Total Posts:93|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Iran

Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:04:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Beware of pundits inflating the danger from Tehran. Beware of pundits in general.

Neoconservatives have conjured up fantasies about Iran"s earthbound theocracy to justify an illegal United States war of "anticipatory self-defense."

http://www.forbes.com...
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).
MattDescopa
Posts: 356
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:04:52 PM, Danielle wrote:
Beware of pundits inflating the danger from Tehran. Beware of pundits in general.

Neoconservatives have conjured up fantasies about Iran"s earthbound theocracy to justify an illegal United States war of "anticipatory self-defense."

http://www.forbes.com...

This guy is a strict neo-conservative who completely disagrees with you [http://www.debate.org...]. You should challenge him if you have enough zeal and determination.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip, and/or give it terrorists.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip,
We have done this multiple times.
and/or give it terrorists.
We have worked with terrorists and installed dictators as well.
Hypocrisy at its finest . . . Of course, I'm against both the U.S. and Iran. The terrorist leaders of both nations should just kill each other and leave us be.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:21:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip, and/or give it terrorists.

Really, Iran's best move is to not use the nuke. It'll destroy America's leverage in the middle east, radicalize Saudi Arabia, prompt Israel into a pre-emptive move (which, make no mistake, is to Iran's benefit), and give Khomeimist terrorists free reign to attack any country bordering Iran with zero fear of retribution.

Even better for Iran, it'll set off a local arms race, so the west will be focused on all the other middle-eastern countries trying to get nukes.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:26:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:19:49 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip,
We have done this multiple times.

Point? We're not Iran.

and/or give it terrorists.
We have worked with terrorists and installed dictators as well.

We've done a lot of stuff I disagreed with. So that makes it ok for Iran to give a terrorist group a weapon capable of killing millions, in an instant?

Hypocrisy at its finest . . . Of course, I'm against both the U.S. and Iran. The terrorist leaders of both nations should just kill each other and leave us be.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:29:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:21:39 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip, and/or give it terrorists.

Really, Iran's best move is to not use the nuke. It'll destroy America's leverage in the middle east, radicalize Saudi Arabia, prompt Israel into a pre-emptive move (which, make no mistake, is to Iran's benefit), and give Khomeimist terrorists free reign to attack any country bordering Iran with zero fear of retribution.

Even better for Iran, it'll set off a local arms race, so the west will be focused on all the other middle-eastern countries trying to get nukes.

I feel like Israel will end up sabotaging their nukes before anything really would happen.

Or, I hope I guess.

But, Irans best course of action would be to use it as leverage by far. Using it would've sucide, unless they are suicidal I guess......which, no matter how crazy they are, I doubt they would trade their nation for Israel/US.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:40:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:26:31 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:19:49 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip,
We have done this multiple times.

Point? We're not Iran.

You're right. We're much worse in many respects.
and/or give it terrorists.
We have worked with terrorists and installed dictators as well.

We've done a lot of stuff I disagreed with. So that makes it ok for Iran to give a terrorist group a weapon capable of killing millions, in an instant?

I didn't say it was ok. I said that it was hypocritical to condemn it.
Hypocrisy at its finest . . . Of course, I'm against both the U.S. and Iran. The terrorist leaders of both nations should just kill each other and leave us be.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:42:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:40:44 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:26:31 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:19:49 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:16:41 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:09:08 PM, Wnope wrote:
You'll know someone is full of sh!t if they say anything about "missile defense" or some other anticipatory measure that treats Iran as thought it would attack us conventionally. Iran will use a nuke to
A: create a shield over the middle east so Hez can move around as they like
B: give it to some terrorists to put in a suitcase.

No state is going to directly attack us. That simply is not an option for all but one or two countries. The attacks will be on non-conventional areas of operation (i.e. cyber warfare) or through third parties (i.e. Hezbollah).

The above is the reason I'm against Iran getting a nuke. They wont use it themselves, but they sure as hell will use it as a bargaining chip,
We have done this multiple times.

Point? We're not Iran.

You're right. We're much worse in many respects.

Whatever, cool story bro. Here's an I des for you Royal, try moving there. See if you like it more.

and/or give it terrorists.
We have worked with terrorists and installed dictators as well.

We've done a lot of stuff I disagreed with. So that makes it ok for Iran to give a terrorist group a weapon capable of killing millions, in an instant?

I didn't say it was ok. I said that it was hypocritical to condemn it.

