Nuclear weapons

[Patchy]

So, taking out a stable government, and replacing it with chaos and terrorists is "Mission Accomplished? Iraq+ Other small countries shouldnt have nukes because they arent always stable countries, and terrorists could easily get the nukes, and kill millions, etc.

Well usa hasnt always been the supremacy country in the world, its unfair though, countries have the right to have nukes if they want em to protect them selfs,

heres a list of country's that have nuke weapons :
US : 12,000 warheads
UK : 380 warheads
France: 450 warheads
Pakistan : 12-18 Warheads
India :15 warheads
China: 400 warheads
Russia : 22,500 warheads

Now why do usa and russia have a substantial amount more than anyone else, its pointless, any country could have them, why go for iraq, why not russia, russia is unstable atm with communism and a corrupt government, why not them, because russia has no oil, neither do france, india, china, and pakistan has a limited amount, iraq is full of it and as i said,

theres more oil going back to uk and usa than troops and oil barrels have more priority over dead soldiers being sent home.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Now why do usa and russia have a substantial amount more than anyone else, its pointless, any country could have them, why go for iraq, why not russia, russia is unstable atm with communism and a corrupt government, why not them, because russia has no oil, neither do france, india, china, and pakistan has a limited amount, iraq is full of it and as i said,

theres more oil going back to uk and usa than troops and oil barrels have more priority over dead soldiers being sent home.


I just wanted to quickly reply. 1) Russia isnt Communist anymore, The government isnt that corrupt, and they are generally stable. You must be thinking 1990's.
2) Russia is full of oil. The Energy Information Agency's website has this to say about Russia: "Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer. " So therefore, please do some research before displaying such a high level of ignorance.
3) Why Would small countries need nukes to defend themselves? They have the entire world to defend them If they need It. EU, NAU, UAU, etc. Putting weapons that have the capability to kill millions of people in the hands of small countries that are more subject to biases, invasion, etc. , Is just setting us up for an apocalypse. Imagine If Afghanistan, or Venezuala got nuclear weapons? They could use these as tools to threaten all freedom and democracy, or to kill millions! It is absolutely a terrible idea to give weapons with such destructive capabilities to small, unstable countries!

[Maverick]

I split this to a new thread so you guys can keep the discussion going.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Thanks Anthony:) (Im waiting for Patchy's response... I can link to the EIA website if Its needed:D)

[Archduke Robert of France]

I don't consider France and the UK "small countries" when they have some of the largest economies in the world. At any rate, I think you need to research your topic more in addition to writing in such a way as I can understand what point you're trying to make.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Still waiting for a response...:D Nice points Robert:)

[Archduke Robert of France]

So, taking out a stable government, and replacing it with chaos and terrorists is "Mission Accomplished? Iraq+ Other small countries shouldnt have nukes bcause they arent always stable countries, and terrorists could easily get the nukes, and kill millions, etc.

Since I'm bored...

I wouldn't exactly call the dictatorship of Hussein "stable". I think it was inevitable that a country would take military actions against him. Also, a country being small is not an accurate guage for stability. The USSR was huge, but it eventually collapsed. Conversely, Belgium is tiny but fairly stable. I also think you are underestimating the difficulty of producing a nuclear weapon.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I never said Iraq was stable, and I was generalising, not making a sweeping assumption. And where did I mention the difficulty of getting nuclear weapons?

[Archduke Robert of France]

So, taking out a stable government, and replacing it with chaos and terrorists is "Mission Accomplished? Iraq+ Other small countries shouldnt have nukes bcause they arent always stable countries, and terrorists could easily get the nukes, and kill millions, etc.

I never said Iraq was stable, and I was generalising, not making a sweeping assumption. And where did I mention the difficulty of getting nuclear weapons?

Ok, here we go.

"I never said Iraq was stable..."
"So by taking out a stable government [Iraq]..."

"...I was generalising, not making a sweeping assumption."
"Iraq+ other small countries shouldn't have nukes necause they aren't always stable..."
Tell me that by labeling small countries unstable is not a sweeping assumption.

"...where did I mention the difficulty of getting nuclear weapons?"
"... and terrorists could easily get the nukes..."

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Ok, here we go.

"I never said Iraq was stable..."
"So by taking out a stable government [Iraq]..."

