2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?
3. Has US signed the IAEA or NPT treaty? Or it will?
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
6. Why has US been depriving Iran of spare parts for passenger planes for 27 years? Are they used in NP?
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
8. Why do US+allies have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threaten the security of the middle east?
9 Did Iran ever drop a nuclear bomb on any neighbour or any remote land as US did in Hiroshima?
10 Will US drop nuclear bombs on Iran if all means fail to stop it from building a nuclear reactor?
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?
The Russians, Chinese, French, British, Israelis, Pakistanis and Indians have them. I'm not sure anyone asked permission The technology was shared with Britain as a result of their help in development and Allied status in WWII. The Russians stole some of the technology but could have done it on their own given time.
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
3. Has US signed the IAEA or NPT treaty? Or it will?
The NPT was proposed in 1968. The US already had the bomb for 23 yrs. A little late don't you think? That is a bit like telling someone to sell their stocks in 1930
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
The DO have a legal right. It is a question of the wisdom of the move and the international implications.
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
Several international offers have included Russian supply of fissile material for the Iranians. They could buy it MUCH cheaper than they could make it...but it is all about internal fuel reprocessing and uranium enrichment....hmmm..I wonder why that is?
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
6. Why has US been depriving Iran of spare parts for passenger planes for 27 years? Are they used in NP?
No, it is called an economic sanction. I'm not sure but I think it has soemthing to do with the Embassy seizure, support for hezbollah, hostage taking in Lebanon, the mining of the Persian Gulf...yada yada yada
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
They would have a treaty, but of course, the Russians might abridge the treaty. This is unlikely as they would be amking money off the deal. On the other hand, the Iranians do have a virtual guarantee something bad will happen if they persist
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
8. Why do US+allies have stockpiles of nuclear weapons and threaten the security of the middle east?
The US has had opportunities to use nukes after WWII... they haven't. Your question is like asking why the 600 lb gorilla has big muscles.
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
9 Did Iran ever drop a nuclear bomb on any neighbour or any remote land as US did in Hiroshima?
No...haven't we established they don't have on yet? Of course, the Iranian President did threaten to wipe Israel off the map.
format_quote Originally Posted by AzizMostafa
10 Will US drop nuclear bombs on Iran if all means fail to stop it from building a nuclear reactor?
Nope...just lots of conventional explosives.
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers[/QUOTE]
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
Cognescenti thankfully replies:
3. The NPT was proposed in 1968. The US already had the bomb for 23 yrs.
A little late don't you think? That is a bit like telling someone to sell their stocks in 1930.
Say: It is never late for an adulterer to repent? The door of repentance is always open?!
__________________________________________________
4. Why do those who did not sign the NPT have the right to build a nuclear bomb?
The DO have a legal right. It is a question of the wisdom of the move and the international implications.
Say: No, It is a question of double-standard. It has something to do with the Islamic Revolution,
support for Israel, hostage taking in Lebanon, the downing of 290+passengers in the Persian Gulf...yada+2
__________________________________________________ ___
5. Why are those who signed the NPT not allowed to go after civilian nuclear technology?
Several international offers have included Russian supply of fissile material for the Iranians.
They could buy it MUCH cheaper than they could make it...but it is all about internal fuel reprocessing
and uranium enrichment....hmmm..I wonder why that is?
Say: According to international law, any country that sells airplanes should also sell spare parts to the buyers?!
That is a bit like talking with a people who are behind the times?!
_________________________________________________
7. What guarantees that Iran will be provided with nuclear fuel if it accepts producing it elsewhere?
.... the Iranians do have a virtual guarantee something bad will happen if they persist
.... the Iranians do have a virtual guarantee something bad will happen if they do not resist.
________________________________________________
8. The US has had opportunities to use nukes after WWII... they haven't.
Yes. Instead of dropping one bomb on one place. It is better to drop MOBS on different places?!
Your question is like asking why the 600 lb gorilla has big muscles.
Where are the 600+lb gorillas of yesterday? The Romans + The Persians?
________________________________________________
9 Of course, the Iranian President did threaten to wipe Israel off the map.
Wrongfully created+named Israel is just a bubble. It needs a comb(tooth) not a bomb?!
________________________________________________
10 Lots of (non)conventional explosives could not conquer Hizbullah of Lebanon?!
____________________________________
Peace+Flowers
Last edited by AzizMostafa; 04-18-2007 at 07:30 AM.
