things, us or someone else? 'Cuz those are the choices.

G.
 
jallman said:
The material is already out there.
Click to expand...

But it does not need to stay out there. The Nunn-Lugar CTR seeks to secure such sources of fuel to prevent them from falling into the hands of terrorists. No fuel = No Bomb.

The knowledge is already out there. And trust me, the desire is all over the world.
Click to expand...

This is more of the genie than anything else. But even still, what good is that knowledge when you can't get access to raw materials? And terrorists do not have the resources to build a breeder reactor, making it even easier to ensure that NSA characters do not acquire critical masses. States a bit harder to manage, but that can be alleviated as well.

I think I would rather have nuclear proliferation at the fore of the world's politics where it can be scrutinized constantly rather than setting it aside and trusting to the Imademontard and Kim Jong Shrill's of the world to just agree to play by the same rules as the civilized world.
Click to expand...

You realize we can have a nuclear weapons free world while still having civilian nuclear power? Just because some players seek to ignore the rules does not mean we have to let them ignore the rules.
 
Agent Ferris said:
A dangerous precedent? "Nukes for everybody" sounds a lot more dangerous to me.
Click to expand...

So you have no problem living in a world were the rules are set by the PRC?

RTFQ for a change.

Iran is making the fuel, they are making the delivery systems, the only thing they aren't working on is the actual warhead, plans for which can be found on the internet or at your local library.
Click to expand...

Hence why we need to patch up the NPT's enrichment fuel leak. No fuel again = No Bomb.
 
TheNextEra said:
There will ALWAYS be fuel and the means to refine it.
Click to expand...

But that fuel and means to refine it can always be controlled. Furthermore, new technology such as one type of theoretical thorium reactors can reduce waste to 1% of its current volume while producing energy. The waste problem can be dealt with.

The biggest problem IMO is places like Pakistan which are under threat from Islamic terrorists, and Russia because of their Lax accountability with their fuel.
Click to expand...

Which obviously needs to be fixed. The nuclear export regime also needs to be tightened up. But IMO this is far easier then trying to fix the aftermath of a nuclear war or terrorist nuclear attack.

The fundamental principle of nuclear arms control is about materials control. As long as we can control the materials that go into weapons, a nuclear free world is indeed possible.
 
Goshin said:
That has always been the precedent
Click to expand...

There is no need to reinforce it. I don't know about you, but I know for a fact that every power in control eventually loses control and loses its capacity to enforce the framework it wants. Eventually that will happen to us. Now, unlike other people here, I'm not comfortable with countries like Russia or the PRC running the show. Thus, we should break the precedent. Those with foresight seek to alleviate and mitigate the problems they know are coming. Those who can't see past their bellies don't and only think of today.
 
obvious Child said:
So you have no problem living in a world were the rules are set by the PRC?

RTFQ for a change.
Click to expand...

Yes I would have a problem living in a world where the rules are set by the PRC, however, if one of those rules was no nukes for Iran or other terror states, I would support it.

Hence why we need to patch up the NPT's enrichment fuel leak. No fuel again = No Bomb.
Click to expand...

Iran doesn't care about the NPT why would putting some more words to paper thwart Iranian nuclear ambitions?
 
obvious Child said:
There is no need to reinforce it. I don't know about you, but I know for a fact that every power in control eventually loses control and loses its capacity to enforce the framework it wants. Eventually that will happen to us. Now, unlike other people here, I'm not comfortable with countries like Russia or the PRC running the show. Thus, we should break the precedent. Those with foresight seek to alleviate and mitigate the problems they know are coming. Those who can't see past their bellies don't and only think of today.
Click to expand...

How would allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons help thwart Chinese or Russian ambitions for global hegemony? Do you really think oligarchies and dictatorships will follow our example when the time comes? :roll:
 
Atleast Russia because nukes are costly to maintain and keep up the security. That it's really no need for Russia and USA to have thousands of nukes. That no country would say hey let's attack Russia and USA because they only have a couple of hundreds of nukes. Also nukes is so old school, that it's other things then having the most nukes that makes you the coolest kid on the international block.

So that would be a good start for USA and Russia to drasticly decrease their numbers of nukes. That would also give them more credibility in dealing with other countries with nukes. That a nuclear free world is of course a very far away vision, but a lot can be done to decrease the numbers of nukes and the threat they pose.
 
Last edited:
Without nuclear bombs America would be crushed like a grape in a barrel. Rhode Island has a bigger armed force than America does. Remove our threat to annhilate any that threaten to destroy us and they will simply destroy us. Add the hideous over extension of our current forces to the hideous movement to turn in all civilian owned weapons and ask how do we defend ourselves? We need to resinstate the military draft in some capacity. Granted today's military is too sophisticated for an old fashion draft but there are many ways to defend old glory. A "nuclear free world" - shut the $%$#& up!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom