General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by joemama View Post
If the U.S./Russia had come to a disarmament agreement 30 years ago, (along with the small handful of other countries with nukes back then) it might have been possible for everyone to dismantle their arsenal and declare that any further weaponization of nukes be illegal from that point on. That didn't happen, so of course nobody can afford to give theirs up completely...just try to limit the number of countries with control of such things.

1. russia =/= ussr, similarly to how texas or DC or new york =/= us, for identical reasons. i know what you meant though.

2. it's still completely possible for anyone or everyone to give up nuclear weapons. but it would come with a certain amount of voluntary military/strategic weakening. so it's not *impossible*, it's just *not beneficial to a fairly limited group of people, even if it's actually beneficial to the nation's citizens*.

it'd also be worth noting that international law, due to no bodies capable of its enforcement (other than the completely impotent UN), is a complete joke. everyone breaks it routinely, and signing onto many of its conventions is optional anyway. so while i would have loved for the USSR and US to fully disarm 30/50/25 year(s) ago, i don't think there is any validity in saying that it'd lead to a weapons-free world.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 10:27 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#76  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by teh_rapist View Post
first, this assumption directly contradicts one of the fundamental goals of the non-proliferation movement - nuclear weapons-free world (i.e., complete nuclear disarmament). furthermore, *disarmament* is one of the three fundamental pillars of just about every non-proliferation treaty, including the 1968 one.
If you reduce the number of weapons you reduce the odds of misplacing one.
This has been a tenet; and we have worked toward that goal.

"nuclear weapons-free world" is a silly concept.

Quote:
second, if this assumption is actually correct, then yes, every nuclear armed power is by definition NOT against proliferation. a very active and well-funded stockpile stewardship and weapons research program just add to the US not being actually against proliferation.
Nonsense.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proliferate
intransitive verb
1
: to grow by rapid production of new parts, cells, buds, or offspring
2
: to increase in number as if by proliferating : multiply

We want to decrease the number and oppose production of new weapons.



Quote:
yes, it does meant exactly that. if you do not fully disarm and terminate your weapons program (not necessarily enrichment facilities though), you are pro-proliferation, even if you are against other countries getting nuclear weapons. (which, of course, US is, noone questioned that).

non-proliferation without disarmament is not non-proliferation, it's just an attempt to use a few pretty words (i.e., "non-proliferation") to denote "attempting to maintain a much stronger weapons program than other currently much militarily weaker nations".
See above. total disarmentment has never been a viable tenet of non-proliferation.

Quote:
P.S. Atom can definitely be unsplit, it's called fusion.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-16-2011, 10:32 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#77  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
It is irrelevant.
If the US were to destroy its entire nuclear stockpile tomorrow we could rebuild a sufficient number of weapons in a short time. A destructive nuclear device is not necessarily a complicated one; which is why the most visible goal of non-proliferation has been to oppose independent enrichment.

Atomic Bombs are a textbook exercise today given the materials.

first, no, there is a hell of a lot more to a weapon than the physics package. sure, the enrichment is the most important part, of course.

second, enrichment is just as much of a textbook exercise, and even breeding's not far from it. so it's not a question of technical knowledge, it's a question of having an enrichment facility.

third, *having the capability to enrich* is a requirement for a weapons program, but it's having, or producing, nuclear weapons, that constitutes proliferation, NOT having capability to enrich. so yes, preventing other nations from obtaining a functional enrichment program (besides placing them in a massive economic disadvantage, particularly if they have limited coal and natural gas resources), is the most visible part of non-proliferation programs, but having them is NOT pro-proliferation, by itself. examples include argentina, brazil, germany, japan and netherlands, all of which have no weapons programs, and yet have enrichment facilities. even canada's strongly considering it, to the best of my knowledge.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 10:42 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#78  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
If you reduce the number of weapons you reduce the odds of misplacing one.
This has been a tenet; and we have worked toward that goal.

"nuclear weapons-free world" is a silly concept.
we have worked toward the goal of having a viable and ready-to-use nuclear arsenal while preventing more nations that from developing theirs, sure. it has nothing to do with loose weapons, otherwise, following your own logic, we'd start by reducing the number of ours to zero, dismantling the weapons program, making fuel pins out of the Pu pits and HEU, and burning them.

and no, weapons-free world is not a silly concept. however, the notion of a nuclear power encouraging others to sanction others' weapons programs while spending about 4 billion dollars a year on stockpile stewardship is a bit silly to call "non-proliferation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Nonsense.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proliferate
intransitive verb
1
: to grow by rapid production of new parts, cells, buds, or offspring
2
: to increase in number as if by proliferating : multiply

We want to decrease the number and oppose production of new weapons.

"non-proliferation" in this context is a proper noun (if not in this industry as a whole), ever since 1968, or maybe before then. and complete disarmament is one of its three pillars.

again, if you we "wanted to decrease the number", we would decrease it. to zero. but we don't want it.

i do agree with this though - if you use the dictionary (as opposed to the proper noun) definition of the term "non-proliferation", then you are correct, disarmament is in no way implied by this usage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
See above. total disarmament has never been a viable tenet of non-proliferation.

