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 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 154

Thread: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

  1. #11
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,371

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Risky Thicket View Post
    They have every right not to want us there. They have ever right to want to be able to defend themselves against us.
    "They" are the dictators, tyrants and oppressors of our brothers.

    If the situation was reversed the US would be apoplectic.
    Because that would be tyranny overthrowing democracy.



    If, or when, the fit hits the shan in Iran there is no way in hell the conflict will be contained. Iran won't be a pushover, but the issue is far greater than Iran. We very well may face retaliation from Russia, even China. What will Pakistan do? Would Pakistan take the opportunity to move on Kashmir? What will Turkey do?

    It is my opinion that war with Iran may be the beginning of WWIII and America will not go unharmed.
    Nonsense. Russia has internal struggles and China cannot abandon our debt. Pakistan will not suddenly go to war with India and Turkey is a fly-over State. You think Turkey would leave NATO??
    Last edited by ecofarm; 01-31-12 at 04:04 PM.

  2. #12
    Sage


    MaggieD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chicago Area
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    43,243
    Blog Entries
    43

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    "They" are the dictators, tyrants and oppressors of our brothers.

    Because that would be tyranny overthrowing democracy.
    Would we allow U.N. inspectors to inspect our nuclear facilities? I don't think so. What would we do if the oil cartel refused to sell oil to the United States? We would go to war. Back a tiger into a corner, and yer gunna' git scratched.
    The devil whispered in my ear, "You cannot withstand the storm." I whispered back, "I am ​the storm."

  3. #13
    global liberation

    ecofarm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Miami
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    66,371

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Our nuclear material generation facilities are inspected. No-one is asking for a tour of officially military facilities.

    Countries have refused to sell oil to the US before. Remember the 70s? We didn't go to war.
    Last edited by ecofarm; 01-31-12 at 04:07 PM.

  4. #14
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Individuals in others nations... some even from this nation... would enjoy seeing us get hurt. Most other people leading other nations know they would suffer if we suffered (too much). China being just one example.

  5. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    It has been said by many that the primary reason the Soviets never used nuclear weapons on us is because they knew we had them too, and would use them on them in retaliation. May be a tad simplistic, kind of a 'nutshell' description, but I think there is merit to that point-of-view.

    We often try to keep other smaller nations from getting nuclear weapons. The stated rationale has been what they might do with them against their neighbors. There might be a grain of truth to that, but I suspect that the real reason we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is because we don't want them to use them against us should we decide to attack them.
    Keeping peace is having a bigger stick. A stronger weapon. Something to keep potential enemies from disturbing the peace. During WW2 the Japanese would not cease their attack. Nuclear bombs made them stop.

    Nuclear weapons are indeed a deterrent. The nuclear bomb, if it could, would undubtedly open its mouth and say this:

    "Should massive armies seek to kill Americans and destroy America, I and my copies will be used to end it."

    It would have to be the last resort, imho.

  6. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    10-13-12 @ 02:26 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,556

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    In responsible hands nuclear weapons are a deterrent because of the M.A.D theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) this assumes all parties want to avoid the risk of nuclear warfare at all costs.

    But in the case of Iran this is questionable in view of their ultra nationalism and their religious beliefs which state that Islam will spread worldwide during a period of destruction.

  7. #17
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    In responsible hands nuclear weapons are a deterrent because of the M.A.D theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) this assumes all parties want to avoid the risk of nuclear warfare at all costs.

    But in the case of Iran this is questionable in view of their ultra nationalism and their religious beliefs which state that Islam will spread worldwide during a period of destruction.
    Interesting point. For the most part I agree with this, and there is that whole martyr thing that many extremists believe in, but I think that, deep down, most people still fear death enough to make the MAD theory still valid.

  8. #18
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    Having nuclear weapons and being able to deliver them transcontinentally are two very different animals. We aren't afraid they'll use them on us, we're afraid they'll use them on anyone.
    ^ That's it.
    Now does it require intercontinental missiles to delivery a nuclear weapon. Any ship would do. And Iran is increasingly developing missile capabilities.
    The enhanced danger is that it is a culture driven by religious dogma, which is fundamentally dangerous. This is far more dangerous than for a country with a pragmatic government possessing nuclear weapons.

  9. #19
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:48 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,568
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mya View Post
    In responsible hands nuclear weapons are a deterrent because of the M.A.D theory (Mutual Assured Destruction) this assumes all parties want to avoid the risk of nuclear warfare at all costs.

    But in the case of Iran this is questionable in view of their ultra nationalism and their religious beliefs which state that Islam will spread worldwide during a period of destruction.
    The Iranian spokesman explained that because Israel is physically such a tiny country, a nuclear exchange between them would 100% eliminate Israel, but Iran would not be eliminated.

  10. #20
    Phonetic Mnemonic
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:05 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

    Quote Originally Posted by joko104 View Post
    The Iranian spokesman explained that because Israel is physically such a tiny country, a nuclear exchange between them would 100% eliminate Israel, but Iran would not be eliminated.
    Is he naive, or spewing rhetoric? Enough of his country could be so completely deviated that it might as well be annihilated.

Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •