Don't like nuclear weapons? NATO has the solution!

IcePointa

IcePointa

Active member
NUCLEAR PRE-EMPTIVE WAR!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/nato/story/0,,2244782,00.html

"The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction."

^ GENIOUS!

It's like they didn't even say..

"The first use of WMDs must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of WMDs."

BUT THEY DID!

LOL!
 
well it might make rogue countries think twice about creating a bomb because they would be risking getting bombed themselves. keeps them in line.

iran for instance has there nuclear program under 70 feet of concrete, none of the conventional bunker busters could get down that far, but a nuclear bunker buster could do the trick. that is why they want to let people know that we very well could use nuclear weapons so be prepared for that.

sort of like israel with the samson option. but only not preemptive.

it just makes countries think about could happen if they continue down that road.
 
The real questions we should be asking are:

Why are we in diplomatic strife with these countries? What actions caused these problems? How can we extend an olive branch to them now in order to diffuse the situation? What other real allies share our concerns? How can we use existing diplomatic tools, such as the UN, to bring a peaceful solution?

Our politicians are too lazy to put in the effort to make the needed diplomatic changes, and instead use the idea that they will bring a war to anyone who doesn't fall in line.
 
As long as rogue nations with irrational leadership have nuclear weapons, the leading nations of the world must also maintain nuclear weapons in to maintain order in the global community.

Should policemen not carry firearms because they are instruments designed to hurt and kill? Fuck no! They need them to protect themselves and civilians from criminals that also carry guns.

The technology exists and it is blindly naive to think we can just make it go away. If the US decided to just scrap all of their nuclear weapons, would you honestly trust North Korea to do the same?
 
Sounds real democratic...

The US needs to realize that its 'melting pot' assimilation policy doesn't extend outside its boarders. What works for the US can't be forced to work upon others; that's a time proven fact. As long as the US feels the need to police the world, I can never look at them as the "protectors of democracy." What a joke.
 
You're right MAD has been around quite awhile, but it isn't the same thing.

This is endorsing PRE-EMPTIVE nuclear war!

MAD is the strategy in which IF ATTACKED the country would retaliate with equal or greater force.

big difference there

In fact, this pre-emptive war actually undermines MAD, in that it previously held that neither side would dare to launch a first strike because of the consequences. Of course our primary focus is now on a nation that does not infact actually have any nuclear weapons.
 
I feel strongly that endorsing pre-emptive nuclear war and merely possessing a nuclear weapon are two radically different ideas, don't you?
 
Does "remain in the quiver" mean the same thing as a preemptive strike? I'm inclined to think not if we use the definition of quiver as a vessel for arrows.
 
Ok, I hate to be the analogy police here, but come on, comparing nuclear proliferation to policeman carrying guns? Give me a fucking break, dude.
 
Did you even read the article? They're obviously saying that they fully support the idea of pre-emptive nuclear war, as if they have a pre-emptive nuclear arrow in their quiver, and at any point they feel threatend they can take it and shoot it up your ass.

...lately sounds like you've been disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing
 
I think it also comes down to the problem that we could completely wipe out all the known intelligent life in the universe in about 10 minutes...
 
I did. But what I gathered was that they want more efficient means of getting things done. Lets for example take the quote:

"The use of force without UN security council authorisation when "immediate action is needed to protect large numbers of human beings"."

While thats a loaded quote, they seem to want to use force when it is "necessary", though that inandofitself is relatively meaningless because the ultimate decision isn't theirs. Lets also keep in mind that these are solders and military experts, not politicians. I think your making a bigger deal of this than it really is.
 
Bah! You meddlesome fool, you have unmasked my evil plan! I meticulously pour over NS looking for your posts just so I can disagree with you! How could you have foiled such a brilliant plan? You may have won this round, but I'll be back MUAHAHAHA!!!

Okay, lets get back to reality. Get over yourself. Yeah, I disagree with you in two threads and you suddenly think I have some kind of man-crush on you...talk about attention starved.

It's humorous since you're so arrogant as to think I actually give a shit about you personally. No, I disagree for the sake of that you are either wrong or severely misguided. It wouldn't have mattered if you or some other pretentious prick made the exact same thread.

You take yourself so seriously it's almost comical. It's to the point where you're just preaching like a nutcase. Don't expect unconditional agreement when you decide to play Chicken Little.

You've been making several of these doomsday threads lately...did your high school civics teacher pump you up with a lecture or something?
 
...And to make you happy I'll address the article.

Yes the guardian is a respectable source of secondary aside-from-mainstream news. This article IS interesting and disturbing but with the application of a bit of common sense you have to recognize that this proposition will never make it through.

If the article is correct on all the details something like this is NOT going to pass in NATO. This will not take place as a result of one of this proposition's chief criticisms- the neccesity for NATO consensus. Yes the proposition calls for "A shift from consensus decision-taking in Nato bodies to majority voting, meaning faster action through an end to national vetoes" Conveniantly this is exactly what will stop it. There IS going to be a NATO member party which disagrees with this (among other thigns in the proposition) and will vote against it if not veto it.