"...I was generalising, not making a sweeping assumption."
"Iraq+ other small countries shouldn't have nukes necause they aren't always stable..."
Tell me that by labeling small countries unstable is not a sweeping assumption.

"...where did I mention the difficulty of getting nuclear weapons?"
"... and terrorists could easily get the nukes..."

I didnt explicitly say iraq was stable, that is open to interpretation...

All I said was that they arent always stable. Let me clarify here. Many small countries shouldnt have nuclear weapons because they arent stable. Some are mor stable than others.

[Archduke Robert of France]

I didnt explicitly say iraq was stable, that is open to interpretation...

All I said was that they arent always stable. Let me clarify here. Many small countries shouldnt have nuclear weapons because they arent stable. Some are mor stable than others.

I'll concede to your first point, however since Iraq was mentioned in the next sentence, it gives the impression that you were referring to Iraq [which I think you were].

Many small countries can't afford nuclear weapons. Of those countries listed, they either have huge economies or less-than-noble ways of obtaining nuclear secrets. I would be more concerned about larger countries posessing nuclear weapons than, say, some tiny country that you need a magnifiying glass to see on the map.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Why would you be more worried about larger countries? Like I said earlier, they tend to be more "bound" by the rest of the world, they have wider relations, etc. A smaller nation would go almost unnoticed, and could do terrible things with nukes...

[Archduke Robert of France]

Why would you be more worried about larger countries? Like I said earlier, they tend to be more "bound" by the rest of the world, they have wider relations, etc. A smaller nation would go almost unnoticed, and could do terrible things with nukes...

Well smaller countries are less likely to feel a need to have nuclear weapons. Since they are, as you said, less likely to be on the world stage, they are less likely to be involved with major conflicts. Moreover, I still think that my point about them not being able to afford a nuclear program is valid.

A larger country would be more likely to develop nuclear weapons. Under increased world pressures, I would be surprised if they didn't, at one time or another, consider having a nuclear program. Although they are in the spotlight more, that doesn't mean they wouldn't have the resoruces to do a good job of hiding it. When countries like Pakistan and India got nuclear weapons, it stunned the world.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

I agree:D

[Archduke Robert of France]

I agree:D

Woo! A splendid debate.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

Indubitably my good chum:D

[Sapphire]

Smaller countries, like Iran, may have plans to exceed the limits put in place and in doing so they would pose a much greater risk than a larger country would by having a nuclear arsenal within the limitations. Also a desire for increased political power on a global level could spur a smaller country on to accumulate nukes which is in itself a dangerous thing.

Larger countries are regulated more regularly and are more inclined to abide by the rules set in place.

[Archduke Robert of France]

Smaller countries, like Iran, may have plans to exceed the limits put in place and in doing so they would pose a much greater risk than a larger country would by having a nuclear arsenal within the limitations. Also a desire for increased political power on a global level could spur a smaller country on to accumulate nukes which is in itself a dangerous thing.

Larger countries are regulated more regularly and are more inclined to abide by the rules set in place.

I wouldn't consider Iran a small country. Geographically, its borders haven't changed in centuries. Militarily, they were able to repel an invasion by Iraq. Economically, they're one of the top producers of oil, which generates more than enough money for a small nuclear program.

[Sapphire]

Politically they are and I was referring to them in more relative terms (i.e. when compared to USA etc)

But thats beside the point. My point still stands even though that example may not

[Archduke Robert of France]

Politically they are.

But thats beside the point. My point still stands even though that example may not

So the contentious point that they are "politically small" negates all the other ways that they are "big"?

[Sapphire]

Fine. My use of Iran was incorrect.

The point that smaller countries who crave to increase their global political power are more likely to be a risk once in possession of nukes stands though. They would be more volatile/unpredictable than a larger country in possession of a large arsenal.

[Archduke Robert of France]

So if SMOM suddenly decided that it needed to wield regional influence and some how obtained a nuclear weapon, they would be more likely to use it than a large country?

[Sapphire]

I believe so.

Why do you disagree? What would a larger country already in a good position of power aim to get out of using nukes? Do you not think that the democratic structure of these countries and the regulations placed upon them would inhibit the use of such destructive, unstable weapons?

