"Stable" nations getting nukes?

2006-02-22 22:32:44

#1

BVC: Member; +325|6924

Okay, we all know that the USA doesn't like the thought of countries like Iran getting nukes, but I'm curious to know American opinion on "stable" nations getting nukes, nations that aren't likely to get them with the intent of using them...say like Australia or Japan for example, what say they wanted to acquire the nuclear option? Taiwan? Canada?

I'm NOT trying to start yet another flame-fest or a big "lets all hate america" parade, I'd rather avoid that in this thread, I just want to find out everyones opinions, but particularly American opinion.

2006-02-22 23:59:07

#2

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

Well... Australia would never get nukes as far as I know. The anti-nuclear movement here (and in NZ, as you know) is fairly strong. A truckload of non-hazardous waste gets the attention of a fair few protesters. Although we might sell uranium, as we've got a lot of that (world's biggest reserves, in actual fact).

I think there would be support for Japan getting nukes. I don't need to say why.

Taiwan is hardly 'stable'. Not a good idea to inflame the situation there...

Although I get your point. Stable, allied nations would have US backing to make nukes, as a deterrent. Just keep them in good condition, not like the severely underfunded Russia has. And don't put them in subs!!!

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-02-23 13:51:29

#3

Not Entirely Sane: Member; +6|6889|Just Outside Seattle

I don't think I or anyone else would care if the Scandinavians got hold of some nuclear weapons, I’m not sure about Canada since Quebec keeps threatening to secede and if they did I would be worried about keeping the nukes safe.

Also we should give Greenland nukes so they can force the U.S. to do something about global warming
(and yes I do know Greenland is part of Denmark)

2006-02-24 02:18:44

#4

Greenie_Beazinie: Aussie Outlaw; +8|7042

We dont need nukes, if anyone pokes the ground in the NT their kids will have cancer. Thats if Johhny has his way.

2006-02-24 14:35:09

#5

[MAA]MI2: Member; +3|7001

I find it somewhat ironic that US tries to prevent other nations from acquiring nukes when they are the only ones that have used one in the history of the world...

2006-02-24 18:00:01

#6

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

[MAA]MI2 wrote:
I find it somewhat ironic that US tries to prevent other nations from acquiring nukes when they are the only ones that have used one in the history of the world...

You mean used one in combat

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-02-24 18:03:04

#7

[MAA]MI2: Member; +3|7001

Yes, thats what I meant, in combat. Sorry if that was unclear.

2006-02-24 18:11:10

#8

Flecco: iPod is broken.; +1,048|6893|NT, like Mick Dundee

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:
We dont need nukes, if anyone pokes the ground in the NT their kids will have cancer. Thats if Johhny has his way.

I grew up near were they plan on placing the dump...

Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.

2006-02-24 20:05:49

#9

Greenie_Beazinie: Aussie Outlaw; +8|7042

I'm sure that makes you feel swell

2006-02-24 20:24:56

#10

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

Swelling with cancer, if you mean that.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-02-27 03:50:22

#11

BVC: Member; +325|6924

Spark wrote:
[MAA]MI2 wrote:
I find it somewhat ironic that US tries to prevent other nations from acquiring nukes when they are the only ones that have used one in the history of the world...
You mean used one in combat

Two actually, hiroshima and nagasaki, plus a bunch of depleted uranium munitions in other wars.

But shit man that seriously sucks about the waste dump, if they go ahead with it I hope they do a damned good job of it, and don't put it on top of any aquifers or sinkholes!

2006-02-27 22:51:53

#12

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

Pubic wrote:
Spark wrote:
[MAA]MI2 wrote:
I find it somewhat ironic that US tries to prevent other nations from acquiring nukes when they are the only ones that have used one in the history of the world...
You mean used one in combat
Two actually, hiroshima and nagasaki, plus a bunch of depleted uranium munitions in other wars.

But shit man that seriously sucks about the waste dump, if they go ahead with it I hope they do a damned good job of it, and don't put it on top of any aquifers or sinkholes!

Or on top of Kakadu :S

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-02-27 23:06:35

#13

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7003|Noizyland

There's no such thing as a stable nation with nukes. The countries that have them are insecure. That's why they have them.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2006-02-27 23:43:53

#14

pohoudini: Member; +1|6873

We ( the US) keep them simply as a trump card, although i could never see them ever using one again (atom bomb style anyway) but uranium shells might have a future with the rail gun development. however uranium is not needed for the rail guns. There are several other countries that have nukes and noone will listen you if they know they can kick your ass. However several 3rd world nations and even other developed nations feel that they cant be taken seriously without nuclear weapons. The US has everyyear slowly decreased its number of nukes. PM me if youd like to know more... I would like to point out i am not just speculating I am in the military so i may be able to offer more contemporary policies for you.

