The clock is ticking for USA....

[CardSharp]

If China were democratic 100% of the decisions would be HARDLINE as in China would not BACK DOWN to any other country. China would not be able to settle any of her 14 border disputes due to the fact that the officials are afraid of not getting reelected (basically the situation in India, India has solved none of her border disputes without force).

If China were democratic, the leader would be sending the chinese navy to perform military exercises right next to the USA to win votes and avoid looking weak.

I'm must be going mad because I actually agree with Chinaownseverything

 

[sunny001]

The USSR has the largest stockpile, and no they never threaten to use it against any country other than the USA, but thats only a response to USA aggression.

All I can say is USSR fortunately was blessed with a responsible leadership. But you cannot justify with this the need for every country to have a nuclear weapons. That would be moronic.

 

[chauism]

But what are you doing about it. Isn't China powerful enough to persuade others to give up their nuclear stock? I haven't even read a single statement towards it from china in so many years that treaty has formed.

When Obama tried to do it, it was Pakistan that blocked it, for its obvious concerns towards India. China, could have helped in persuading Pakistan in giving up their insecurities. India would have agreed if China was ready to give up its nuclear pile. When you are pointing a finger at someone, remember there are four fingers pointing at you.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

The treaty is banning anyone other than US, Russia, France, UK and China to have nuclear weapon. I believe China is more than happy to see Pakistan get rid of its nuclear weapon if India can get rid of its nuclear at the same time. A nuclear free South Asia is to the best interest of China too, it will cause less problem for China and Pakistan has to depend more on China for conventional military assistance.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[whocares]

A terrorist would never be able to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, a nuclear weapon costs a lot of money to build, a government is not just going to keep them not locked up.

Its about MORALS, if you have a gun and you prevent other people from getting guns then they are just going to resent you. What do you think is going to happen in this situation? somebody will find a way to build a better gun and kill the guy who was policing the world or everybody will attempt to gang up against the guy policing.

And why do people assume that nuclear weapons are THE MOST POWERFUL? in the future there will be weapons that are even more powerful.

did you read my argument based on simple probability? i don't want to multiply existential danger for humans 500 or more times (just in case it sparks off ww3)

 

[sunny001]

I'm must be going mad because I actually agree with Chinaownseverything

Like I said, China right now has a benevolent authoritarian government, which cares about its people and progress. I admire that about her.

But, you cannot generalize this for every other authoritarian country.

Also, I would definitely think US would have mend its ways to accommodate democratic China. There might not have a conflict then.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

did you read my argument based on simple probability? i don't want to multiply existential danger for humans 500 or more times (just in case it sparks off ww3)

The bottomline is that nuclear weapons are NOT THE MOST powerful weapons. More powerful weapons will be developed and another group of countries will hold superweapons.

Who draws the limit on how POWERFUL a weapon can be before it is banned? Why not ban all guns and make the entire world fight with swords?

Every country gaining some sort of SUPERWEAPON a weapon capable of causing mass destruction is something that cannot be prevented.

By saying what countries can have what, you are going to polarize the world. The bottomline is that the nuclear proliferation treaty is **** because countries like Israel + any country favored by the USA can build as many nukes as they want.

We should be working for peace, not working to cause conflict.

 

[sunny001]

You have no clue what you are talking about.

The treaty is banning anyone other than US, Russia, France, UK and China to have nuclear weapon. I believe China is more than happy to see Pakistan get rid of its nuclear weapon if India can get rid of its nuclear at the same time. A nuclear free South Asia is to the best interest of China too, it will cause less problem for China and Pakistan has to depend more on China for conventional military assistance.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dude, you are either moronic or have no clue about NPT. It asks those five countries to put in efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Obama, recently held a meeting with all nuclear weapons states to give away nuclear weapons. But, Pakistan is blocking it fearing India.

if you don't know about this, then don't come to defense forums with your rants.

Like I said NPT is hypocritical at best. Why would India give up nuclear weapons when its immediate neighbor China has it?

