With the multiple rouge states pursuing and gaining nuclear weapons in defiance of the NPT, is it fair to say the treaty is dead? I have a modest proposal that just might work to eradicate nuclear weapons from the face of the earth.
It seems that the US and Russia are spending a great deal of time and money to de-commission nuclear weapons. Simultaneously entrenched tyrants build them. If a rogue state decides to build a nuclear weapon, what if the US and Russia just gave them one? And if one is not enough, the Americans and Russians could give several.
The international backlash would be incredible. No longer would “veto-holding” members of the Security Council call for moderation and diplomacy. Akin to Nero fiddling while Rome burns. The world would be united in the urgent and immediate goal to get rid of these weapons once and for all.
Of course just like most gifts, my solution does require some assembly. But just like completing a nice jigsaw puzzle there is a certain pride in re-creating the whole article. And in this instance, re-building a nuclear weapon AFTER it has been detonated would be a boasting point for generations.
Is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty dead
Is the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty dead
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
-
Raaz Satik
- Taggart Director
- Posts: 2026
- Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 2:40 pm
I don't understand how the US can spend as much as it does on weaponary and then complain when others do the same. We're constantly developing bigger, better, faster, more accurate weaponary but we expect everybody else in the world to stop. I admit that nukes are not ordinary weaponary but if the US is serious about Nuclear Non-Proliferation they could lead by example and start reducing their own defense spending.
NPT is really a world-wide thing, not a US thing. Nukes are bad news, permanently altering the land, and potentially destroying all life on the planet. Yes a few of the “haves” have most of them (US, Russia and China) thanks to the cold war. The goal of something like NPT is to prevent the broad development of these weapons. Yet the implementation is obviously broken. I attribute it to too much diplomacy, not enough action.
Yes, the US is militaristic country, although we spend a far lower percentage of our GDP on the military than say a North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, or any other country whose leader retaining power for more than a decade. It is the sheer size of the US economy that creates this huge military. Hide and watch, now that Lil Kim has the bomb, you will see some REAL military spending by…. Japan. I predict in the next ten years Japan will have the fifth largest military in the world. They know how to build a military. And a standing military is just like a nuke, once you have it you might as well use it.
For the US, I think it all began with the British and Teddy Roosevelt. Before Teddy our military was practically a militia. He was an expert on the war of 1812, where a superior British fleet isolated the American continent. Roosevelt built our large centralized Navy. Between 1812 and Roosevelt, we had the civil war where, where we decimated 1/3 of our population, followed by wars where we killed all the Indians. Then of course the Great wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Now we have the wars on Drugs and Terror. It is really one of our gifts, to wage war. And when we are not doing that we play hockey and the real football.
There ya are Raaz, it is Britton’s fault.
Yes, the US is militaristic country, although we spend a far lower percentage of our GDP on the military than say a North Korea, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, or any other country whose leader retaining power for more than a decade. It is the sheer size of the US economy that creates this huge military. Hide and watch, now that Lil Kim has the bomb, you will see some REAL military spending by…. Japan. I predict in the next ten years Japan will have the fifth largest military in the world. They know how to build a military. And a standing military is just like a nuke, once you have it you might as well use it.
For the US, I think it all began with the British and Teddy Roosevelt. Before Teddy our military was practically a militia. He was an expert on the war of 1812, where a superior British fleet isolated the American continent. Roosevelt built our large centralized Navy. Between 1812 and Roosevelt, we had the civil war where, where we decimated 1/3 of our population, followed by wars where we killed all the Indians. Then of course the Great wars, Korea, and Vietnam. Now we have the wars on Drugs and Terror. It is really one of our gifts, to wage war. And when we are not doing that we play hockey and the real football.
There ya are Raaz, it is Britton’s fault.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
I can’t discount the war on drugs. The US has the highest incarceration rate per capita of any country, and most of those folks are there for drug offenses. Plus The US has been using drugs as a mechanism of foreign policy in countries without oil for a very long time, many people killed in the war on drugs. And drug policy influences many different theaters of operation Central and South America, South East Asia. I’d guess that the war on drugs is responsible for more deaths than the war on terror (of course we’ve been at the war on terror less time).
Maybe a better name instead of the “war on terror” is the “war for liberty”. Notice how each of the states in the axis of evil has a totalitarian government and society. The lack of freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.
Maybe a better name instead of the “war on terror” is the “war for liberty”. Notice how each of the states in the axis of evil has a totalitarian government and society. The lack of freedom anywhere is a threat to freedom everywhere.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
I think that's just baloney. The reason why people are incarcerated is because of the act (obviously) -- but for minor offences. I believe in personal liberty, and that includes the right to (ab)use drugs as one sees fit, as long as it does not harm others (selling to school kids, etc.).
