Nuclear Disarmament Agreement Allows Russian Inspectors on US Soil

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

I'm sure Hillary Clinton is on it

LOL.

Originally Posted by zcwilly

I don't trust them, period. Let's look at a few things they are doing currently:

[1]Selling missiles and warplanes to Venezuela.
[2]Creating a monopoly on European oil and natural gas supplies.
[3]Journalists and dissidents who oppose the government come up missing all the time. One was poisoned with Russian plutonium on European soil.
[4]Hell, they had nukes pointed at us 50 some-odd years ago with some of the same people still in office.

1. Iran/Contra says what about America?
2. Kuwait/Iraq (minus the custom Alvin tinfoil hat here, ) says what about trying to get a glut on oil?
3. Haven't heard about anyone getting visited by black helicopters personally, so I can't naysay that point, LOL
4. We still have them on lock along with China as a JIC (just in case). You know better.

Other than that, nice rundown, Mr. Happiness Consultant. Your pimp has learned you well. Pfffffft.

[BradH]

I see nothing wrong with this.

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

1. Iran/Contra says what about America?
2. Kuwait/Iraq (minus the custom Alvin tinfoil hat here, ) says what about trying to get a glut on oil?
3. Haven't heard about anyone getting visited by black helicopters personally, so I can't naysay that point, LOL
4. We still have them on lock along with China as a JIC (just in case). You know better.

Did they invite us over to count their nukes?

Originally Posted by funkenstein

Other than that, nice rundown, mr. Happiness consultant. Your pimp has learned you well. Pfffffft.

lol

[PETA]

Originally Posted by johnny861

Well, we are the only nation to actually use nuclear weapons on another nation.

And haven't since... even when noe one else had them. So, what is your point?

Originally Posted by johnny861

That's the world's perspective of us. And we've had numerous proposals in the past in terms of using Nuclear Weapons, such as using a nuke against North Korea during the Korean war, or using small tactical nukes to destroy underground bunkers.

which again, we declined to do... which still begs the question.. what is your point?

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

It all leads back to the same old thing, though.

Who watches the watchmen? Y'know?

See that point about ideals.

We used two bombs... 64 years ago. We've a long track record of not using them. Longer than anyone else. The fact is that MAD works... or at least worked.

Originally Posted by johnny861

"Let them hate us so long as they fear us."
-- Caligula

"it is better to be feared than loved" -- N. Machiavelli

Perhaps better transliterated as "It is more effective to be feared than loved." And it is. The role of the sovereign is to protect the citizen... not to be loved by those who seek to harm those he protects.

Originally Posted by Deff Gordon

i dunno... there are some alvanians out there that believe the Germans used an atomic bomb on St Petersburg and that the destruction there was not from conventional warfare... also, after the fall of Germany, we took the plutonium (because we didn't have enough for our bombs and were only using uranium) and used their plutonium in the bombs on Japan. they say we were only working on enriching uranium and not plutonium...

enough of the tinfoil...

there was however a show this past week on the History Channel on Japan and the bomb they created and tested in N Korea before surrendering. Russia apparently moved in and confiscated all their knowledge.

1) The conventional bombing of Tokyo and Dresden accomplished as much damage as Nagasaki and Hiroshima

2) The Nazi's were sending fissle material to Japan late in the war... don't recall what happened to it. I think we intercepted the boat and used it in one of our bombs but not certain.

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by PETA

And haven't since... even when noe one else had them. So, what is your point?

which again, we declined to do... which still begs the question.. what is your point?

If I were inclined to guess, I'd say his reasoning is based off of the thought that no one else (thank God) has decided to press the shiny, red button since we have. Not that people haven't wanted to follow our precedent, but they just haven't.

"We've seen you. We know you. We've been you. We'll show you." - Phenomenal Handclap Band

Fitting words considering us being the forerunners on that bomb dropping business.

All this action is a way to HOPEFULLY lead to a bigger/better stand down in the future.

It's not like their giving away the Nobel for this.



QUICK EDIT to your quick edit: MAD is great and fine, but placing my "perfect world" ideals to the side for a second, is that a forced reality we have to live with FOREVER? Do we really need a Superman to come collect all the world's nukes together and throw them into the sun in order to make standing down plausible?

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

If I were inclined to guess, I'd say his reasoning is based off of the thought that no one else (thank God) has decided to press the shiny, red button since we have. Not that people haven't wanted to follow our precedent, but they just haven't.

And maybe they haven't because they know if they push that shiny red button they go bye bye too

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

If I were inclined to guess, I'd say his reasoning is based off of the thought that no one else (thank God) has decided to press the shiny, red button since we have. Not that people haven't wanted to follow our precedent, but they just haven't.

They didn't push it because they knew we'd retaliate and ours is shinier and bigger.

We didn't push it because we chose not to do so... even when no one could retaliate.

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

is that a forced reality we have to live with FOREVER?

You can't unfuck a pregnant chick.

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

I also think a nuclear deterrent has kept our country intact for a long time and Russia is the only country that could rival us with nukes. It seems to me an obvious strategic blunder to let a country who has been our enemy in the past and has recently invaded other democratically elected countries (among a list of other recent questionable events) come over and count our bullets. What are we getting in return? A facade of "better relations".

We've had US inspectors visit a number russian sites already. With this new agreemnt, I hope that this continues. The only difference is that now they are allowed to visiit our facilities.

It would be foolish to think we are giving them anymore insight into our nuclear arsenenal than they already know, or are aware of.

I understand the idea of mutual assured destruction, but then, how close have we come to this before. I can cite the cuban missle crisis as one of those times.

[zcwilly]

Originally Posted by johnny861

We've had US inspectors visit a number russian sites already. With this new agreemnt, I hope that this continues. The only difference is that now they are allowed to visiit our facilities.

It would be foolish to think we are giving them anymore insight into our nuclear arsenenal than they already know, or are aware of.

Was it US inspectors or international inspectors? Because I thought we already let international inspectors check our shit. But you're right, I hope with audacity they wouldn't be that stupid...

I understand the idea of mutual assured destruction, but then, how close have we come to this before. I can cite the cuban missle crisis as one of those times.

How many times do you need? One time is enough for me when it comes to nuclear annihilation!

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by Funkenstein

LOL.



1. Iran/Contra says what about America?
2. Kuwait/Iraq (minus the custom Alvin tinfoil hat here, ) says what about trying to get a glut on oil?
3. Haven't heard about anyone getting visited by black helicopters personally, so I can't naysay that point, LOL
4. We still have them on lock along with China as a JIC (just in case). You know better.

Other than that, nice rundown, Mr. Happiness Consultant. Your pimp has learned you well. Pfffffft.

Don't forget Grenada.
or the bay of pigs in Cuba for that matter...

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by zcwilly

How many times do you need? One time is enough for me when it comes to nuclear annihilation!

That's my whole point... We've got two nations with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet several times over still pointed at eachother.

You'd think the logical step to avoid another nuclear confrontation would be to work with one another to reduce the stockpiles and maybe start to pull back from certain strategic locations, not the other way around.

And then maybe in a century's time, we virtually rid ourselves of all nuclear weapons... (probably in favor of something just as destructive, but a little more "green" lol )

[zcwilly]

I wholeheartedly agree with you... as long as we are the last ones to disarm!