View Poll Results: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Voters
54. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    41 75.93%
  • No

    4 7.41%
  • Maybe

    7 12.96%
  • Other

    2 3.70%
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 154

Thread: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

  1. #131
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    I'm not attacking Walt. I'm attacking you for thinking he is the end all, be all authority on foreign policy and nuclear weapons. You seem to have read one book and are insulted someone disagrees with you. If you would like to continue to debate the topic, I'm good with that. If you want to continue to play the game of weighing my experience in this portion of the world, with this type of person, and with the culture I speak of vs. your experience of reading a book while you were on the toilet, I'm done talking.
    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    How often do you think Walt has fought against Islamists? How often do you think he has spent an entire year sleeping beside, eating with, fighting with, and living with practicers of Islam? We can go ahead and answer those questions with never. I have done that. I do know how these people think. I would wager Stephen Walt has probably never even been in a Mosque! I don't really care what some professor from Harvard that has come up with all of his foreign policy in a sanitized lab thinks. People like that reflect their own inner thoughts much more than an interpretation of the reality on the ground. The reality on the ground is that these people would want nothing more than to see an "infidel" dead, no matter the consequences to them.
    That entire post is an attack on Walt which you made when you couldn't address your arguments so now when you say, "I'm not attacking Walt", you're lying. Moreover, you have still not offered a single direct counterargument to his position. And now that you admit you're attacking me as well, we can just add those attacks to the list of things you've used to avoid arguments that you feel intellectually incapable of addressing for some odd reason.

    So you acknowledge that people are capable of these things. So, whats the disconnect then? If idealogues are capable of genocide and atrocities, why wouldn't they be capable of launching a nuclear weapon purely out of hate for another country and culture? Especially an openly hostile and ideological country such as Iran.
    LOL, whether people are capable of atrocities was never in question. You introduced that red herring into the conversation. In fact, the argument I was defending starting from my FIRST POST was that crazy leaders (who commit atrocities) exist, but those around them will stop them when they want to use nuclear weapons in crazy ways.

    Their treatment of the Baha'i minority, homosexuals, and women suggest your claim of them being a "rational" state is the true red herring in this debate.
    It's pretty clear from this post that you don't know much about international politics and how political scientists in addition to governments determine "rational states". I already explained to you earlier that a rational state is a state that acts in order to preserve itself or that at least prizes its survival. Treat women and gay people like crap does not make a state irrational in this sense anymore than it made the United States irrational when it was purposely giving its citizens syphilis and not telling them as they died and passed it onto their children or enslaving human beings and treating them as inhuman for hundreds of years. So, like I said, Iran acts like it wants to survive. Consequently, it's a rational state. If you studied international politics a bit more, you would get that.

  2. #132
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    A great response after an already weak and pointless post. Its funny how you elude to being a Marine 50 years ago yet you don't capitalize the title Marine (guess that wasn't a blasphemy in the "Old Corps" huh?), you disgrace the Marine Corps with a silly immature personal attack of a fellow Marine (if you are one), and you suggest that the Marine Corps is somehow now as good as when (if?) you were in it. I'd love to see some proof of your enlistment or commission in the Marine Corps. The bad part is, you will come up short regardless of whether you were in or not. If you weren't in, you're a poser, if you were, you still are because no Marine worth his salt would say what you did.
    I'm sorry you took it that I was a Marine. I wasn't and didn't mean to imply otherwise because being a "poser" is childish. My brother was a Marine, though, and when he came back from his tours he wasn't a class clown. He had really grown up. My buddy that went Army was the same way. When he came back he was mature, not some silly schoolboy.

    There was no "silly immature personal attack" until you posted it. I pointed out the fallacy of judging another culture by YOUR standards and got ridiculed. When you chose your username, used that avatar, and checked the box for a military star you decided to represent the Marines and the US on this site. While I have the utmost respect for the military my respect for you certainly went down a notch. If you want to act like a schoolboy then quite advertising the fact that you're a Marine. It's you who should be ashamed.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 02-05-12 at 12:57 PM.