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
I don't believe for a second that Iran is not seeking to produce nuclear weaponry. And I couldn't fault them for it. They pretty much have to given the climate they are in. It is the only proven deterent against US aggression. The threat against Iran is much stronger than that against any other country that has developed nuclear weapons.
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
Iran has stated over and over again that it is not planning to produce nuclear weapons.
And therefore your question makes no sense.
You know what's funny?? Israel said the same thing!! Why weren't they bombed for lying? Why weren't they bombed for refusing to allow inspectors in? Let's see: Israel and the USA do not have to follow the UN, BUT, Iraq and Iran do....or they are bombed or threatened to be bombed, (even when they are 100% innocent!!)
And people wonder why there is animosity towards the Israeli and American governments??
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
You know what's funny?? Israel said the same thing!! Why weren't they bombed for lying? Why weren't they bombed for refusing to allow inspectors in? Let's see: Israel and the USA do not have to follow the UN, BUT, Iraq and Iran do....or they are bombed or threatened to be bombed, (even when they are 100% innocent!!)
And people wonder why there is animosity towards the Israeli and American governments??
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
How typical a response....I'm not at all surprised. Never mind the BIG picture and the point....just divert it by asking a stupid question. But, just so you can comprehend, here is one quote...you're on the net....look it up.
Israeli Military Sources Threaten Tactical Strikes Against Iran (oh, maybe they meant throwing Styrofoam balls or small rock tossing...silly me)
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
We have nuclear missiles but we can be trusted not to use them. Our nuclear missiles are merely deterrants. Iran cannot be trusted with with nukes as they have already threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." We might aswell hand Al-qaeda nuclear bombs...
Firstly, I don't have any "Zionist" friends. In fact, I have never even met anyone who introduced himself as a Zionist. By your usage, in fact, "Zionist" is the "N-word" of the ME. You would have a lot more credibility with "Westerners" if you stopped using it.
As to your second point...Amedinajad spoke in Farsi so your point has some validity. One can always argue about translations, escpecially in
the case of idioms.
Let's look at how the Middle East Media Research Institute translated it:
"[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history"
Oh..that makes me feel a lot better. Look...the English expression doesn't really mean that the present topography of the State of Israel be literally scraped clean with an army of bulldozers. It means that it would cease to exist. Amadinajad seems not merely content with eleminating the "regime" in Israel....he seems to want to remove all historical references. If that doesn't mean "cease to exist" I dont know what does. What "regime" do you imagine he is talking about? Does he want Netanyahu back?
Also note he doesnt even call "Jerusalem", Jerusalem. Add the fact that he hosted a Holocost deniers conference and sensible people are going to start to wonder what the chap is up to.
Last edited by Cognescenti; 04-18-2007 at 06:04 PM.
The display showed off regiment after regiment of ground forces, tanks, a new set of drones and medium-range Nazeat (Meteor) missiles one of which was inscribed with "Death to Israel".
We want friendly and just relations with all the peoples except the Zionist regime," he said.
Does anyone realy think Ahmadinejad wants nuks for peace?
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
You know what's funny?? Israel said the same thing!! Why weren't they bombed for lying? Why weren't they bombed for refusing to allow inspectors in?
Er, no. The Israelis acquired nuclear weapons before anybody, except the French, even knew they were trying to do so. That includes the Americans.
Actually, they never have denied having nuclear weapons and not actually 'admitting' it amounts to no more than a diplomatic nicety. It has always been essential to Israeli security that their possession of nuclear weapons was known to the Arab countries, otherwise there was little point in actually having them. They have never refused inspections, either.. as for obvious reasons nobody has ever suggested sending any. What would be the point?
As to Iranian nukes, I'd be far more worried about them if I was (taking Israel as a given) Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Lebanese or Egyptian than I am as a Brit or would be if I was American.
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
Er, no. The Israelis acquired nuclear weapons before anybody, except the French, even knew they were trying to do so. That includes the Americans.
Actually, they never have denied having nuclear weapons and not actually 'admitting' it amounts to no more than a diplomatic nicety. It has always been essential to Israeli security that their possession of nuclear weapons was known to the Arab countries, otherwise there was little point in actually having them. They have never refused inspections, either.. as for obvious reasons nobody has ever suggested sending any. What would be the point?
As to Iranian nukes, I'd be far more worried about them if I was (taking Israel as a given) Syrian, Jordanian, Iraqi, Lebanese or Egyptian than I am as a Brit or would be if I was American.
