Before I start I am with eliminating nuclear weapons from all.

Why the nuclear Countries oppose others to get the same. It was bitter to eliminate their threat before prohibiting other?

Why they make noise about Iran and North Korea?

Why they don't mention anything about themselves or Israel?

They think that they are responsible and others are not. In fact who used the atomic bomb to kill hundred of thousands of innocent civilian 60 years ag?

If they say that Israel under threat, I answer that Iran and North Korea under threat the strongest power of the worl that is US.

What is called that who criticie others for thing he has and want be the unique to posses?

 

 

 

Reply

The theory of the US and UK, Russia etc. is that they've already caused enough damage on other countries and that if more countries have nuclear bombs etc. then Iran, Korea and other countries would respond and we would all end up blowing each other into ablivion.

I will admit that bombs were used against Iraq and other countries without any kind of real UN agreement or consultation with the country itself. That was why I was against the war myself. You're probably right to call them hypocrites.

But surely we need less weapons in this world, not more. If everybody, including evreybody from USA to Iran, gave up all nuclear, atomic weapons etc. and destroyed them completely then would the world be more dangerous. You could argue that you would be under more threats from terrorists and selfish leaders who hide their weapons, but it would result in less deaths.

Reply

Of course we need less weapons around the world but nuclear power has two sides. It is one of the cheapest sources of energy, therefore being popular amongst developed countries for producing electricity and I think it should be continued to be used till an even cleaner source of power is found.

However you can never trust a country to just use it for power, developed or not, they will in most cases begin weapons projects. Once the infrastructure is in place to produce enriched uranium then it is fairly simple to make it into a weapon.

Reply

my god all this crazy talk in the forms lately! i would rather no one had these damn things. they're not a good thing, and they've proved themselves to be very very unstable for like ever now. I would ask why would anyone want to waste that kind of money on such programs. They could move ahead and spend much more money one even more dangerous weapons.
http://www.round.trap17.com

Reply

Well I am with you Kasm, on the eliminating nuclear weapons from all, and I think you have a very valid point that certain countries, oppose other 'less developed' countries manufacturing nuclear weapons because they think they are more responsible, when in fact said supposedly responsible country is the only one to have ever used nuclear weapons in combat, I mean thats just rediculous. (I know that paragraph probably makes little sense).

Anyway, if all nuclear weapons cannot be banned, although there is no real reason for this, I think the next best way to avoid a nuclear conflict is to give everyone nuclear weapons, that may sound crazy, but would you seriously launch a nuclear attack on another county knowing that they could launch a counter attack on you before your nuclear strike even got close, it worked during the cold war anyway.

I am all in favour of nuclear power, as previously stated it is clean, affordable and capable of creating massive quantities of energy. however for it to be truely safe you have to ensure that the nuclear waste is disposed of in a safe manner, I mean you cant just chuck it in big hole and forget about it. that is not to say that the countries begining ann nuclear power programme are going to dispose of the waste in an unsafe fashion, in fact it is equally possible for this to happen in so called responsible countries.

Any way a quick summary:

Nuclear weapons - Bad
Nuclear power - Good

 

 

 

Reply

Everyone knows the US will not launch a nuclear strike without being fired upon first, and this is the case with almost every current nuclear power. The theory is though, that N. Korea and Iran may not have such restraint, N. Korea may just launch a nuke at the US without warning or provocation, same with Iran. It's not quite hypocracy, but it is close. No one should ever use a nuke, and the fact is no country wants to, but then again alot of countries have nukes and some are just crazy enough to try to use them... I can understand countries wanting to defend themselves.

The ONLY way to stop further production of nukes is to get rid of all nukes at once, or develop a 100% effective defence against nukes. Since niether are likely to happen, we have to live with the fact that there are nukes in the world, and if some nut launches just one, it could mean an all out nuclear war.

As for nuclear power production plants, well they are just about the cleanest sort of power production available, and the technology has the potential to do better than it currently does. If they are built right there is zero chance of melt down (a la Chernobyl (sp?), the US style nuclear plants however were not designed that way, if there was ever a problem and the cooling tanks were drained there would be a nuclear melt down, the Canadian plants were designed so the cooling tanks speed up the process not slow it down, so that if the tanks drained the nuclear reaction stops entirely. Of course the problem with the Canadian designed plants is that the left over materials are near perfect weapons grade plutonium, so it is easy to start up a weapons program with the Canadian style nuclear power plant, since the byproduct is one of the necessary ingreadients to making a bomb. Nuclear power plants should be researched intensly, after all it is a relatively new method of generating electricity (compared to hydro, and coal burning), and as the technology develops we could get even better at producing electricity, with even less radioctive waste.

Reply

It's a bit of a neverending loop. It's like watching little kids fight over toys. The US has to keep their weapons to try and bully (maybe not the right word) the other countries into not having them. Then those countries say, "well, you have them. Why can't we?" "Well, we have to keep ours in case someone else has them too"

Reply

i just think it's because they don't want other people to be threatening ..

Reply

I think the only answer to this question is that the nuclear powers don’t want others to threaten them. Their mission to stop the so-called nuclear proliferation is carried out in the name of peace, but I think this is simply hypocritical to stop others from testing it while running supercomputer simulated nuclear tests secretly. Also, many of the nuclear powers are not so-called democratic countries. Russia, China and Pakistan own their nuclear arsenals and the nukes at their hands are actually as dangerous as in Iran and N. Korea. Another thing is that nuclear fission technology is something developed 50 years ago and when developing countries like Pakistan can have their own A bombs, there is no reason why others countries who are already researching nuclear fusion technology for so long cannot build a nuclear bomb easily. So it is just a hypocritical game trying make other countries give up their nuclear plan. It is also stupid to do so.

Reply

Because they are afraid of other countries using against them.....fear. But then they dont want to get rid of it !!!!!

I guess they should worry only if it goes in to bad hands.. they are also worried about that..

But who knows, which are bad hands because they have already used it...against other country..

Reply