  3. #133
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by ThePlayDrive View Post
    That entire post is an attack on Walt which you made when you couldn't address your arguments so now when you say, "I'm not attacking Walt", you're lying. Moreover, you have still not offered a single direct counterargument to his position. And now that you admit you're attacking me as well, we can just add those attacks to the list of things you've used to avoid arguments that you feel intellectually incapable of addressing for some odd reason.


    LOL, whether people are capable of atrocities was never in question. You introduced that red herring into the conversation. In fact, the argument I was defending starting from my FIRST POST was that crazy leaders (who commit atrocities) exist, but those around them will stop them when they want to use nuclear weapons in crazy ways.


    It's pretty clear from this post that you don't know much about international politics and how political scientists in addition to governments determine "rational states". I already explained to you earlier that a rational state is a state that acts in order to preserve itself or that at least prizes its survival. Treat women and gay people like crap does not make a state irrational in this sense anymore than it made the United States irrational when it was purposely giving its citizens syphilis and not telling them as they died and passed it onto their children or enslaving human beings and treating them as inhuman for hundreds of years. So, like I said, Iran acts like it wants to survive. Consequently, it's a rational state. If you studied international politics a bit more, you would get that.
    Rationality is not reserved exclusively to the theater of self-preservation. My point is that rationality is something that permeates into every part of an individuals life, a group of people's lives, or in this case a countries actions. Again, I'll use the example of Nazi Germany. They displayed a series of irrational decisions that led up to their lack of self-preservation. One could argue that Hitler was the irrational one. Herein lies my other counterpoint to you saying that a group of responsible people around one irresponsible person would stop an irrational act. How many Jews had to be killed before one of these "responsible" people stopped it? How many horrible tactical decisions had to be made before one of these "responsible" people stopped it? You don't want to hear any of that. You continue to deny that there are people that would launch a nuclear weapon merely for the hate of it. Not everyone has a self-preservation trait. Many, many Islamic people have demonstrated that.
    You can accuse me of lack of intellect all you want. You have not presented an argument besides to "LOL" my posts since we started this. If you want to cite another source besides your beloved Walt, go ahead. Or you could come up with an original thought of your own.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  4. #134
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I'm sorry you took it that I was a Marine. I wasn't and didn't mean to imply otherwise because being a "poser" is childish. My brother was a Marine, though, and when he came back from his tours he wasn't a class clown. He had really grown up. My buddy that went Army was the same way. When he came back he was mature, not some silly schoolboy.

    There was no "silly immature personal attack" until you posted it. I pointed out the fallacy of judging another culture by YOUR standards and got ridiculed. When you chose your username, used that avatar, and checked the box for a military star you decided to represent the Marines and the US on this site. While I have the utmost respect for the military my respect for you certainly went down a notch. If you want to act like a schoolboy then quite advertising the fact that you're a Marine. It's you who should be ashamed.
    Okay, lets look at your original post.
    "Come on. 150 years ago we weren't any better in our treatment of women or homosexuals and I shouldn't have to remind you of our treatment of slaves, which I don't believe Iran condones. Now that we're finally "enlightened" we're going to dump on anyone that isn't as enlightened and call them irrational? "
    In addition to your argument having nothing to do with the discussion ThePlayDrive and I were having, you also chose to end it with this . Possibly your post would have been taken seriously if it was relevant and it didn't have a little smiley laughing at the end of it. In addition, your argument was strawman at its worst which is why it received the response it did. Instead of solidifying your point, you chose to attack me and the Marine Corps with a very broad and general insult. I simply attacked your post, you chose to make it personal. Then, you speak of the Marine Corps as though you have some kind of right or knowledge to do so just because your brother used to be one. You have no idea what it takes to be a Marine and, judging by your sensitivity, the traits to be of the heartier race your brother and I are. Stay in your lane bro, that's what I would suggest. Stick to what you know or to the post you attempted to inject into the coversation. Don't tread into the deep waters of insulting me based on my profession in life.
    Now, onto your attempted point. I will debate it and maybe you can learn how this website operates instead of attempting weak personal attacks. My point had nothing to do with the fact that I know we are more enlightened that Iran is. The purpose of bringing attention to their atrocities was to demostrate that Iran is an irrational nation. Would you not agree that genocide and disrimination by a country is irrational? Now, combine that with the fact that they are pursuing nuclear weapons and you have a dangerous situation on your hands. Many would argue that it shouldn't be any of our business. I believe that if we put our heads in the sand and allow them to develop whatever they want, we will have a mushroom cloud in the USA within 10 years. Its not all about protecting Israel, although some of it is and should be. Its about protecting national interests.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  5. #135
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    Okay, lets look at your original post.