Ahhh LOL yeah, you might wanna do yourself a little more reading!! And ummm, excuse me....it is ISRAEL that HAS threatened to use "small" nukes on Iran. Again, you're on the net too....look it up!
Whether or not Iran is/isn't responsible enough to have the nukes, isn't really the question here. It is the double standard and who gave one country the right to determine that. The USA, that has committed hundreds of thousands of terrorist acts, and continues to do so, has the nerve to tell another country they are not responsible?? Gimme a break!
I'm not getting into a P*ssing match with you and a couple others on this thread that are too blind to see the reality of what is going on in the world today. As I said, whether or not I feel a particular country is responsible enough to have any type of weapon is not at all the issue here. The USA and Israel need to clean their own backyards before concerning themselves with others. They are more of a threat to their own citizens than any other country!
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by Hana_Aku
Ahhh LOL yeah, you might wanna do yourself a little more reading!! And ummm, excuse me....it is ISRAEL that HAS threatened to use "small" nukes on Iran. Again, you're on the net too....look it up!
Whether or not Iran is/isn't responsible enough to have the nukes, isn't really the question here. It is the double standard and who gave one country the right to determine that. The USA, that has committed hundreds of thousands of terrorist acts, and continues to do so, has the nerve to tell another country they are not responsible?? Gimme a break!
I'm not getting into a P*ssing match with you and a couple others on this thread that are too blind to see the reality of what is going on in the world today. As I said, whether or not I feel a particular country is responsible enough to have any type of weapon is not at all the issue here. The USA and Israel need to clean their own backyards before concerning themselves with others. They are more of a threat to their own citizens than any other country!
Hana
Israel already HAS nukes. They didn't ask permission from the US, they were jsut better at concealing it than the Iranians. You are going to need an army with 50,000 tanks to take them away. Given past examples of previous Arab efforts to exterminate Israel, I'm not even sure 50,000 would be enough.
It's like this. ANY effort at preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons will necessarily involve an unequal otcome vis a vis the possession of nuclear weapons. That is the whole bloody point!
The US opposed Pakistan and India building nukes. Not that it did any good. It is a very hard thing to stop once a country has its mind set. Look what good it did them too. It has increased tensions between the two countries. What good has it done for th PRK? They finally ticked off the Chinese.
The Iranians need to take a sober look at what price they will pay, either with direct military confrontation, or with interantional isolaton should they persist. Nobody believes their idiotic "nukes for energy" claim.
BTW...you are prudent to avoid a "P*ssing match", as you so delicately put it.. I don't think it is something that females would be good at.
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
Sometimes I think we should demand and require every nation to have a nuke stock pile. It would be one way we and Russia could get rid of the darn things. They are a white elephant for any country to own and they soon own the country instead of the country owning them. They really do limit a countries ability to conduct conventional war and are expensive pets to keep.
Done with rant. I'm only going to answer the first question right now.
2. If it is good, why doesn’t it allow others to have it, too?
They are not a good thing and few countries can afford to keep one without depriving it's citizens of necessities. The up keep placed into the military budget will reduce the size of the military the country can afford. Stupid to give up your military, for one thing you can use only once and then be defenseless. The reason the US doesn't want other countries to have them is the more that have them the more likely they will be used. When a country goes into poverty trying to support a nuclear arms program, it will almost be forced to engage in hostilities in hopes of expansion.
Before I get asked, "Why don't the US and Russia get rid of the thousands of them they have stockpiled?" Because we have no means to dispose of them. The junk inside of them is so hazardous there is no safe way to get rid or it. Ift is best to leave them as they are until a feasable means is found to get rid of them. It has been at least 30 years since the US or Russia last built a nuclear weapon. There is a reason they are not building any more, and it is not because they are being nice.
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
Greetings and peace be with you England;
We have nuclear missiles but we can be trusted not to use them.
Ah but can you be trusted never to use any other kind of bomb? That’s a crazy logic how many thousands of people have been killed as a result of America and Britain using all other kinds of bombs?
Our nuclear missiles are merely deterrants. Iran cannot be trusted with with nukes as they have already threatened to "wipe Israel off the map." We might aswell hand Al-qaeda nuclear bombs...
If America and Britain really want other nations to stop producing nuclear weapons, they should start decommissioning their own first
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
Israel is now the only state with nuclear weapons that does not admit to having such weapons. It has always refused to allow international inspection of the Dimona facility, and is among the few states that have refused to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/892941.stm
Since 1955, Israel has been in violation of 71 U.N. resolutions.
