A scenario I thought about Bin Laden.

[Osensitive1]

Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?

It's directly related to position within the United Nation's Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).

[Adam]

I don't really care that america has WMDs

retarded countries like Iran shouldn't be allowed tho

[Al Swearegen]

Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?

It's directly related to position within the United Nation's Security Council.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, also Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT or NNPT) is a treaty to limit the spread (proliferation) of nuclear weapons. The treaty came into force on 5 March 1970, and currently there are 189 states party to the treaty, five of which are recognized as nuclear weapon states: the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council).

What about the pones that aren't? Also surely in fairness if US can have x amount of nuclear weapons then any other country and for exactly the same reasons ought to be allowed the same and for the same reasons? No? If not why is it seen as OK?

[Osensitive1]

There's some fabulous conspiracy theories out there concerning the existence of the UN, but it's purpose and ultimate goal is supposed to be world peace. It's a very interesting and detailed article, Sir, which touches on the logic of the questions you ask. I don't really claim to know what's fair or okay about nuclear warfare.

[Al Swearegen]

There's some fabulous conspiracy theories out there concerning the existence of the UN, but it's purpose and ultimate goal is supposed to be world peace. It's a very interesting and detailed article, Sir, which touches on the logic of the questions you ask. I don't really claim to know what's fair or okay about nuclear warfare.

It just absolutely baffles me and I guess it gets back to the things I was saying earlier about the mentality of what is right, good and safe is what resides in our hearts and others (other countries) we can not trust because what is in their hearts and souls is different to ours and therefore all the things we are not - wrong, evil, unsafe. We are better people because we are (insert country name here) and our values and beliefs are better

[Osensitive1]

Don't think this particular subject is able to be related in the same way. This is a world treaty; as long as there remains the threat of countries who refuse to comply, the super powers will never be expected to dismantle. The five nuclear states are at this point, basically entrusted to protect the countries who comply to the treaty from the ones who don't. The true purpose of the treaty is supposed to be to eliminate them completely. This may likely never happen.

[Callaway]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.

Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it.

How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)

From looking  it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.

Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.

I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.

Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?

[Al Swearegen]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.

Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it.

How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)

From looking  it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.

Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.

I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.

Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?

Honestly I don't think any country having nuclear weapons is safe. I would not credit America being any more vigilant than Iraq or Russia or North Korea or India or whomever.

Again though I do see you saying about ingredients for nuclear technology but you did kinda say that the Iraq having weapons of mass destruction claim was true. Where were the weapons? Lotta Iraqui citizens died in the liberating invasions and a lot o troops committed and killed on basis of the claims.

Where were the weapons of mass destruction (Not the ingredients or the research)?

Oh as to another country having about 2% of what the US has in nuclear weapons? I say I am a bit more concerned with the 5000 tbh. Do you think I ought to be more afraid of an extra 142 nuclear weapons or 5000 nuclear weapons allready at a country's disposal?

[Natalia Evans]

I say lock him up.

[Callaway]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.

Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it.

How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)

From looking  it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.

Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.

I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.

Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?

Honestly I don't think any country having nuclear weapons is safe. I would not credit America being any more vigilant than Iraq or Russia or North Korea or India or whomever.

Again though I do see you saying about ingredients for nuclear technology but you did kinda say that the Iraq having weapons of mass destruction claim was true. Where were the weapons? Lotta Iraqui citizens died in the liberating invasions and a lot o troops committed and killed on basis of the claims.

Where were the weapons of mass destruction (Not the ingredients or the research)?

Oh as to another country having about 2% of what the US has in nuclear weapons? I say I am a bit more concerned with the 5000 tbh. Do you think I ought to be more afraid of an extra 142 nuclear weapons or 5000 nuclear weapons allready at a country's disposal?

So, you think that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was no more volatile than the US government, for example?

You are only counting intact completed weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction, as opposed to the means to manufacture such Weapons of Mass Destruction if Saddam Hussein had not been stopped, while I was counting holding a stockpile of the uranium necessary to make such weapons along with the gas centrifuge technology to make nuclear weapons of Mass Destruction.

