The Shit is Gonna Hit the Fan!

I don't think any country with nuclear bombs is green..the US certainly isn't. The US, Britain, Israel, Pakistan, Indian, all have nukes. I don't think any of them are green. Unless you look at their interests as monetary, then certainly the US interests are only green in that they only consider money.

Is the US green is Britain Green...I don't think so....wise up folks you are being sold a bill of goods.

 

Stay focussed on the polar bears and global warming while the monied interests sell you down the river.

 

what proof do you have that there wanting nuclear weapons and not energy?

 

Well first, if they are worried about energy why not tackle the easier and cheaper gas flaring? Atleast 3 reactors worth of electricty.
Second, why kick the IAEA out, make them remove all the surveillance cameras and removed all the IAEA seals? 2 days after they were reported to the Security Counsel.
An last but not least they like to brag about every milestone as far as how many centrifuges they have, which is more than you need for light water reactors.

 

When it comes to nukes, its not innocent until proven guilty,

just the opposite.

 

and just why is that one country are allowed nukes and another isn't?

 

because "nate87"......

its a little strategy called problem, reaction, solution.....

they most likely DO want neuclear weapons....as their reason for it is just....

martial law WILL come....

 

Gardener, its called the Non-Proliferation Treaty, I've mentioned it to you about a hundred times, every time you ask that inane question. You immediately delete the answer from your memory because it is an inconvenient fact.

But go ahead and form the "committee to support the spread of nuclear weapons to third world dictatorships" if its an injustice that bothers you so much.

 

So in your definition of the Non-Proliferation Treaty a handful of self chosen governments are allowed to expand and control all nuclear usage in the world?

 

Are you completely dense? There is no "definition" of the treaty, it is a treaty that says non-nuclear states will not develop nuclear weapons. Try reading it. If you oppose the treaty and want to see the spread of nuclear weapons around the world, then go ahead and form the "American Little Guy Society for the proliferation of nuclear weapons to poor countries".

 

Took your advice, read the treaty.
Of all the nations in the world, five are allowed nuclear weapons, France, Russia, China, the UK, and the US.
Of these, Russia, China, and the US are the "Big Boys" who control the majority of Nuclear weapons (or WMDs)
Article VI of the treaty calls on all nuclear states to pursue "negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament", and towards a "Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". As of yet I do not see this happening.
In response to this monopoly of the most deadly WMDs on the planet, many smaller countries seek to develop their own nuclear weapons.
India, Pakistan and North Korea all have known nuclear WMDs. Israel has indicated that they have them but have not tested them. These four countries have not signed th treaty.
Article I states "Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices." The US has violated this article by transporting and maintaining nuclear WMDs in Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Italy and the Netherlands.
Article II states "Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture." Again, the US has violated this Article by keeping and maintaining nuclear WMDs in the states mentioned above.
One of Bush's arguments in invading Iran is its violation of articles II and III of the treaty.
Is the US open to invasion due to its apparent violations?

 

You mean like the SORT (Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty) signed by Bush in 2002? http://www.armscontrol.ru/start/sort.htm. You don't see this happening because you only read from sources that give you what you want to hear.

Again, this totally invalidates the concept of non-proliferation. If you are in favour of nuclear proliferation to every third world dictatorship that can get their grubby mitts on one, just say so. Say you are opposed to the NPT because if France can have the bomb then so should North Korea and Zimbabwe, its only fair.

There is no recipient. These weapons are under the control of the US. Nice try.

No, these states have not received weapons from the US.

Keep in mind here, you are going to great efforts (well no, feeble efforts actually) to rationalise and make excuses for the proliferation of nuclear weapons to third world dictatorships. Why? Why is this a cause you have taken up? Are you really looking forward to a world where any state can simply buy nuclear weapons on the open market? And why not Hizbollah, Al Queda, or Hamas? Imagine what a great world that would be! It would be so much more 'fair'!

 

That sounds a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

 

This treaty does nothing to "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament" There has never been any indication by the major superpowers to move towards complete disarmament.

I will make you a deal, I will not attempt to put words in your mouth, and you can do the same. North Korea already has nuclear WMDs. I have never said or indicated that I wish the world to have nuclear WMDs. I am pointing out that this is a flawed treaty, aimed at keeping the nuclear status quo. I do not blame countries that feel threatened by the superpowers for pursuing equal defense.

Belgium, Germany, Turkey, Italy and the Netherlands all have military personnel and other staff trained and practiced in the handling and maneuvering of the nuclear WMDs in their countries. They also have non US aircraft adapted for delivering nuclear WMD payloads. So no, not under complete US control.