1. General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947): the 1947 Partition plan of Palestine and the creation of Israel […]
2. General Assembly Resolution 194 (1947): Palestinian Refugees have the right to return to their homes in Israel […]
3. Resolution 106 (1955): condemns Israel for Gaza raid […]
4. Resolution 111 (1956): condemns Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people […]
5. Resolution 127 (1958): recommends Israel suspend its no-man’s zone’ in Jerusalem […]
6. Resolution 162 (1961): urges Israel to comply with UN decisions […]
7. Resolution 171 (1962): determines flagrant violations by Israel in its attack on Syria […]
8. Resolution 228 (1966): censures Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control […]
9. Resolution 237 (1967): urges Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees […]
10. Resolution 242 (1967): Israel’s occupation of Palestine is Illegal […]
11. Resolution 248 (1968): condemns Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan […]
12. Resolution 250 (1968): calls on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem […]
13. Resolution 251 (1968): deeply deplores Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250 […]
14. Resolution 252 (1968): declares invalid Israel’s acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital […]
15. Resolution 256 (1968): condemns Israeli raids on Jordan as flagrant violation […]
16. Resolution 259 (1968): deplores Israel’s refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation […]
17. Resolution 262 (1968): condemns Israel for attack on Beirut airport […]
18. Resolution 265 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan […]
19. Resolution 267 (1969): censures Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem […]
20. Resolution 270 (1969): condemns Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon […]
21. Resolution 271 (1969): condemns Israel’s failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem […]
22. Resolution 279 (1970): demands withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon […]
23. Resolution 280 (1970): condemns Israeli’s attacks against Lebanon […]
24. Resolution 285 (1970): demands immediate Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon […]
25. Resolution 298 (1971): deplores Israel’s changing of the status of Jerusalem […]
26. Resolution 313 (1972): demands that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon […]
27. Resolution 316 (1972): condemns Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon […]
28. Resolution 317 (1972): deplores Israel’s refusal to release […]
29. Resolution 332 (1973): condemns Israel’s repeated attacks against Lebanon […]
30. Resolution 337 (1973): condemns Israel for violating Lebanon’s sovereignty […]
31. Resolution 347 (1974): condemns Israeli attacks on Lebanon […]
32. General Assembly Resolution 3236 (1974): affirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine to self-determination without external interference and to national independence and sovereignty […]
33. Resolution 425 (1978): calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon […]
34. Resolution 427 (1978): calls on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon […]
35. Resolution 444 (1979): deplores Israel’s lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces […]
36. Resolution 446 (1979): determines that Israeli settlements are a serious obstruction to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention […]
37. Resolution 450 (1979): calls on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon […]
38. Resolution 452 (1979): calls on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories […]
39. Resolution 465 (1980): deplores Israel’s settlements and asks all member states not to assist its settlements program […]
40. Resolution 467 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s military intervention in Lebanon […]
41. Resolution 468 (1980): calls on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return […]
42. Resolution 469 (1980): strongly deplores Israel’s failure to observe the council’s order not to deport Palestinians […]
43. Resolution 471 (1980): expresses deep concern at Israel’s failure to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention […]
44. Resolution 476 (1980): reiterates that Israel’s claim to Jerusalem are null and void […]
45. Resolution 478 (1980): censures (Israel) in the strongest terms for its claim to Jerusalem in its Basic Law […]
46. Resolution 484 (1980): declares it imperative that Israel re-admit two deported Palestinian mayors […]
47. Resolution 487 (1981): strongly condemns Israel for its attack on Iraq’s nuclear facility […]
48. Resolution 497 (1981): decides that Israel’s annexation of Syria’s Golan Heights is null and void and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith […]
49. Resolution 498 (1981): calls on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon […]
50. Resolution 501 (1982): calls on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops […]
51. Resolution 509 (1982): demands that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon […]
52. Resolution 515 (1982): demands that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and allow food supplies to be brought in […]
53. Resolution 517 (1982): censures Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon […]
54. Resolution 518 (1982): demands that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon […]
55. Resolution 520 (1982): condemns Israel’s attack into West Beirut […]
56. Resolution 573 (1985): condemns Israel vigorously for bombing Tunisia in attack on PLO headquarters […]
57. Resolution 587 (1986): takes note of previous calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw […]
58. Resolution 592 (1986): strongly deplores the killing of Palestinian students at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops […]