2006-02-27 23:54:33

#15

DarkObsidian: Member; +6|6864|Arizona, USA

I personally don't think nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction should be possessed by any country except my own, and thats because I feel a sense of security. However, I would much rather fight a war on the ground and wouldn't approve of the weapon being used except in very serious matter.

2006-02-28 03:58:12

#16

ArMaG3dD0n: Member; +24|7063|Deutschland/Germany

Don t you think it s ignorant to say the US should be the only country with nukes? What about France or Britain? I would feel MUCH more save if they keep their nukes too and if the US were not able to nuke everyone else without anyone nuking back.

Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-02-28 03:59:15)

2006-02-28 12:42:51

#17

agwood: Member; +18|6868|I Fight for Bush !!

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:
Don t you think it s ignorant to say the US should be the only country with nukes? What about France or Britain? I would feel MUCH more save if they keep their nukes too and if the US were not able to nuke everyone else without anyone nuking back.

I agree.. Even though I am American

There is an old doctrine called MAD... Mutually Assured Destruction.. keeps things in check

but I honestly dont think that the US is looking to NUKE EVERYONE..

Last edited by agwood (2006-02-28 12:44:48)

2006-02-28 14:08:47

#18

ArMaG3dD0n: Member; +24|7063|Deutschland/Germany

Yeah ok so let s say I feel more safe if NOONE can nuke everyone else without anyone nuking back. Didn t want to imply that the US are trying to nuke everyone else......

Last edited by ArMaG3dD0n (2006-02-28 14:12:21)

2006-02-28 14:18:34

#19

Kibbick: Member; +1|6861

I dont trust any nation with nukes, especially places like Iran and the US were religion has so much influence on state. And Canada wouldn't get nukes, there is a strong anti nuke policy, and we refused them when offered by the US to arm us with them during the Cold War.

2006-02-28 14:46:51

#20

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6943|US

Japan, Canada, etc.-I am fine with that, because they have reasonable governments that are not suicidal. The last time I have heard anyone seriously mention nuclear war was immediately after 9/11, even then many people got nervous at the thought and it was quickly removed from discussion. It is not like a "stable" nation like the US or France is suddenly going to start WWIII.

Also, most stable nations do not need nuclear weapons, so why bother. (majority here)

Although most US leaders are religious, there still is such a thing called separation of church and state. It can get real irritating sometimes when having "God" inscribed on a public building becomes a legal controversey, but that "separation" keeps the US from becomming a theocracy or something close to that.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2006-02-28 14:50:20)

2006-02-28 22:47:11

#21

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6903|Canberra, AUS

I would support, albeit reluctantly, Japan getting nukes. Deterrent against North Korea, who have shown many times that an attack on Japan would be quite easy.

And Japan can't realy fight back cos their military was disbanded after WWII

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2006-03-01 02:54:36

#22

Beefy: Member; +0|6871

Japan needs nukes if North Koreans and Chinese got nukes

2006-03-01 03:07:38

#23

Teckademics: Member; +1|6954|Savannah GA

japan with nukes? HELL NO.. once they get them the power will go to there heads and it will be pearl harbor all over again. they will all say WE NUKA BIG AMERICAN PENIS and the shit hits the fan.

Last edited by Teckademics (2006-03-01 03:08:30)

2006-03-01 03:10:10

#24

anzus: Wheres the trigger?; +34|6872|Wangaratta, Australia

I personally dont think USA govt would support anymore countries gaining nukes. specially since the current climate trying to reduce their own nuke pile.

PS if us aussies had nukes I think the Middle east wouldnt exsist now and little Priminister Johnny Howard would be saying "I didnt know we had any nukes, what nuke?, wheres Iraq?, we couldnt give wheat kickbacks to a country that doesnt exsist?"

2006-03-01 03:20:20

#25

Devolant: Member; +3|6865|Sweden

Spark wrote:
[MAA]MI2 wrote:
I find it somewhat ironic that US tries to prevent other nations from acquiring nukes when they are the only ones that have used one in the history of the world...
You mean used one in combat

Please, the war was over. You idiots bombed dresden when berlin had been captured. You idiots threw yet another nuke at japan after the first one and they practically said GG.

America is a bunch of hypocrits.

Last edited by Devolant (2006-03-01 03:21:55)

BF2S Forums "Stable" nations getting nukes?

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

Greenie_Beazinie wrote:

Spark wrote:

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

Pubic wrote:

Spark wrote:

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

ArMaG3dD0n wrote:

Spark wrote:

[MAA]MI2 wrote:

Board footer