The US war on terror is a losing game anyway. You cannot compete against cartels with budgets greater than what the federal government spends on keeping people out. Plus, Marijuana has medicinal properties that people seem to forget about in their crusade for prohibition. Which is why it isn't a felony in the Netherlands.
The reason why the black market is earning so much money on it is for that obvious reason. The guy selling you marijuana on the streets of the US does it with a tremendous markup; now contrast that to the Netherlands where it is regulated. What margins would a black marketeer have in that place when it can be grown cheaper (like with hydroponics) and more efficiently when you don't have to worry about keeping it a secret.
I'm not saying drugs are innocent; I band them together with alcohol, caffeine and many other addictive yet legal drugs people can buy. If some people get addicted to pharmacology, then it is their own fault. Naturally, if they hurt people, steal, cause damage or are otherwise invading someone elses personal space, then they deserve incarceration.
But to consider "the war on drugs" a war alongside such things as, say, WWII is stupid.
"In 1999, the Sentencing Project reported that between 1980 and 1997, drug arrests tripled in the United States. In 1997, four out of five drug arrests (79.5%) were for possession, with 44% of those arrests for marijuana offenses. Between 1980 and 1997, while the number of drug offenders entering prisons skyrocketed, the proportion of state prison space housing violent offenders declined from 55% to 47%.7"
Source: http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/pp.html
If you click endnotes you will find a list of citations the paper has made.
Among other things.
Just because it's a /law/ doesn't make it a good law. I don't think we have to go very far back in the history of the US (*cough*Prohibition*cough*) to find that the last time the US government tried to restrict the flow of alcohol it found itself with a bad case of gangsters. Of course, I suppose the dry times brought us many of the cocktails we know and love today.
The US war on terror is a losing game anyway. You cannot compete against cartels with budgets greater than what the federal government spends on keeping people out. Plus, Marijuana has medicinal properties that people seem to forget about in their crusade for prohibition. Which is why it isn't a felony in the Netherlands.
The reason why the black market is earning so much money on it is for that obvious reason. The guy selling you marijuana on the streets of the US does it with a tremendous markup; now contrast that to the Netherlands where it is regulated. What margins would a black marketeer have in that place when it can be grown cheaper (like with hydroponics) and more efficiently when you don't have to worry about keeping it a secret.
I'm not saying drugs are innocent; I band them together with alcohol, caffeine and many other addictive yet legal drugs people can buy. If some people get addicted to pharmacology, then it is their own fault. Naturally, if they hurt people, steal, cause damage or are otherwise invading someone elses personal space, then they deserve incarceration.
But to consider "the war on drugs" a war alongside such things as, say, WWII is stupid.
"In 1999, the Sentencing Project reported that between 1980 and 1997, drug arrests tripled in the United States. In 1997, four out of five drug arrests (79.5%) were for possession, with 44% of those arrests for marijuana offenses. Between 1980 and 1997, while the number of drug offenders entering prisons skyrocketed, the proportion of state prison space housing violent offenders declined from 55% to 47%.7"
Source: http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/poor/pp.html
If you click endnotes you will find a list of citations the paper has made.
Among other things.
Just because it's a /law/ doesn't make it a good law. I don't think we have to go very far back in the history of the US (*cough*Prohibition*cough*) to find that the last time the US government tried to restrict the flow of alcohol it found itself with a bad case of gangsters. Of course, I suppose the dry times brought us many of the cocktails we know and love today.
If it moves, shoot it;
If it doesn't move, shoot it anyway - it might move later.
With General Pervez Musharraf expelling Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif for the second time this week (in defiance of the Pakistani Supreme Court) the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty comes to my mind.
Pakistan is the only Islamic state to have nuclear weapons. These weapons were developed total defiance of the NNPT. At the time the world looked the other way because Pakistan was relatively stable, and the development was diametrically balanced against India (another rogue NNPT state).
It is fairly obvious the Musharraf does not represent his entire country. Further the Pakistani security forces do not control the majority of the country. Osama Bin Ladin is in there somewhere. With the most recent expulsion, I am reminded of the fall of the Shaw of Iran.
I believe there is a high probability of regime change in Pakistan in the near future. And all appearances are that the new regime will be a caliphate, not much different than Iran or the Taliban. The popular media gets big mileage regarding Iran developing WMDs, but Pakistan already has Nukes. And when the revolution comes, these weapons are going to be detonated / exported by some crazy Mullah.
Did the free world “screw the pooch” by not putting teeth into the enforcement of the NNPT?
Pakistan is the only Islamic state to have nuclear weapons. These weapons were developed total defiance of the NNPT. At the time the world looked the other way because Pakistan was relatively stable, and the development was diametrically balanced against India (another rogue NNPT state).
It is fairly obvious the Musharraf does not represent his entire country. Further the Pakistani security forces do not control the majority of the country. Osama Bin Ladin is in there somewhere. With the most recent expulsion, I am reminded of the fall of the Shaw of Iran.
