A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Check out this canon that fires nuclear shells:
YouTube - Nuclear explosions - Nuclear cannon (15 Kilotons)=
YouTube - Nuclear explosions - Nuclear cannon (15 Kilotons)=
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
doppelgänger;967023 said:I don't disagree with the realpolitik assessment - all anybody wants is their "fair share" of liebensraum. I'm just casting about for something that would fit within the realm of "just war theory" or some other sort of moral justification. I admit it's precious little as an inhibitor of state-sponsored violence anyway, but imagine what the world can be like without any need to at least develop a cogent moral argument for large-scale violence.
And strategic nukes, like fusion warheads, have as their sole purpose the decimation of entire populations of people.
I don't ascribe to the just war theory.
doppelgänger;966908 said:Why does the United States need tactical nuclear weapons?
Why shouldn't the US begin the negotiations for world-wide nuclear disarmament by offering to give up its own in exchange for everyone else doing so?
doppelgänger;967064 said:Should there be a limit upon warfare? Of what sort?
Insisting only upon those that apply to everyone but me isn't likely to inspire very many people.
What do you do when one or more countries want to keep theirs?
Would you use force on a country to take away their nukes?
doppelgänger;967080 said:How could another country do that without incurring a high risk of a nuclear war?
I tend to like the rules of warfare that protect non-combatants and offer conditional surrender of soldiers (room, board, etc).
Take away their food and water.
doppelgänger;967091 said:Why bother? Maybe because your own non-combatants and surrendered soldiers might be mistreated? If you have the biggest weapons on the block and think you run little risk, then that's not much of a check.
So what are the checks on warfare? Public perception of "justice"? If so, among whom? The warring nation invariably thinks its leaders are justified.
doppelgänger;967092 said:Does that work? Examples?
doppelgänger;967080 said:Then everyone keeps them. That's the status quo.
How could another country do that without incurring a high risk of a nuclear war?
Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) will meet
in May 2005 in New York to review implementation. Since the last review conference
in 2000, the biggest issue to emerge is treaty compliance, particularly Irans compliance.
President Bush has remarked that NPT Parties must take strong action to confront the
threat of noncompliance with the NPT...We cannot allow rogue states that violate their
commitments...to undermine the NPTs fundamental role in strengthening international
security. However, some NPT parties are adamant that the United States and other
nuclear weapon states are not complying with their own obligations, namely, to pursue
nuclear disarmament. This report, which will be updated as needed, discusses different
views and issues related to NPT compliance.
doppelgänger;966908 said:Why does the United States need tactical nuclear weapons?
Why shouldn't the US begin the negotiations for world-wide nuclear disarmament by offering to give up its own in exchange for everyone else doing so?
Take away their food and water.
This was tried in Iraq to no avail. Only the powerless masses were affected. The Baathists never missed a meal.
When it was pointed out to Madeleine Albright, the US Secretary of State, that the policy had resulted in the deaths of 500,000 children for want of food and clean water she replied: "I think this is a very bad choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."
They didn't have nuclear weapons, and that's why I didn't list Iraq as an example.
Take a look at North Korea. The entire nation was starved, and the government was forced to abandon its nuclear plans.
True enough -- though the Bush administration did its best to make everyone think they were weeks away from rolling one out onto the launchpad...They were treated as a serious military threat for at least a decade prior to the invasion, though.
I was not aware that the N. Korean government made any policy changes in response to its starving masses. It maintained its million-man army and its Potemkin capital. I am not aware that they've abandoned their nuclear arsenal.