I believe that Saddam Hussein did hold some chemical weapons of Mass Destruction, since he used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.

[Al Swearegen]

One thing I was wondering is at what point is invading another country pre-emptively in respect to what they may or may not do to another country or for different ideals, a good thing.
If for example there is a civil war between two ethnic divisions in a country, ought that be a good enough reason to invade? If there is an uprising against a leader, ought that too be a good enough reason to invade? If there is Weapons of Mass Destruction intel that gets proved incorrect, is that good enough reason to stay once invaded?

I am not trying to be a smart-arse and The Americans, Australians and Brits all have had a hand at such acts. I say at what point is it better simply allowing a country to sort out its own problems as bad as they may be or as different as we may view things from them?

The Weapons of Mass Destruction intel was actually eventually proven correct.

Iraq had 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake uranium, which was discovered, guarded, and quietly shipped to Canada in 2008 in a top secret mission so as not to alert people who might want to steal it.

How many weapons of mass destruction did they have? The quote you referenced IF it can be believed mentions they have uranium. (So does Australia) How many weapons of mass destruction do they have. (How many too does America have? Why are weapons of mass destruction ok with Amercian but not other countries? This one has me beat?)

From looking  it up, apparently 550 metric tonnes of yellowcake would have yielded enough highly enriched uranium for 142 nuclear bombs.

Apparently Saddam Hussein was working very hard to get the gas centrifuge technology to refine yellowcake into highly enriched uranium.

I think that the US has around 5000 nuclear warheads.

Do you think that the world as a whole would have been safer if Iraq under Saddam Hussein had 142 nuclear bombs as well?

Honestly I don't think any country having nuclear weapons is safe. I would not credit America being any more vigilant than Iraq or Russia or North Korea or India or whomever.

Again though I do see you saying about ingredients for nuclear technology but you did kinda say that the Iraq having weapons of mass destruction claim was true. Where were the weapons? Lotta Iraqui citizens died in the liberating invasions and a lot o troops committed and killed on basis of the claims.

Where were the weapons of mass destruction (Not the ingredients or the research)?

Oh as to another country having about 2% of what the US has in nuclear weapons? I say I am a bit more concerned with the 5000 tbh. Do you think I ought to be more afraid of an extra 142 nuclear weapons or 5000 nuclear weapons allready at a country's disposal?

So, you think that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was no more volatile than the US government, for example?

You are only counting intact completed weapons as Weapons of Mass Destruction, as opposed to the means to manufacture such Weapons of Mass Destruction if Saddam Hussein had not been stopped, while I was counting holding a stockpile of the uranium necessary to make such weapons along with the gas centrifuge technology to make nuclear weapons of Mass Destruction.

I believe that Saddam Hussein did hold some chemical weapons of Mass Destruction, since he used them on the Iranians and the Kurds.

Saddam Hussein vs George Bush? Hard choice. What would Saddam Hussein do with advanced weapons of mass destruction? What is Kim Jung Soon (sp?) doing?  Would they have done the same? Was Hussein as bad as Kim or was Bush as bad as either? We won't find out naturally what will happen. I do fear those 5000 nukes more though.

[Adam]

Bus was thick as fuck and a religious conservative nutcase, but not as dangerous as saddam

[Osensitive1]

Saddam Hussein vs George Bush? Hard choice. What would Saddam Hussein do with advanced weapons of mass destruction? What is Kim Jung Soon (sp?) doing?  Would they have done the same? Was Hussein as bad as Kim or was Bush as bad as either? We won't find out naturally what will happen. I do fear those 5000 nukes more though.

The countries of the Security Council have made agreement to refrain from the use of nuclear warfare except in the event of retaliation of nuclear attack. These countries aren't very likely to breach this agreement and lose world trust. Uranium enrichment programs kept secret from the UN break treaty agreements and don't suggest pure intentions.

[Adam]

wow I said Bus

obviously I meant Bush

although a religious bus would be dangerous too

[benjimanbreeg]

Soddom was thick as fuck, and an evil cunt, but his days were over.