I believe there is a high probability of regime change in Pakistan in the near future. And all appearances are that the new regime will be a caliphate, not much different than Iran or the Taliban. The popular media gets big mileage regarding Iran developing WMDs, but Pakistan already has Nukes. And when the revolution comes, these weapons are going to be detonated / exported by some crazy Mullah.
Did the free world “screw the pooch” by not putting teeth into the enforcement of the NNPT?
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
I watched a documentary a few months ago entitled "why we fight". It was about the United States and its standing army, and how a standing army is bad. I don't quite remember the details of the documentary but it did talk about the war in iraq a bit and the reasons for going there. Personally I think that it is a mistake for the U.S. to have a standing army because standing armies tend to be the downfall of nations. For example, Rome had a standing army for a long period of time, and it was perhaps the most successful ancient civilization before it expanded to greatly and fell into decay. The U.S. I don't believe is heading in that direction, but it is dangerously close to, with our army spread so thin, and our noses in everyones business. What is really disgusting about the military politics/industry in the U.S. is that we spend a huge amount of money developing weapons, but the whole industry is about making the rich richer, why else would a hammer sold to the army cost $75 apiece. If I was actually prone to physiological reactions, this would make me vomit.
What I think needs to be done is the spending on the military cut down to what is necessary to defend ourselves. What is unique though about the U.S. is that it has never really fought a war on its own soil, at least not including the civil war, which was with ourselves, and the revolutionary war, which was for our independance. Don't even get me started on president bush though, thank "GOD" or rather thank the democratic system that his time in office is expiring. I have more to say on this subject but I can't think of anything more right now (I'm the kind of person who can best talk about certain things when I've just watched or read about them, or even listened to other people talk about them).
What I think needs to be done is the spending on the military cut down to what is necessary to defend ourselves. What is unique though about the U.S. is that it has never really fought a war on its own soil, at least not including the civil war, which was with ourselves, and the revolutionary war, which was for our independance. Don't even get me started on president bush though, thank "GOD" or rather thank the democratic system that his time in office is expiring. I have more to say on this subject but I can't think of anything more right now (I'm the kind of person who can best talk about certain things when I've just watched or read about them, or even listened to other people talk about them).
A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he must
Not correct.Airiek wrote:What is unique though about the U.S. is that it has never really fought a war on its own soil, at least not including the civil war.
- In 1812 the British blockaded the Eastern ports and landed in Louisiana.
- The Canadians sided with the British during the war of 1812. They took Detroit briefly, the US burned Toranto.
- The Mexican government attempted to annex portions of Texas in the years prior to the Mexican American War(1846 – 1848)
- People always forget the Indian Wars (1775 to 1917) The US was in a perpetual state of war for almost 150 years with various tribes. 100 million dead Native Americans is a large number to ignore.
- Some folks might say that “La Raza” is a current NGO movement within the US is focused on reclaiming disputed territories(Aztlan) and placing these lands under Mexican sovereignty. They have a flag and everything (and it looks much more like a Mexican Flag than a US one.)
Pacifism has always seemed like an effeminate and unsustainable concept to me. Somehow a pacifist believes that the law of the jungle has been repealed. It is the pacifist that is an abomination of nature. The pacifist exists as a direct by-product of war, and ceases to exist once war again washes over the land. A desire for peace can be a noble concept, but it does not eliminate the genuine need to provide for your own security.
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!
ok, i forgot to say about a few things, lets narrow it down to modern war, and i am not a pacifist, i believe war is in human nature, and that someday, when the human mind is more physically evolved, it will stop, or at least enter a form of destruction very different from the physical, (ex: informational damage, and that sort of thing being the main part, perhaps phsychic...) or maybe stay the same, as eve takes place in the future, but the destruction stays mainly physical, though the jove i dont think are militaristic, just highly advanced. I just heard, convincingly that a standing army is a bad idea. And there are other ways to be ready for war, such as a good defensive system, or just some standing defensive force, but a standing offensive army is different from standing defense. And what about what i said about the political corruption of the military-industrial powerhouse, all profiteering rich people who sell things at many times their value and get away with it. a standing army, fine, but when the corruption of the techonology makers takes all the revenue out of the countries income, like in the us, thats not good, the us govt is dozens of TRILLIONS of dollars in debt, for different reasons, but war is a big part of it.
A wise man speaks because he has something to say, a fool speaks because he must
The history lectures I just finished listening to cited Thomas Hobbes from Leviathan regarding war. It rang so truthful; I will try and cite it from memory.
“A state of war like a rain cannot persist at all times, but periods of stormy weather are a natural state just a periods of war are a natural state for all men.”
I just enjoyed the analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29
“A state of war like a rain cannot persist at all times, but periods of stormy weather are a natural state just a periods of war are a natural state for all men.”
I just enjoyed the analogy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_%28book%29
Keep your sharpened steel sword, this wooden one will be all I need!