See above.

Again, you try to insinuate things I have not said. The point I am making is that refusal to sign or abide by a treaty that keeps the US, China and Russia as the superpowers that get the ultimate WMD is no reason to invade, or intimidate. Would you feel safe under those circumstances?
This treaty is only good for two types of countries, those who hold the weapons, and those who are not threatened. All others are at a supreme disadvantage.
What needs to happen is all governments opposed to Nuclear WMDs should be putting the pressure on for complete disarmament.

 

Obviously it does relate to the cessasion of the nuclear arms race, I would argue that the nuclear arms race between the US and the USSR is long over. I'm sorry if that's an inconvenient fact.

I don't need to, you keep saying how you think its unfair that not everybody can have nuclear weapons. This contradicts the principle behind the NPT. Therefore, you oppose the NPT and support proliferation.

What's flawed about that?

As I said, you oppose the principles of the NPT. You support the right of third world crackpot dictatorships to acquire nuclear weapons, after all, 'who can blame them'?

The US maintains absolute control at all times. They have not been transferred to the ownership and control of any other nation. Please show me evidence that Turkey has control of US nuclear weapons. A link please.

Who needs to put words in your mouth? Between the status quo and nuclear proliferation to crackpot dictators in poor countries, you prefer the latter. You say so over and over. The NPT is unfair to North Korea and Zimbabwe, because you think they should be able to have the bomb too.

 

You sure the arms race is over:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-20-nuclear-usat_x.htm Check the date on that article.
And we are allowing foreign countries to come here and research and allow US firms to build arms to be used by foreign countries.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Britain_Launches_New_Giant_Nuclear_Submarine_As_US_Firms_Eye_New_Contracts_999.html

Why do you always feel the need to insult others, think that will make them respect your viewpoint.

We can't even account for lesser arms brought into Iraq.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/08/06/iraq.weapons/index.html
Or arms that go missing here in the US: Nuclear ones at that!
hthttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9beb5f64-5c11-11dc-bc97-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Again with the insults.

 

Why pick on just North Korea and Zimbabwe Pepik, because they look different from us and are easier to demonize?

I would bet you the Pakistani government is applauding the fact that their poor country forced the issue and gained the bomb. It certainly has done a lot to insure that they can harbour criminals and get away with it and still receive annual US foreign aid checks. Why shouldn't every other poor country seek the same upper hand?

 

I think you could find better ways of supporting the people of North Korea and Zimbabwe than fighting for the right of their dictators to get nuclear weapons.

Yes.

You link to a report that Britain launched a new submarine. So what?

There are no insults in the paragraph you quoted. However, as you go around calling me a troll that makes calling you a hypocrite a statement of fact.

Totally irrelevant to anything. This is just a random grab from your list of links to "bad stuff america did". So what - we handed weapons the the Iraqi army and we can't tie each serial number to each soldier. Well its the Iraqi army, not the US army. What's your issue?

Except that they weren't really missing, were they.

Where?

 

As I said, no move towards complete disarmament.

Please find one statement made by me where i say "it is unfair". I have never said I wish for any nation to have nuclear WMD, I have stated just the opposite, than none should, including those who have them now. I did say that with the currant monopoly of nuclear WMDs, it is no wonder that smaller countries feel safer with nuclear WMDs of their own.

Yes, I do oppose the principles of of the NPT. I have never stated that I support the right of anyone to acquire nuclear WMDs. I have stated that any country who feels threatened by the superpowers who posses nuclear WMDs will naturally try to acquire them themselves.

As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical B61 nuclear bombs for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements [9]. Many states, and the Non-Aligned Movement, now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements. They point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information. NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

Again, you do put words in my mouth. You assume I support "crackpot dictators". I have never mentioned Zimbabwe, nor have I ever said that anyone should possess nuclear WMDs. BTW, Since you brought it up, Zimbabwe is a signatory on the NPT, it has publicly stated that it is developing nuclear power with the help of Iran and North Korea. This is allowed under Article IV of the NPT. The government of Zimbabwe is surely guilty of multiple human rights violations, and should be held accountable for them, however, I believe we were talking about nuclear WMDs.

 

There, that wasn't so hard now was it.

You oppose the NPT. With no non-proliferation, there is proliferation. So although you don't support proliferation, you support removing obstacles to it. What's the difference? Send Iran a good-luck-with-the-bomb greeting card and wish them all the best with their goal of wiping Israel off the map. You're doing your bit to help them out.