Nuclear Rights

[Brian Gillingham 0]

So, would an attack on Iran using nuclear warheads make the United States the most dangerous government in world history?How can this argument have any credibility after what we know happened with respect to the time before going to war with Iraq? Iran has a much larger, more powerful army.Does the USA have the right to say who can have nukes, and who can't? If you read Fareed Zarcharia's latest article, we shouldn't have this right. There were a few countries that were allowed to have nukes after the 1960's cold war.The bottom line is that we know that this weapon is inhumane. How could a country that boasts about its peace-loving, humanitarian, spread of democracy -- how could we justify using any kind of a weapon like this?I have my problems with conventional warfare as well. The fact is - whoever is mightier is not always right... or "War doesn't determine who is right, only who is left".

[serverph 0]

i would have to say that any government which uses nuclear arms against another sovereign government, at this point in time, IS the most dangerous -- notwithstanding if it is the United States or Iran or other countries for that matter.

 

as for rights, it depends on how the nuclear technology is to harnessed. there are certain provisions in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (read wikipedia) on this regard -- a treaty in which 187 countries are signatories (USA and IRAN included). There is a right enshrined in the treaty to be able to peacefully use nuclear technology, like power/energy generation. countries look out after each other, of course, since the technology can be used other than peaceful means. would Iran solely use it for peaceful use? that leaves a lot for debate, considering their ready access to a vast source of energy from oil and gas in their own backyard.

 

the question is: HOW DO YOU UNDO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY? or more precisely: IS IT WISE TO UNDO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY? it's out there already, for decades, which any nation with sufficient resources can develop and use to their advantage. as always, any technology is double-edged. good or bad, depending on who uses it, and how they use it.

[Brian Gillingham 0]

the question is: HOW DO YOU UNDO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY? or more precisely: IS IT WISE TO UNDO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY? it's out there already, for decades, which any nation with sufficient resources can develop and use to their advantage. as always, any technology is double-edged. good or bad, depending on who uses it, and how they use it.

Anybody out there have an answer to this - "HOW DO YOU UNDO NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY?"

What happens one day when a tiny third-world country develops the next weapon of mass destruction. This weapon would make nukes look like C4 explosives even though it would be less damaging. Perhaps it is the Hypno-bomb, causing no deaths - just confusion and impressionability. What about the super-sleeper bomb... puts everybody to sleep for 12 hours or so... enought time to accomplish a major WHATEVER.

The day that any country develops something greater than the nuke, would the nuke be the FINAL WORD like it is now?

Would that be what it takes? Were my ideas examples of chemical warfare?
Edited April 20, 2006 by Brian Gillingham (see edit history)