[Archduke Robert of France]

So if Brazil obtained a nuclear weapon, they would be mroe likely to use it than Edcuador? Frankly, I disagree. Not only would a small country probably be more prone to an invasion, but large countries also tend to be more stable, in my opinion.

[Sapphire]

Is it not logical to assume more stable countries are at a more reduced risk of using these dangerous weapons not only because they are stable (and therefore got a better grip of the situation than a less stable country) but also that they wouldn't have anything to gain from it?

[Hyper]

To bump in I find it funny how you talk about Russia, since you don't know **** about it

I also find it funny how Americans talk about Iraq and Saddams time while they don't know **** about it..

I don't know anything about Iraq but I do know about Russia..

Russia is corrupt, Russia is not communist.

And from what I've heard from Americans... The US is corrupt just like Russia..

And the only reason big countries don't want more countries to get nukes is because they wouldn't be able to pressure them so easily anymore

[Patchy]

I just wanted to quickly reply. 1) Russia isnt Communist anymore, The government isnt that corrupt, and they are generally stable. You must be thinking 1990's.
2) Russia is full of oil. The Energy Information Agency's website has this to say about Russia: "Russia holds the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and the eighth largest oil reserves. Russia is also the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer. " So therefore, please do some research before displaying such a high level of ignorance.
3) Why Would small countries need nukes to defend themselves? They have the entire world to defend them If they need It. EU, NAU, UAU, etc. Putting weapons that have the capability to kill millions of people in the hands of small countries that are more subject to biases, invasion, etc. , Is just setting us up for an apocalypse. Imagine If Afghanistan, or Venezuala got nuclear weapons? They could use these as tools to threaten all freedom and democracy, or to kill millions! It is absolutely a terrible idea to give weapons with such destructive capabilities to small, unstable countries!

In some ways your right, but why do usa and Russia need so many? it only takes about one or two to destroy a city, I just find the un should put a limit on the amount of bombs countries are allowed to have, e.g. 5000, and anymore than that have to be disarmed.

Also small countries cant really threaten usa and russia because of the amount they have, 12 000 could probably take out most gulf countries.

Also who decides which countries are allowed nukes or not, America or uk? it should be UN.

Sorry took so long to reply but I was sleeping :P

but yeah thanks Anthony for making my post into a thread.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

In some ways your right, but why do usa and Russia need so many? it only takes about one or two to destroy a city, I just find the un should put a limit on the amount of bombs countries are allowed to have, e.g. 5000, and anymore than that have to be disarmed.

Also small countries cant really threaten usa and russia because of the amount they have, 12 000 could probably take out most gulf countries.

Also who decides which countries are allowed nukes or not, America or uk? it should be UN.

Sorry took so long to reply but I was sleeping :P

but yeah thanks Anthony for making my post into a thread.


US and Russia have so many weapons because of the cold war arms race. After that war, everyone disposed of some of their nuclear weapons. What do you mean by 12,000? And the UN already decides who gets nukes..

[0=]

That explains their origin, but we maintain them to have power over non-nuclear nations instead of converting them to reactors for civilian use.

[Hauptmann Kauffman]

ok...

[Hyper]

That explains their origin, but we maintain them to have power over non-nuclear nations instead of converting them to reactors for civilian use.

See someone agrees with me lol :P

[Patchy]

US and Russia have so many weapons because of the cold war arms race. After that war, everyone disposed of some of their nuclear weapons. What do you mean by 12,000? And the UN already decides who gets nukes..

The un doesnt really decide on who gets them, if they did how come north Korea have/had them.

also after the cold war usa and russia should of disarmed alot of there nukes since no country needs over 10 000 nukes.

[Whisper]

he means the 5 permenant member nations of the security council the most powerful section of the united nations
well them along with the 10 temp nations

Thats the branch of the UN that controls peace keeping operations, sanctions, millitary action, etc...

it dosent mean they flat out control who gets and who dosent get nukes I mean first of all they usually don't agree or atleast it takes them awhile and allot of revision before they do to the point where its dam near useless
second of all theres nuclear powers that arent on it like India

but if they want to
they can make any country on the planet have a very hard time getting or doing anything
including develop nukes

I'm glad Canada got rid of ours
But i think it would be unwise for the states to get rid of all of theirs
not yet anyway