 

[whocares]

The bottomline is that nuclear weapons are NOT THE MOST powerful weapons. More powerful weapons will be developed and another group of countries will hold superweapons.

Who draws the limit on how POWERFUL a weapon can be before it is banned? Why not ban all guns and make the entire world fight with swords?

Every country gaining some sort of SUPERWEAPON a weapon capable of causing mass destruction is something that cannot be prevented.

By saying what countries can have what, you are going to polarize the world. The bottomline is that the nuclear proliferation treaty is **** because countries like Israel + any country favored by the USA can build as many nukes as they want.

We should be working for peace, not working to cause conflict.

yes, we must try and ban all superweapons, but i'll prefer superweapon asymmetry over superweapon mass proliferation anyday as a matter of practical concern.

 

[chauism]

Like I said, China right now has a benevolent authoritarian government, which cares about its people and progress. I admire that about her.

But, you cannot generalize this for every other authoritarian country.

Also, I would definitely think US would have mend its ways to accommodate democratic China. There might not have a conflict then.

Well, China is definitely not imposing its government system or encourage anyone else to have it anywhere. China's government has no interests in meddling in other countries internal affairs at all. Other countries have their own ways of how to govern its own people, it is non of China's business.

 

[sunny001]

The bottomline is that nuclear weapons are NOT THE MOST powerful weapons. More powerful weapons will be developed and another group of countries will hold superweapons.

Who draws the limit on how POWERFUL a weapon can be before it is banned? Why not ban all guns and make the entire world fight with swords?

Every country gaining some sort of SUPERWEAPON a weapon capable of causing mass destruction is something that cannot be prevented.

By saying what countries can have what, you are going to polarize the world. The bottomline is that the nuclear proliferation treaty is **** because countries like Israel + any country favored by the USA can build as many nukes as they want.

We should be working for peace, not working to cause conflict.

You draw a limit when it threatens entire humanity. It's not just your enemy but also you. We have reached that stage. I can't believe someone could argue that every state should have nuclear weapons.

 

[whocares]

You draw a limit when it threatens entire humanity. It's not just your enemy but also you. We have reached that stage. I can't believe someone could argue that every state should have nuclear weapons.

Yep, neither can I.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

yes, we must try and ban all superweapons, but i'll prefer superweapon asymmetry over superweapon mass proliferation anyday as a matter of practical concern.

Except there is no way to stop mass proliferation. Just like there is NO WAY to stop the sword from spreading all over the world, just like there is no way to stop the rifle, no way to stop the machine gun, no way to stop war plane etc...

 

[sunny001]

Well, China is definitely not imposing its government system or encourage anyone else to have it anywhere. China's government has no interests in meddling in other countries internal affairs at all. Other countries have their own ways of how to govern its own people, it is non of China's business.

Obviously it's not you who decides it's the party. Then ask your party stop opposing sanctions and supplying arms at dead cheap price to those countries. They are killing people with them.Wait, sorry, you can't do that either.

 

[whocares]

Except there is no way to stop mass proliferation. Just like there is NO WAY to stop the sword from spreading all over the world, just like there is no way to stop the rifle, no way to stop the machine gun, no way to stop war plane etc...

Its always worth a try to stop proliferation rather than be fatalistic about it as a matter of policy.

 

[Chinaownseverything]

Obviously it's not you who decides it's the party. Then ask your party stop opposing sanctions and supplying arms at dead cheap price to those countries. They are killing people with them.Wait, sorry, you can't do that either.

Polls have shown that most of the people in USA think that USA should pull out of Iraq

Yet the USA is still in IRAQ. You only elect people, but in a democracy the people have no control over the government.

Popular opinion in the United States on the invasion of Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2007

On September 10–12, in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll of 1,000 adults conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, 33% approved of George Bush's handling of the "situation in Iraq", while 65% disapproved of it.[2]
[edit] December 2008

On December, 11-14, An ABC News/Washington Post Poll of 1,003 adults nationwide, found 64% felt the Iraq War was not worth fighting, with 34% saying it was worth fighting, with 2% undecided. The margin of error was 3%.[18]