|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 27, 2009 11:23:14 GMT -5
Do you think a large-scaled conflict can still happen this century?
North Korean diplomatic negotiations are a disaster but do North Korea really intend to use their nukes?
Is it possible that the current state of affairs marked by terrorism and conventional warfare ends up leading to nuclear war?
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 28, 2009 12:14:29 GMT -5
Nukes in the modern age are weapons of intimidation nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by milkman's baby on Sept 28, 2009 20:00:15 GMT -5
No
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 29, 2009 7:40:57 GMT -5
- Robin Williams Especially at 0:36 to 0:44 ;D
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 29, 2009 12:20:30 GMT -5
The classical theory of nuclear deterrence was only good for Cold War, the US and USSR knew it would end up in their mutual assured destruction if they ever used them.
But what if mad Kim Jong-Il decides to fire his or what if a terrorist organization find their way to nukes, they could strike anywhere on the globe and it would be virtually impossible to prevent them or even to negotiate. In an asymmetrical war they operate by proxy and are not liable by the international law framework like Nation-States are.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Sept 29, 2009 14:31:27 GMT -5
Watch the above comedy, there is truth in what he said about Russia heh. The thing is, the fall of the USSR has allowed for heaps of illegal weapon shipments and I won't be surprised if that includes nukes. If terrorists wished to nuke an entire city just to prove their point, they would have done so already. Same with N.K.
To be honest the whole "Terrorism" thing doesn't really make sense to me. I tend to question what I hear with propaganda and the media. Russians invade Chechnya without warning, then when Chechens held up hostages in a theatre hoping to persuade Russians to withdraw from their motherland... they are considered "Terrorists". Chechnya was bombed, raped, people massacred by Russia in the false pretense of "Liberation".
To be honest I don't buy the whole 9/11 thing either, although I actually appreciated Bush orchestrating this as the War in Afghanistan has helped the Hazara people fighting against the inhuman Pashtun Taliban. With Iraq though, any determined man of power can easily wipe out another human being with the same cost of a full-invasion. But to be honest, I don't think the U.S. was interested at all at Saddam, it's the oil, it's economics.
Meh, but I may be wrong, who knows, Sydney may get nuked tomorrow. There are technologies that can prevent nuclear deployment and national security measures to prevent infiltration. None of which are flawless, but I'd rather worry about today. If I die tomorrow it's mostly likely by getting my head in guillotine machine or getting into a car accident... rather then a nuke.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Sept 29, 2009 22:41:29 GMT -5
U.S. presidents use the threat of World War to start more wars than they can finish. International conflict is self-fulfilling and self serving. Your form of government has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 30, 2009 22:13:05 GMT -5
errorism is as old as political History, it doesn't mean 9/11 potentially was an inside job that terrorist organizations aiming to destroy both symbolically and physically political adversaries or ethnic groups don't exist !
Iraq has negligible oil production, civil reconstruction contracts and private militias protection businesses like Blackwater are much more lucrative for the US military-industrial complex.
For my part, I think that as things stand now there is a real threat because of nuclear proliferation in hands of threatening parties. North Korea just finished producing their nukes last summer, so I'm not sure how they could have put it to use a long time ago..
Edited.
|
|
|
Post by palaver on Sept 30, 2009 22:23:27 GMT -5
Iraq has negligible oil reserves, Where did you learn that? List of countries by proven reserves of oil: 1 Saudi Arabia 266,800,000,000 19.66% 2 Canada 178,600,000,000 13.16%3 Iran 138,400,000,000 10.20% 4 Iraq 115,000,000,000 8.47% 5 Kuwait 104,000,000,000 7.66% 6 UAE 97,800,000,000 7.21% 7 Venezuela 87,040,000,000 6.41% 8 Russia 79,000,000,000 5.82% 9 Libya 41,460,000,000 3.05%
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Sept 30, 2009 22:42:35 GMT -5
There are technologies that can prevent nuclear deployment and national security measures to prevent infiltration. None of which are flawless Nothing prevented NK to launch their first missiles... What would happen if Iran ever put theirs to use on Israel? Remember Hillary Clinton (current US secretary of foreign affairs) when she stated she would not hesitate to obliterate Iran? (using nuclear arms on civilians) If that is the (democratic) righteous American nuclear strategy, imagine rogue states' or terrorists! Apocalypse now. If my memory doesn't fail me Soviet memos of the '1962 Cuba missile crisis' revealed they were ready to fight a nuclear war with the US.
|
|
|
Post by Subuatai on Oct 1, 2009 2:51:21 GMT -5
Nothing prevented France from launching your own nukes either
The testing of nuclear weaponry by firing them into oceans obviously ain't the same as firing them into cities. If this was the case then you should include France into the list of possible WW3 starters.
As I said before, nukes nowadays are weapons of intimidation. Ownership of them provide diplomatic advantages. Cold War Crisis proved it well enough - and yes this includes the Cuban missile crisis, with everyone wasting money on bomb shelters ;D
In the case of warfare as well, occupation is always preferable to utter destruction. You can be a leader of a nuclear-armed nation in a cold war against another with nuclear missles all pointed at key cities, you can have submarines all armed and positioned ready to decimate your enemy if a nuclear war is declared...
But the truth is, what is the point of a war when victory would mean utter destruction of your OWN people as well. War is mostly about economics nowadays, and what profit is there with mutual destruction? As for the funny little Korean dude in N.K. He's mad, but so far he doesn't seem mad enough to nuke his own people (that's what will happen if a N.K. missile is launched directly and intentionally at foreign targets)
As for terrorists, leaders of such organisations aren't stupid. They all have their own moral/nationalist goals. Suicide bombers are just a tool, manipulated by twisting their religious beliefs into something militant, twisting their own morality, and then promising them virgins in Heaven. You'll do better slicing off the head then the fingers.
|
|
|
Post by Ganbare! on Oct 1, 2009 10:33:10 GMT -5
Last time I checked France is a democratic country and it was over 40 years ago, the same could be said for Britain etc. The problem is that intimidation relies on too many assumptions, there is always the scenario that a party takes the initiative no matter what the consequences for their people (ideological greater good or necessary evil) or even consider the case of untraceable terrorist attacks.
|
|
Shock
Full Member
Posts: 261
|
Post by Shock on Nov 25, 2009 15:38:25 GMT -5
NK will not start a war. They will not gain anything from it.
|
|
|
Post by purpletrapezoid on Feb 16, 2010 0:45:37 GMT -5
If they have enough nuclear missiles, they can destroy all of their enemies at once... then they'll win without suffering any losses. Just a thought...
|
|
Papa Alpha
Junior Member
Not all those who wander are lost
1/4 pirate, 1/4 ninja, 1/4 cowboy, 1/4 rockstar
Posts: 102
|
Post by Papa Alpha on Mar 11, 2010 3:51:46 GMT -5
Order and chaos aren't equal shares, order is part of chaos. Nothing is off the table, ever. WWIII is possible.
|
|