Is Nuclear War Inevitable?

seem to me like america and nato are more unstable regimes

 

it doesn't matter of which country to blame on. as long as human creatures lead each countries, i think the nuclear war is remain avoidable. apart from everyone's turned became satan, all they needs and wants getting crooked. remembering that we are all human in this lonely planet

 

Seems to me that you are here for one and only one reason, to spread propaganda. This statement, I think, proves that. All you've actually done is make yourself and China look stupid and insult the intelligence of everyone here. If you actually think anyone is going to believe the U.S. is more unstable than N. Korea you've got some brain damage.

.

 

I assume it would be necessary to bring the discussion back on the track, before it remain the bollocks than peace

 

if you dream of a life without the threat of nuclear war then my friend ill let you sleep as tommorow will be dawn. pnl

 

so, what should we do? blame other country as the nationalism messages? look, the world is turned into red, let's find a way back to make it green. hippies or suits?

 

and what about the countries that have already nuclear bombs??? i'm more worry about em...

 

I grew up in PA outside of Pittsburgh and I remember the air raid and "duck and cover" drills when I was in elementary school. HA HA, like hiding under a desk is gonna help.

An actual exchange of nukes between any of the countries seems rather unlikely as it would result in mutual destruction.
Much more feasible and probable is a small radical group of some sort getting their hands on an old soviet nuke or some shit and using it.
But the real true concern in my mind is a dirty bomb. Much easier to get material to make and deliver it.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/09/nyregion/09dirty.html

.

 

It may not be as lethal, but it certainly is much, much more likely than an actual nuclear exchange between governments.
And wouldn't the lethality of it be determined by the radioactive material used, the type of bomb used to disperse it and and where it was exploded. One account of idiots opening old medical material is a little different than a device designed to disperse the radioactive compound don't you agree?

 

If you wade through all the hype and fear mongering, you might just find that dirty bombs are terribly overrated. Personally, I'm more concerned about being shot with a Civil War cannon by a dwarf transvestite.

.

 

Overated or not, they are the most likely thing too occur from the poll choices.

 

Nuclear weapons are here to stay, save their being replaced by some even greater form of lethal weapon. Wars will remain inevitable until which time humans become extinct, and it is likely that nuclear weapons would be a primary choice of a weaker nation against a much stronger nation, especially a weak and tiny nation.

 

what about nuclear arms in the hands of unstable places like israel and america?

 

You have to define "stable." Dynamite is pretty "stable," but light it and see what happens. I think Israel is pretty stable as far as nations go, their policies don't change very much from one administration to the next and their goals remain the same. Would they drop the big one? Probably so, if they thought it was necessary for their existence. They certainly wouldn't use it in Palestine, and probably not any place close to home. If Iran became a big enough threat, sure. Israel is predictable, that makes it stable.

America, on the other hand is not. We were until the mid 90s when the Republicans took control and began to destabilize the nation. Our military has weakened to the point that we would have a problem defending ourselves against an attack from a significant military power. This in itself raises the likelihood of using nukes if we were attacked. Also, "W" set a dangerous precedent by his "preemptive strike in Iraq. A few piss poor intelligence reports and a little manipulation by a president with a chip on his shoulder, and BAM, "we gotta nuke them before they nuke us." But, this is unlikely to happen unless we are provoked.

Very unstable nations would be Pakistan and N. Korea. N. Korea is not very likely to use it's 3 or 4 bombs because it would be a certain end of their existence. Pakistan is in so much turmoil anything is possible, so this is the place to watch.

.

 

israel is anything but stable. it constantly bullies it's neighbors around and it;s bigggets industroes involve war. to think they;re only there to defend themsleves is a laughing joke. they actually attacked gaza while in the middle of these newest peace talks with the palestinians. israel also has hundreds of nukes, this has been known for years. we were stable during the clinton years exactly how? we were supporting regimes of muslims in eastern europe that were slaughtering orthodox christians, all with bill clinton and madeline albrights approval. we also had some economic turmoil, do you remember those riots ins seattle? or am i the only one here that recalls them? they were reactionary against the clinton administrations economic decisions. le's not forget janet reno giving the thumbs up to waco. the 90s were anything but a utopia, and to say it was republican controlled and there was a democrat majority when there was clinton in office for eight years is silly. care to recall nafta too?

 

And you think Israel would drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza? Israel is in close proximity to most of it's enemies, so using nuclear weapons would be rather foolish.

So do China, US, Russia, Pakistan, N. Korea, and India, yet no one has used them since the end of WWII.

Instead of just spouting off a bunch of your pet peeves, tell me why these relate to the stability of the U.S. or a reason for us to use nuclear bombs. Do you actually think any president would drop a nuke on N.Y.C. to stop a Tea Party riot? Or maybe bomb China because of some perverted preacher in Texas?

btw....republicans won control of congress in 1994, 2 years into Clinton's presidency.

.

 

elijah,

perhaps when you type a complicated word like 'stable' in a post, you should have a dictionary nearby so that you can check its meaning

 

I think it should be recognized that war is inevitable as long as humans exist, and the weaponry which will be used depends only on what weaponry is available and necessary to prevail.
But surrender always remains an option.

 

first of all, im tired of the US talking about weapons of mass destruction and all this bullshit. when we were the ones who dropped 2 on japan and did the worst war crime in the history of history