"viable" is a fairly undefined term here. has it been an explicitly stated goal of numerous international agreements? absolutely. will it happen during our lifetimes? of course not, so if that's what you are saying, i agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

good one.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-16-2011, 10:52 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#79  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Yet you don't seem to have any issue with Iran's widespread hegemony in the region
It's just a question of lesser evils and understanding the context of Iranian and muslim reactionaries i.e. how they're strengthened by Western interference.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Your point fails considering how abhorrent the conditions of the poor are versus the rich in the middle east, especially compared to the United States
I don't see how that mitigates US imperialism.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
Laugh all you want but you'd be wrong.
For the most part they do not want to live under the governing of the "Palestinian Authority"
Somehow I don't think the Palestinians are pro ethnic cleansing, pro ghettoization, pro Jewish supremacy, pro poverty, or pro imperialism. There's almost no metric by which Palestinians have it better than the neighboring Arabs. Support for a Palestinian state is overwhelming and you shouldn't conflate Palestinian opposition to the conditions of the PA with support for Israel or satisfaction for the status qou.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zangmonkey View Post
For a good counterexample you can see the statistics of increasing military service by muslims living in Israel.
There are almost no muslims in the actual armed forces, they're part of the "national service" volunteer force where they basically get paid to do communal work in Arab communities.
Old 11-17-2011, 12:10 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#80  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
That's quite the non sequitur answer you have there.
Not really, your answer to the "problem" of us imperialism was to say Iran was a bully, which is implicit support of the status quo (where the US does what I described).
Old 11-17-2011, 12:16 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#81  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Not really, your answer to the "problem" of us imperialism was to say Iran was a bully, which is implicit support of the status quo (where the US does what I described).

It's not implicit support for anything. Take your false dichotomy and shove it up your ass.
Old 11-17-2011, 01:45 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#82  

BlisterDick
boobie poo bear luv hugs
 
BlisterDick's Avatar
 
Gentlemen! Gentlemen!
__________________
(╯□)╯︵ ┻━┻
Old 11-17-2011, 04:32 PM BlisterDick is offline  
Reply With Quote
#83  

Phil Taylor
I'll be back
 
Phil Taylor's Avatar
 
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


does israel have a party on independence day?

without the USA they'd have to actually act like the vulnerable little pseudo-state they are.
__________________
~

nigga, you just made me click "go advanced"...
Old 11-17-2011, 05:23 PM Phil Taylor is offline  
Reply With Quote
#84  

teh_rapist
 
teh_rapist's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Taylor View Post
without the USA they'd have to actually act like the vulnerable little pseudo-state they are.

Most of Israel's early history is the tenuous flirting with both USSR and the US. If the US didn't score, there was always the rebound (reserve) beta male in the form of USSR. fortunately for israel, like a good little whore she sold her virginity as well as she could (i'd expect nothing less from a nice jewish girl), and she's been in bed with us since. but again, the first nation to even de jure recognize israel was actually the USSR, so she wouldn't have died an old maid.
__________________
Spare the rape - spoil the child.
Old 11-17-2011, 06:05 PM teh_rapist is offline  
Reply With Quote
#85  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
It's not implicit support for anything. Take your false dichotomy and shove it up your ass.

Sure it is, or else you wouldn't have asked if I preferred Iranian bullying in the first place. The implication is always that Iranian imperialism is worse than US imperialism despite the US having a far worse record than Iran.

Maybe you should look at your own false dichotomy and "shove it up your ass" if you're so sensitive to them, bro.
Old 11-22-2011, 01:06 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#86  

Gibonius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Sure it is, or else you wouldn't have asked if I preferred Iranian bullying in the first place. The implication is always that Iranian imperialism is worse than US imperialism despite the US having a far worse record than Iran.

Maybe you should look at your own false dichotomy and "shove it up your ass" if you're so sensitive to them, bro.

You directly stated that you wanted Iran to have a nuclear weapon to blunt "American imperialism." Iran is rather forward with their regional ambitions, and we have zero control over Iran's actions. We do have the possibility of controlling our own, so hoping that Iran does not develop a nuke while examining our own policies towards the region is a quite feasible alternative to "Business as usual" or "Iran ought to have nukes."
Old 11-22-2011, 01:26 PM Gibonius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#87  

Zangmonkey
3y3 4m t3h Gr4et gr4nD m0th4rfUxing mor4n! W4t<h //\y b33f kur+4nz F|4p!!# 4y4m 1e37!
 
Zangmonkey's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
Sure it is, or else you wouldn't have asked if I preferred Iranian bullying in the first place. The implication is always that Iranian imperialism is worse than US imperialism despite the US having a far worse record than Iran.

Maybe you should look at your own false dichotomy and "shove it up your ass" if you're so sensitive to them, bro.

Perhaps you can point me towards the US openly calling for the obliteration of an entire race or brutally killing their own people en masse in the streets over a political demonstration or supporting maruaders in other nations solely to promote genocide?
__________________
09 F9
Old 11-22-2011, 02:40 PM Zangmonkey is offline  
Reply With Quote
#88  

Redrum
Crate&Barrel Roll
 
Redrum's Avatar
 
^mistranslation

iran called for israel being wiped off the map as it currently exists (zionist apartheid state) not for all jews to die

watch more fox news
__________________
lol
Old 11-22-2011, 02:42 PM Redrum is offline  
Reply With Quote
#89  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post
You directly stated that you wanted Iran to have a nuclear weapon to blunt "American imperialism." Iran is rather forward with their regional ambitions, and we have zero control over Iran's actions. We do have the possibility of controlling our own, so hoping that Iran does not develop a nuke while examining our own policies towards the region is a quite feasible alternative to "Business as usual" or "Iran ought to have nukes."

It might be except "examining our own policies" is meaningless since no one but the elite makes those decisions anyway.
Old 11-28-2011, 07:05 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#90  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:01 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.