59. Resolution 605 (1987): strongly deplores Israel’s policies and practices denying the human rights of Palestinians […]
60. Resolution 607 (1988): calls on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention […]
61. Resolution 608 (1988): deeply regrets that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians […]
62. Resolution 636 (1989): deeply regrets Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians […]
63. Resolution 641 (1989): deplores Israel’s continuing deportation of Palestinians […]
64. Resolution 672 (1990): condemns Israel for violence against Palestinians at the Haram Al-Sharif/Temple Mount […]
65. Resolution 673 (1990): deplores Israel’s refusal to cooperate with the United Nations […]
66. Resolution 681 (1990): deplores Israel’s resumption of the deportation of Palestinians […]
67. Resolution 694 (1991): deplores Israel’s deportation of Palestinians and calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return […]
68. Resolution 726 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of Palestinians […]
69. Resolution 799 (1992): strongly condemns Israel’s deportation of 413 Palestinians and calls for their immediate return […]
70. Resolution 1397 (2002): affirms a vision of a region where two states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders […]
71. General Assembly Resolution ES-10/15 (2004): declares the wall built inside the occupied territories as contrary to international law and asks Israel to demolish it […]
It's against our U.S. law and international law for our Congress to fund and arm any nation in violation of U.N. resolutions and international law, such as World Record Holder Israel, with a whopping 71 U.N. resolutions violated - in particular, U.N. resolution 242 whereupon Israel was ordered OUT of Palestine. To this day, Israel has yet to comply.
The question that you have ALL refused to answer is the DOUBLE STANDARD!!!
Where are the sanctions for Israel? The USA and British forces have killed over 1 million people since US imposed sanctions in Iraq over a LIE.....yet Israel is continuing to violate UN resolutions and NOTHING is done...and we KNOW that's the TRUTH!! The USA and Britain ILLEGALLY invaded Iraq completely ignoring the UN and the majority of the world...where are the sanctions?
Do none of you get that? What part of that do you NOT understand?
And, Cognescenti, don't assume you know what talents I may or may not possess. Never assume anything.
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Re: If nuclear bomb is a bad thing, why does US have it?!
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Sometimes I think we should demand and require every nation to have a nuke stock pile. It would be one way we and Russia could get rid of the darn things. They are a white elephant for any country to own and they soon own the country instead of the country owning them. They really do limit a countries ability to conduct conventional war and are expensive pets to keep.
Done with rant. I'm only going to answer the first question right now.
They are not a good thing and few countries can afford to keep one without depriving it's citizens of necessities. The up keep placed into the military budget will reduce the size of the military the country can afford. Stupid to give up your military, for one thing you can use only once and then be defenseless. The reason the US doesn't want other countries to have them is the more that have them the more likely they will be used. When a country goes into poverty trying to support a nuclear arms program, it will almost be forced to engage in hostilities in hopes of expansion.
Before I get asked, "Why don't the US and Russia get rid of the thousands of them they have stockpiled?" Because we have no means to dispose of them. The junk inside of them is so hazardous there is no safe way to get rid or it. Ift is best to leave them as they are until a feasable means is found to get rid of them. It has been at least 30 years since the US or Russia last built a nuclear weapon. There is a reason they are not building any more, and it is not because they are being nice.
Very true, brother. Sadly, we only have to look at the nuclear ships rotting in Russia, the lack of maintenance on the Chernobyl Power Plant to see the effect nuclear power can have on the entire world. It is definitely NOT a "good" weapon to have for any country...I absolutely agree. Quite frankly, I question the use of it for a power source. Too much is unknown about it.
Unfortunately, as long as some countries feel they are at risk without it to protect themselves, there will always this "fight". Simply, one country cannot tell another country NOT to have them, while they themselves have them, regardless of the reason. My frustration comes from the Israeli government that refuses to admit what it has, refuses to allow inspectors, refuses to sign anything, and yet....the USA continues to give them financial and arms support on a regular basis.
Anyway, nothing will change as long as there are those who try to justify the right for one country to have them and not another. Nothing will change as long as a select few are permitted to commit atrocities on another without consequences while others are forced to suffer.
My rant :X
wasalam,
Hana
"Whoever is deprived of gentleness is deprived of all good" (Sahîh Muslim, Sunan Abî Dawûd)
The best and most beautiful things in the world cannot be seen, nor touched...but are felt in the heart.
-Helen Keller
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
The technology was shared with Britain as a result of their help in development and Allied status in WWII. The Russians stole some of the technology but could have done it on their own given time.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks