Firearm Forums - Arms Locker banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,890 Posts
Oh boy, and HOW many countries have worried, much less payed attention to the UN?

Oh no, they might send the French!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
As Devils advocate, I can see Iran's point. As a soverign nation they have as much right to nuclear as France, China, N. Korea, Pakistan and India.

Practically speaking, they should never have nuclear as they are an additional threat to mankind.

Personally, the UN threatening them has the same weight as Gunclod's invitation to come to Durango. Perhaps the UN and Iran can meet at McDonalds.

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,014 Posts
Raider said:
As Devils advocate, I can see Iran's point. As a soverign nation they have as much right to nuclear as France, China, N. Korea, Pakistan and India.
I still can't get over our (Americans) attitude of it is OK for us to have them, but nobody else in the world can have them because they'd use them while we won't but we still must have them even though we wouldn't use them while everyone else in the world can't have them because they would use them and they are completely safe with us because we won't use them when everyone else would and if you get some we'll use ours on you so you don't think about using yours but it is ok because we won't use ours even though you would but we still need ours and you don't need yours and .....

Sorry about the run-on, but that is how most of us seem to think.
KJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
KJUN said:
I still can't get over our (Americans) attitude of it is OK for us to have them, but nobody else in the world can have them because they'd use them while we won't but we still must have them even though we wouldn't use them while everyone else in the world can't have them because they would use them and they are completely safe with us because we won't use them when everyone else would and if you get some we'll use ours on you so you don't think about using yours but it is ok because we won't use ours even though you would but we still need ours and you don't need yours and .....

Sorry about the run-on, but that is how most of us seem to think.
KJ
I think it's more of a well, we have them, and have the knowledge. The genie is out of the bottle. We can't unlearn how to build them, and we can't really get rid of the ones we have, because others currently do have them too.

But we know the behavior of some of the people that are trying to get them. And we do know what some of their stated goals and desires are.

People that have no qualms about strapping explosives to themselves and walking into a crowd and blowing themselves up, aren't too concerned about retalitory strikes. If they nuke Miami, or New York, they probably don't care that we'd nuke them back. (72 virgins and all that)

Or, they'd simply give a bomb to a group (claim it was stolen, whatever), and let the group do the dirty work, all the while crying foul and decrying the acts of said group.

We probably at the point where, other than for very limited circumstances - like the nuclear bunker buster, we can do far more precise damage with conventional weapons. We're almost at the point of letting unpiloted vehicles pick their own targets and attacking them without any interaction with a human being. I beleive one of the forerunners to this was the tacit rainbow project.

We've already got submunitions that can id a tank and target them as they fall from the sky.

Getting back to Iran and others, we cannot expect them to honor ANY treaties. And once they feel they have a credible deterrant to us taking any action against them, all bets are off.

So, are we elitist with our attitude about who can have nukes - sure. Is our justification for this attitude justified? You betcha!

My two cents....

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,042 Posts
To play the "other" Devil's Advocate...

In all existence, to the best of our knowlege, there is Past, Present, and Future.

To decide what's fair and reasonable in dealing with others, since the future is unknown and the present is fleeting, the only thing we have to go on is the past; or history. And the fact is that a lot of countries are run by people who have historically been despots and aggressors; either to their own subjects, or toward their neighbors. (Or both.)

If we are going to buy in absolutely to the "if it's ok for me, it must be ok for everyone" line of thought, then we'd have to allow convicted bank robbers out on parole to freely carry the same weapons as anyone.

Based on their past history, we know that would be stupid and unacceptable. This is not a subjective, elitist "judgment" of them, it's an objective observation; just as recognizing a rabid dog on a playground isn't a judgment but rather an observation.

And the scuds that run Korea and Iran have shown themselves to be no more trustworthy than bank robbers, and no less dangerous than rabid dogs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Good post John. Your post is logical and well thought out.

RIKA :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,014 Posts
For the record, I'm glad we still have them. I'd vote to keep them if that was an option. I also sleep better knowing that most of those places don't have any - or at least many. I also know this is a hypocritical attitude, and I don't like it. BUT, I also described MYSELF in that post I made.

The problem is that WE are being the judge, the law, AND the lawmakers - and that doesn't sit right with me. I also don't like that WE are the country that used it when we needed it, but says it is wrong for others to have them because they MIGHT use them. Heck, we proved that we WILL use them if we need them. (I agree that we have the best track record for doing the "good things," but our track record is NOT perfect, either.)

Again, I'm not attacking anyone because I believe as most of you do. I just realize i'm being a hypocrite when I think that way - and I don't like knowing that! It is my problem with my own attitude. I'll live with it....lol.

...if I may look att he analogy about the bank robber, I personally don't care if one released from prison - if the system worked properly! - was allowed the same guns as me. The reason is simple. First, if he is let out of prison - IF THE SYSTEM WORKED CORRECTLY - he has "paid his debt to society - and is theoretically reformed. If that is true, then he can be trusted like all law abiding citizens. If it is not true, his butt should STILL be in jail where he belongs. Too bad the system doesn't work correctly, huh? Second, if he wants to have the gun for illegal purposes, he'll get it illegally. Making the law that prevents it won't stop him from doing an illegal act. It is just another charge (when one should be enough) to hit him with if he commits a true crime. (I have trouble thinking of most victimless crimes as "true" crimes.)

KJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
The reason that I've no problem w/us (& Russia or whatever they're called this week)having nukes & keeping most of the rest of the world out is because I feel that,like John alluded to,most of the rest of the worlds' governments are irresponsible & likely to make a snap decision w/o thinking of the global repercussions.

It's their own fault too.For most of the last century the United States has been the country that provided the resources & manpower to bail out most of the rest of the world whenever things got hairy.Americans have gotten used to being the global policemen.The back story is very complex & very long.It boils down to the fact that policemen don't want mass murders & lunatics to have the bomb.It's just too bad that those societies don't label their rulers as such.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top