    (shortened for space)
    Well, first off I'll apologize for mistaking your Scarecrow of Oz as a personal slam. For those who don't know the story the Scarecrow was brainless, which I took as a personal attack. Had you picked a different scarecrow pic I might have thought "strawman". (Unfortunately, formal debate and terms like strawman are not second nature to me.)

    As for Iran having nukes, buddy I grew up when Russia was a mortal enemy. My generation learned how to cope with the daily fear that the Commies could push the Button any day. I have NO desire to see Iran with a nuke, even if they didn't have IRBMs to deliver them. However, it's my personal belief that regardless of who occupies the White during the next two decades that Iran or someone similar will acquire them. N.Korea already has them and I trust China will keep them in check.

    Now, back to the discussion of deterrence. Regardless of how irrational any of us may or may not see the Iranian government I not believe they would risk such a huge number of their people, including their center of civilization, on some Glorious Act of Holy Violence or something. I'd be much more worried about them building a bomb for "personal delivery" (plausible deniability, they might think) than I would a blatant act like firing a missile. They might or might not be irrational (depending on your definition) but I do not believe they are insane.
    Last edited by MoSurveyor; 02-05-12 at 04:56 PM.

  6. #136
    Haters gon' hate
    MarineTpartier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    01-04-16 @ 04:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,586
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Well, first off I'll apologize for mistaking your Scarecrow of Oz as a personal slam. For those who don't know the story the Scarecrow was brainless, which I took as a personal attack. Had you picked a different scarecrow pic I might have thought "strawman". (Unfortunately, formal debate and terms like strawman are not second nature to me.)
    No worries, apology accepted and I also apologize for attacking you.

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    As for Iran having nukes, buddy I grew up when Russia was a mortal enemy. My generation learned how to cope with the daily fear that the Commies could push the Button any day. I have NO desire to see Iran with a nuke, even if they didn't have IRBMs to deliver them. However, it's my personal belief that regardless of who occupies the White during the next two decades that Iran or someone similar will acquire them. N.Korea already has them and I trust China will keep them in check.
    Russia was a different beast though. Russia was not nearly as ideological as Iran is. Russia was a country that was actually trying to make it with a different economic system that ours. They were out direct opposite. Iran is a theocracy driven by the most fanatical religion in the world right now. I do think if we re-elect Obama, Iran will get nukes. I may be wrong, and I hope I am.


    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Now, back to the discussion of deterrence. Regardless of how irrational any of us may or may not see the Iranian government I not believe they would risk such a huge number of their people, including their center of civilization, on some Glorious Act of Holy Violence or something. I'd be much more worried about them building a bomb for "personal delivery" (plausible deniability, they might think) than I would a blatant act like firing a missile. They might or might not be irrational (depending on your definition) but I do not believe they are insane.
    The thing is, Iran isn't run by any politician. Ahmadinejad is a puppet. The Mullah's run that country. I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them. Any group that will embrace Muqtada Al-Sadr is a batch of loons. Heck, they even trained the guy in their ways! It is my belief that Iran is a country ran by religious fanatics and I believe they will do whatever it takes to come out on top of this struggle between Jews/Christians and Muslims. I do agree with you on one thing though. Iran would be much more likely to see the nuke capability to a terrorist org. than to use it themselves. But does that make it better? IMO, it makes it worse. That further reinforces my opinion that they care nothing for self-preservation. Pretty sure we're going to be able to figure out where a nuke comes from. No matter the way its delievered. Iran has to know we'll find out if they do sell/give it to a terrorist org.
    “Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual budget resolution for a very simple reason: it makes government bigger.” ― Ron Paul
    Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

