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

I dont think its possible or maybe not even desirable.It could results in massive unstoppable stalemate wars.

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...

Spent fuel is not a problem, it is self controlling. Take it out of its storage location, open the cask, and you die....

The first part of controlling the spread of nuclear weapons is to control the ability to process/enrich. Small countries don't need to process/enrich their own fuel, it is for sale. The govt of Iran is playing a deadly game, as is North Korea.

as for McCain, Obama, etc.

hasn't every president, or presidential hopeful, over the last 40 years called for at least a reduction in nuclear weapons?

sounds like political posturing to me.....nothing will come of it.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

I was just bringing up questions for the hell of it, they don't reflect my views.

Goshin said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nice post... but might ruling over right started way before the Roman Empire. And that analysis really only concentrates on the EuroAsian part of the world. Your excluding since exterminated peoples and cultures like the Incas, Nubians, and the laughably still existent North American Indigenous peoples. None of these people ruled with "might" instead of "right". So is it really inevitable to have one dominant force in the world? Cultures do change... could the West not learn from these people?

Again, I am just raising questions for the hell of it. Sorry if its unorganized and not articulated well but I need to go

Tubub said:

Nice post... but might ruling over right started way before the Roman Empire. And that analysis really only concentrates on the EuroAsian part of the world. Your excluding since exterminated peoples and cultures like the Incas, Nubians, and the laughably still existent North American Indigenous peoples. None of these people ruled with "might" instead of "right". So is it really inevitable to have one dominant force in the world? Cultures do change... could the West not learn from these people?

Again, I am just raising questions for the hell of it. Sorry if its unorganized and not articulated well but I need to go

Click to expand...

About the Native Americans... many tribes were very warlike. Typically territories were dominated by the aggressive use of force. The limitations imposed by a Stone Age technology and subsistence lifestyle made a singular empire improbable...but force still ruled the day.

Hm, note that I said "since BEFORE the Roman Empire". I was also thinking of the Persians, Babylonians and Assyrians, not to mention the Chinese Empire and so on.

As for humanity learning better, its a nice dream but unlikely.

G

I think if we have nukes everyone should have them. It is the way that it should be. Who did we think we are to tell others what they may do and not do.

Inferno said:

I think if we have nukes everyone should have them. It is the way that it should be. Who did we think we are to tell others what they may do and not do.

Click to expand...

I find great irony that you feel nobody should have guns, but every country should have nukes. Please explain.......

Goshin said:

About the Native Americans... many tribes were very warlike. Typically territories were dominated by the aggressive use of force. The limitations imposed by a Stone Age technology and subsistence lifestyle made a singular empire improbable...but force still ruled the day.

Hm, note that I said "since BEFORE the Roman Empire". I was also thinking of the Persians, Babylonians and Assyrians, not to mention the Chinese Empire and so on.

As for humanity learning better, its a nice dream but unlikely.

G

Click to expand...

Many tribes were warlike but there wasn't really domination of one tribe over another as you or me would think of it. That is why Indigenous Americans suffered so terribly when Europeans discovered the continent(besides disease). They would make empty agreements with Europeans and trade huge swaths of land for useless things like beads... they had no concept of land ownership or the domination of one people over another. War to them was an honorable engagement between tribes about a family feud, hunting ground, and so on. No tribe would conquer another and impose their will onto them.

The Iroquis managed a rather large union through morality and not force. Look up the Iroquis constitution and see what their union was based upon.

Anyway, the truth is that Native Americans were living in the stone age... because of several reasons I won't get into(Check out Guns, Germs, and Steel) but there culture was developing much differently than our own. Maybe it would've ended up being a war mongering and empire-building culture like the West became, but there is no way to know for sure. As for the Nubians, they were completely capable of conquering weaker neighbors but chose not to.

And why is it not China conqering these lands instead of Britain, France, and Spain? Check out Carnage and Culture and Culture and Race. Great books about culture, how it develops, and how central it is to a society