Secondly there are enough member countries of NATO with liberal governments to vote this down. Take Germany's government for example. With this in mind lo and behold!- "The time has come for Germany to decide if it wants to be a reliable partner." By insisting on "special rules" for its forces in Afghanistan, the Merkel government in Berlin was contributing to "the dissolution of Nato". -As quoted from one of the authers of this proposed resolution. Its far beyond military in scope. That was a political shot from the hip.

Lastly while were on politics, this excerpt in particular captured me- "The five commanders argue that the west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The key threats are:

· Political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism."

What does that shout to you? If we've boarded the same train of thought that just screams right wing military fear politics. There is enough common sense within NATO as an organization and the UN to realize that this popularist rhetoric shouldn't be taken seriously. Once you step outside the circles of military and US discourse you realize that WOW! the world isn't actually out to get us!

This won't pass. Don't generalize five radical NATO generals as the entire organization as a whole. Just because its a proposition doesn't mean its policy.
 
just look on the bright side, if we get nuclear winter, new england will actually have a legit season. Powder year!
 
our policing the world includes giving more aid to countries then anyone else. if u knew half of the aide we give u'd think twice. say what you will, maybe we've made some mistakes, but we help alot of countries out.
 
Do you take me for an idiot? Like I don't know the US gives aid?

Do you know what kinds of conditions get attached to those aid cheques? Structural Adjustment programs that force countries to spend the money to produce only a couple staple goods for the global market instead of using the money to deal with internal issues like poverty, education and housing.

Great Aid guys, top notch.

Giving aid doesn't mean shit these days since there are so many backroom deals that the money never ends up in the intended place anyways (and most of the time a large portion of the aid money is spent just funding the bureaucracies that handle it, which are many).

Don't go saying because you give aid you can police the world. The idea of one superpower running the globe promoting democracy is a joke. Democracy in the US has no meaning anymore.
 
And all US citizens know everything because there government tell them where the money goes...and why would governments lie?

Anyways...off topic now. Back to NATO.
 
yes. that is 100 percent true. after six nuclear strikes occur we would have a nuclear ice age that would last years.
 
Fuckin yea!

The pre-emptive war in Iraq was such a good idea, that we need to step it up to the next level.

GWB: "Iran has WMDS!! You have 1 day to disarm until force will be used against you."

24 hours later: NUKED (by Israel...not our fault, LOL)

That why we don't even have to pretend that they actually had nuclear weapons, cause we nuke the "evidence".

Sounds like an awesome scenario, and totally neccessary considering the NIE report a while back.

And if you don't think these guys represent their nation's positions on this topic? WTF's agenda do you think they're pushing? You mean that Cheney/Bush would not agree with this doctrine? Do you actually think the relavent nations will change their positions simply because NATO votes it down? Yea, cause we needed NATO's permission for the last war, right?

rediculous

 
haha, you spent way too much effort on that reply

obviously you are just less intelligent than I had previously assumed

tell me more about your quivers, and what they mean, lol
 
wtf does it matter if it doesn't "make it through"? You think we need NATO's blessing to enforce our policy positions? Since when?
 
Since:

1: This is a NATO proposition. Nowhere did I read that this is a US government proposition.

2: Any nuclear strike requires the authorization of the president. This one has one year tops to do it. Our biggest concern is economy right now. NOT foreign relations

3) Any nuclear strike by the US WOULD enrage the World community. Thus leading to worldwide sanctions and embargos agaisnt the US. Think the economy could survive that right now?

4) The government isn't that retarded,

5) You are.
 
Duh, if Iran gets nuked it will be Israel doing the dirty work.

This statement is just giving them a nice little endorsement to do so, regardless of if it "passes"

btw,

suck it wanker
 
Wow, I think we found FTP's alias.

Look scooter, it didn't even take me five minutes to write that. However, since your so starved for attention and acceptance that you get satisfaction out me actually replying to your rags...I guess you should thank me? Well your certainly welcome good sir! I would offer more, but I think I found something slightly more intellectually stimulating (beating my head against a bedpost while listening to Rosie O'donnell rant about the politics of belly button lint).

We've already confirmed you're an illogical nutcase. We've also confirmed that you have nothing to add to a discussion unless you can link something to the inner reaches of the internet's asshole. And since your preceding post missed the point mine that you quoted I'll disregard most of it...that is except for the fact that if these NATO proposals don't matter and its really a puppet job by The Great Satan (Capitalism Bad!), then why the fuck are making a big deal about NATO in the first place? Was it only by accident that "NATO has the solution!" was pronounced in the thread title? Congratulations for defusing your own argument you imbecilic, sophomoric, twit.

Oh, and one more thing. Your feeble attempt at wit sucks. Perhaps you should exercise your mind on simpler concepts like the roundness of a ball.
 
yawn*

The big deal isn't NATO. It is that respected western officials are making statements like this at all, let alone in a forum as highly regarded as NATO. The significance the does not lie in if NATO actually passes these resolutions, however, in the unlikely situation that they did, the situation would be futher compounded.

Perhaps you should excercise your mind on the taste of Spank_Monkey's nuts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top