  7. #137
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MarineTpartier View Post
    The thing is, Iran isn't run by any politician. Ahmadinejad is a puppet. The Mullah's run that country. I don't trust any of them as far as I can throw them. Any group that will embrace Muqtada Al-Sadr is a batch of loons. Heck, they even trained the guy in their ways! It is my belief that Iran is a country ran by religious fanatics and I believe they will do whatever it takes to come out on top of this struggle between Jews/Christians and Muslims. I do agree with you on one thing though. Iran would be much more likely to see the nuke capability to a terrorist org. than to use it themselves. But does that make it better? IMO, it makes it worse. That further reinforces my opinion that they care nothing for self-preservation. Pretty sure we're going to be able to figure out where a nuke comes from. No matter the way its delievered. Iran has to know we'll find out if they do sell/give it to a terrorist org.
    The terrorist aspect is why I'd like to see ALL nuclear countries agree that whoever makes nuclear material is responsible for it's use just as if they'd used it themselves - whether that's a dirty bomb, a full nuke, or whatever. Not sure that'll ever happen.

  8. #138
    Global Moderator
    Custom User Title
    LaughAtTheWorld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Seoul/Chicago
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:14 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    9,542

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    One minor, off-topic thing I'd like to add:
    Anybody who holds North Korea as an example of a country having nukes not to have been invaded is only repeating talking points from the media. The real threat is not from their nukes, which most will probably be failures and/or lack the sophisticated delivery systems to launch them. Even if they did, the Aegis system is operated by the ROK military, and it has shown capabilities of easilly stopping missiles, including ballistic and ICBMs.
    The real threat and the reason why we didn't invade North Korea is because of their artillery. Thousands of howitzers and missile launchers stationed at the DMZ, pointing towards the capital Seoul and its Metropolitan Area, which contains about 20 million people, or around 40% of the population.

    That's the real threat, not the nukes. So just stop the talking points about North Korea. Iran maybe, but to hold North Korea as an example of nuclear deterrent is a stupid argument
    "The misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all" - Joan Robinson
    "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries" - Winston Churchill

  9. #139
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Proud South Korean View Post
    One minor, off-topic thing I'd like to add:
    Anybody who holds North Korea as an example of a country having nukes not to have been invaded is only repeating talking points from the media. The real threat is not from their nukes, which most will probably be failures and/or lack the sophisticated delivery systems to launch them. Even if they did, the Aegis system is operated by the ROK military, and it has shown capabilities of easilly stopping missiles, including ballistic and ICBMs.
    The real threat and the reason why we didn't invade North Korea is because of their artillery. Thousands of howitzers and missile launchers stationed at the DMZ, pointing towards the capital Seoul and its Metropolitan Area, which contains about 20 million people, or around 40% of the population.

    That's the real threat, not the nukes. So just stop the talking points about North Korea. Iran maybe, but to hold North Korea as an example of nuclear deterrent is a stupid argument
    I don't use N.Korea other than to point out the technology is out there. Except for the Chinese I see no reason for N.Korea not to sell it's knowledge if someone can cough up the money. But you're closer to the situation than almost (maybe all) of us. Is there some other reason they wouldn't sell their knowledge? (Or build a bomb for someone else, for that matter?)

  10. #140
    Professor
    00timh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    upstate NY
    Last Seen
    01-24-14 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,318

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    Were you there at the time reading about it in headline news or is this some hindsight description you're using? Back then there was no Rapid Deployment. It was the Iran situation that pushed US into making it a reality. Carter did respond with a small strike force and the mission failed miserably. The other option would have been a full scale invasion, something no one wanted.
    You can definitely go back and read about how Carter let Iran cripple his presidency.

    It showed how incapable he was in foreign policy and as commander in chief. It showed us once again what happens when we allow our military to become dilapidated. It always makes me laugh when the Carter people say that Iran purposelly let the hostages go on Reagans inauguration as a last slap in the face. The Iranians were scared ****less of Reagan and wanted no part of what he would have done shortly after becoming president.

Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •