-
Thanks for playing! The closing ceremony for TBT World Championship 2024 has been posted. Congratulations to the winning team, Squirtle Squad! Update: The Master Ball raffle winners have now been announced and rewards have been distributed. Time to spend your Arcade Tokens!
WMD's
- Thread starter Robin
- Start date
Yeah there has been no evidence of WMDs in Iraq since I think the 1990's. Like pear said, Saddam Hussein used many biological/chemical weapons too kill many kurd civilians.Pear said:
That's what I was trying to say, just the thought of countries having WMDs can lead another country to invade. Because there had been acts of terrorism it made our country start to worry about future threats, thereby becoming paranoid of Iraq (or any country that poses a threat to us for that matter) having WMDs.
And I agree with what Pear said about us being hypocrites. WMDs just cause too much tension between countries and weaken communication.
The Sign Painter
Senior Member
Anything that can kill a large amount of people/do a lot of damage in a little time is a weapon of mass destruction.Pear said:
War is the stupidest idea ever conceived, which is why I am writing an experimental song about it, and how it destroys lives.
Well how could you "allow" or "disallow." There isn't some supreme WMD police force (and there shouldn't be). One country telling another country that it can't have a WMD is a good way to make someone angry and do the exact opposite of what you want, a WMD war. So it's best to just mind our own business and not give people any reason to attack us. If we are still attacked then we can defend ourselves.
No one is going to argue that war is fair, or even worthwhile. It takes a lot of strain on a country to go to war, economically and otherwise. But with this Iraq war, they've been throwing more stones at people than many will stand. It's not only about 9/11 but they've been bombing busses in Europe, and doing all sorts of things. You can't really blame the COUNTRIES (not one) that are fighting in Iraq for what they're doing.
As far as WMD's go though, they're not so much of a problem anymore as they used to be. As a weapon is developed, usually something to counteract the weapon is also created. We have anti-missile systems, and even as children we're vaccinated for a lot of things that would cause a pandemic in the biological warfare side. Either way, they're not just going to go away overnight, and neither will war.
The funny thing is people are responsible for both. I guess you could say we're all weapons.
As far as WMD's go though, they're not so much of a problem anymore as they used to be. As a weapon is developed, usually something to counteract the weapon is also created. We have anti-missile systems, and even as children we're vaccinated for a lot of things that would cause a pandemic in the biological warfare side. Either way, they're not just going to go away overnight, and neither will war.
The funny thing is people are responsible for both. I guess you could say we're all weapons.
Passing a resolution that a country doesn't like isn't going to do anything though. And the UN has caused more bad than good in my opinion.Pear said:
Embargoes and sanctions also don't work. They usually just starve the people of that country, not the government oppressing them. Then the tyrannical government has a good reason to rally the people. For example, if the US puts sanctions on Iran... well we know people in Iran don't like their government. But if the US is causing problems for those people, the Iranian government can say "look what the US is doing to us, now let's go to war against them." So sanctions easily lead to war, which is what we're trying to avoid, right?
Ron Ronaldo
Seer of Heart :33
Should they be allowed? Absolutely not. >:T
Will they be developed? Most definitely. =<
Will they be developed? Most definitely. =<
The Sign Painter
Senior Member
Fight war, not wars.
Ron Ronaldo
Seer of Heart :33
You're right, it's definitely a difficult problem. Nobody wants to be the first country to disarm.Wardi96 said:
I just think that there must be other solutions to international conflict. Especially since use of WMD's would just result in retaliation from the target county.
So basically, everybody dies, nobody wins.
Weapons of mass destruction are not responsible for instigating war. People are responsible for instigating war. There are a couple of people who have made excellent points regarding this; scientific discovery and the success of a nation has always been dependent upon a oneupsmanship mentality. Saying that WMDs are responsible for instigating war is like saying that picking up a broken tree branch 40,000 years ago instigated war. They are both simply a means to an end, whether it's offense or defense.
The invention of the firearm in the Renaissance period revolutionized the previous manner of warfare and the entire world was forced to adapt. The worst and most bloody wars were fought in that period of time, as the science of war was revolutionized from standing armies into the guerilla-like tactics that were first introduced in the American Revolutionary War. A period of four hundred years passed before the military world was able to adapt to simply being able to point a hollow barrel at another person and take their life, and in the past one hundred years we've come up with far more ingenius methods of doing it than even that. The control of weapons of mass destruction is no different than the attempt to control firearms in such countries as Canada and the United Kingdom, where not even police are allowed to carry firearms because they are afraid of the general public's possession of them. Criminals will still carry the weapons, just like rogue states like Iran will be sanctioned until the end of time to shut down their centrifuges, but they will still develop weapons despite the United Nations' emphasis not to.
As for the Iraq example of WMDs inciting war, it was a scape excuse used by the Administration at the time to justify themselves initially, before other and better reasons were uncovered and solidified. Gut feelings, human instinct, and the "I KNOW it's there" mentality is what started the Iraq invasion. Human nature instigated war. The ongoing Afghan conflict has no WMDs involved at all in it, yet it continues to be one of the most involved conflicts of this day and age.
War is a necessity. A necessity deemed by thousands and thousands of years of human evolution, and before any hippies get offended -- no, other animals have not evolved to have war, but wolf packs will war amongst themselves over territory and mates, establish themselves as alpha. At a base level, the human conflicts that use swords, spears, guns, cannons, Anthrax, and plutonium are no more than advanced means of claiming territory or mates.
The regulation of nuclear weapons has been ongoing since the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in the Cold War, followed by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties of the 90s. Yes, nuclear stockpiles amongst the First World have dwindled exponentially, and teh United States still holds the largest stockpile in the entire world. Not because we are better, not because we are stronger, or smarter, but because we drafted the Treaties in the United Nations with a submissive Russian Federation that had just picked itself out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Geneva Convention does not line out any kind of strategic arms (the cold war-era term for WMDs) limitations or any limits on the uses thereof. It is the job of the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to control the proliferation or reduction of nuclear and atomic material throughout the world.
To bring up the 'signature' use of strategic arms, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were bombings of necessity. As ZR388 mentioned, the nation of Japan would not have given up their homeland easily, and the Pentagon alone estimated more than one million American soldiers would be exterminated in an invasion of Japan, along with equal and greater numbers of Japanese soldiers and citizens. As it stands, even 65 years later, not one million people have died from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima incidents. The last time I looked, the number hadn't reached half a million. The example that Fat Man and Little Boy set was one that the Emperor respected and understood, showing America's resolve to be equal to their own, and instead of subjecting his people to further tragedies, surrendered to General MacArthur and President Truman.
The detente that occurred as a result of the arms races between the United States and the Soviet Union are what originally warped the use of strategic arms into what they are today: the greatest example of resolve and ultimate power that was to be used only as a last resort was warped into a power that has been scientifically theorized to destroy the world hundreds of times over. Now people are afraid of a nuclear winter, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other strategic arms as their main vessel of fear.
In conclusion, yes, I believe that strategic arms should be developed, investigated, and in certain situations used. The control thereof is a continuing aspiration, but it will never completely succeed. The next use will be not one of necessity, but one of challenge or belligerance. It is something that cannot be avoided, and the entire world will have to cope with this development of war just like it had to adjust to the advent of the firearm.
The invention of the firearm in the Renaissance period revolutionized the previous manner of warfare and the entire world was forced to adapt. The worst and most bloody wars were fought in that period of time, as the science of war was revolutionized from standing armies into the guerilla-like tactics that were first introduced in the American Revolutionary War. A period of four hundred years passed before the military world was able to adapt to simply being able to point a hollow barrel at another person and take their life, and in the past one hundred years we've come up with far more ingenius methods of doing it than even that. The control of weapons of mass destruction is no different than the attempt to control firearms in such countries as Canada and the United Kingdom, where not even police are allowed to carry firearms because they are afraid of the general public's possession of them. Criminals will still carry the weapons, just like rogue states like Iran will be sanctioned until the end of time to shut down their centrifuges, but they will still develop weapons despite the United Nations' emphasis not to.
As for the Iraq example of WMDs inciting war, it was a scape excuse used by the Administration at the time to justify themselves initially, before other and better reasons were uncovered and solidified. Gut feelings, human instinct, and the "I KNOW it's there" mentality is what started the Iraq invasion. Human nature instigated war. The ongoing Afghan conflict has no WMDs involved at all in it, yet it continues to be one of the most involved conflicts of this day and age.
War is a necessity. A necessity deemed by thousands and thousands of years of human evolution, and before any hippies get offended -- no, other animals have not evolved to have war, but wolf packs will war amongst themselves over territory and mates, establish themselves as alpha. At a base level, the human conflicts that use swords, spears, guns, cannons, Anthrax, and plutonium are no more than advanced means of claiming territory or mates.
The regulation of nuclear weapons has been ongoing since the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks in the Cold War, followed by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties of the 90s. Yes, nuclear stockpiles amongst the First World have dwindled exponentially, and teh United States still holds the largest stockpile in the entire world. Not because we are better, not because we are stronger, or smarter, but because we drafted the Treaties in the United Nations with a submissive Russian Federation that had just picked itself out of the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Geneva Convention does not line out any kind of strategic arms (the cold war-era term for WMDs) limitations or any limits on the uses thereof. It is the job of the United Nations Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency to control the proliferation or reduction of nuclear and atomic material throughout the world.
To bring up the 'signature' use of strategic arms, the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were bombings of necessity. As ZR388 mentioned, the nation of Japan would not have given up their homeland easily, and the Pentagon alone estimated more than one million American soldiers would be exterminated in an invasion of Japan, along with equal and greater numbers of Japanese soldiers and citizens. As it stands, even 65 years later, not one million people have died from the Nagasaki and Hiroshima incidents. The last time I looked, the number hadn't reached half a million. The example that Fat Man and Little Boy set was one that the Emperor respected and understood, showing America's resolve to be equal to their own, and instead of subjecting his people to further tragedies, surrendered to General MacArthur and President Truman.
The detente that occurred as a result of the arms races between the United States and the Soviet Union are what originally warped the use of strategic arms into what they are today: the greatest example of resolve and ultimate power that was to be used only as a last resort was warped into a power that has been scientifically theorized to destroy the world hundreds of times over. Now people are afraid of a nuclear winter, with the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other strategic arms as their main vessel of fear.
In conclusion, yes, I believe that strategic arms should be developed, investigated, and in certain situations used. The control thereof is a continuing aspiration, but it will never completely succeed. The next use will be not one of necessity, but one of challenge or belligerance. It is something that cannot be avoided, and the entire world will have to cope with this development of war just like it had to adjust to the advent of the firearm.
Ron Ronaldo
Seer of Heart :33
Sadly. That's what I said in the second part of my post. :<Wardi96 said:
Ideally, they would never be used, produced, anything. But it's highly unlikely that countries would want to stop development or come to some sort or an agreement,
I'm just sayin'.
Sorry if I get a little passionate about this kind of discussion. I'm a journalism major with a political science minor and I plan to go into law, and the Cold War was the greatest era in history for all three of those. It's ... sort of my thing.
Sorry if I get a little passionate about this kind of discussion. I'm a journalism major with a political science minor and I plan to go into law, and the Cold War was the greatest era in history for all three of those. It's ... sort of my thing.