Um, how?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 4:57:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing =/= using them to attack. You are just playing semantics now (and doing a very poor job of it).
And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes?
Hasn't happened yet, and several have had them for years.
Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?
They won't. They need the few nukes they can produce for protection.
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:09:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Used:
Having already been used: "scrawling on the back of a used envelope".
Secondhand: "a used car".
If under used you include testing by definition (as the question does not specify in acts of war) then the following have used nukes:
Soviet Union (700 tests)
UK (45 tests)
China (45 tests)
India (6)
Pakistan (6)
N. Korea (2)
France (210)

Anything else you would like to babble about???
Thank you for voting!
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:12:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:09:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Used:
Having already been used: "scrawling on the back of a used envelope".
Secondhand: "a used car".
If under used you include testing by definition (as the question does not specify in acts of war) then the following have used nukes:
Soviet Union (700 tests)
UK (45 tests)
China (45 tests)
India (6)
Pakistan (6)
N. Korea (2)
France (210)

Anything else you would like to babble about???

Hitch you know damn well she meant use them during a war and not for testing purposes, go troll somewhere else.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:14:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Imabench, what your saying is, imply because a country wants a nuke, they should get one. Why shouldn't that apply to Al-Queada, or the Taliban? If we anyone who wants one can get one, why should we bother stoping anyone?

Wanna know why? Cause third-world counties are easily bought, easy to attack, and easy to steal from. You realize Pakistan and Iran aren't third world as well right?
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:16:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:12:42 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:09:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Used:
Having already been used: "scrawling on the back of a used envelope".
Secondhand: "a used car".
If under used you include testing by definition (as the question does not specify in acts of war) then the following have used nukes:
Soviet Union (700 tests)
UK (45 tests)
China (45 tests)
India (6)
Pakistan (6)
N. Korea (2)
France (210)

Anything else you would like to babble about???

Hitch you know damn well she meant use them during a war and not for testing purposes, go troll somewhere else.

She didn't specify, and that wasn't a troll. That was objective facts. Be more specific.
Thank you for voting!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:18:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me

This assumes rationality and the people in charge care about the lives of their civilians.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:29:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:14:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Imabench, what your saying is, imply because a country wants a nuke, they should get one.

They are sovereign nations who may talk sh8t but keep to themselves, so yes.

Why shouldn't that apply to Al-Queada, or the Taliban? If we anyone who wants one can get one, why should we bother stoping anyone?

Terrorist organizations =/= independent recognized nations. These groups are always at war and exist only to carry out violence, so there is good reason they shouldnt be allowed to have nukes because they are not recognized as the legitimate or righteous rulers of any nation or group of people.

Wanna know why? Cause third-world counties are easily bought, easy to attack, and easy to steal from. You realize Pakistan and Iran aren't third world as well right?

My bad for thinking they were. But since they ARENT third world nations then wouldnt that mean that they arent easily bought, easy to attack, or steal from?
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:29:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:09:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Used:
Having already been used: "scrawling on the back of a used envelope".
Secondhand: "a used car".
If under used you include testing by definition (as the question does not specify in acts of war) then the following have used nukes:
Soviet Union (700 tests)
UK (45 tests)
China (45 tests)
India (6)
Pakistan (6)
N. Korea (2)
France (210)

Anything else you would like to babble about???

This is pretty ironic, considering that you complained that I was arguing semantics previously. It was pretty clear that I meant using them for an attack.

If HitchSlap uses semantics, he's clever. If I do, then I'm being dishonest to beat him in an argument. No wonder your GPA is so poor.
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:30:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:18:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me

This assumes rationality and the people in charge care about the lives of their civilians.

It goes deeper then that though, the people in charge care more about staying in power then caring for their people, and the best way to stay in charge of a nation still includes not launching nukes at anyone, and that is a hell of incentive to not launch them.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:31:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:29:13 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:14:48 PM, OberHerr wrote:
Imabench, what your saying is, imply because a country wants a nuke, they should get one.

They are sovereign nations who may talk sh8t but keep to themselves, so yes.

Yeah, sane first world nations, that aren't known supporters of our enemies.


Why shouldn't that apply to Al-Queada, or the Taliban? If we anyone who wants one can get one, why should we bother stoping anyone?

Terrorist organizations =/= independent recognized nations. These groups are always at war and exist only to carry out violence, so there is good reason they shouldnt be allowed to have nukes because they are not recognized as the legitimate or righteous rulers of any nation or group of people.


So are many third world nations.

Wanna know why? Cause third-world counties are easily bought, easy to attack, and easy to steal from. You realize Pakistan and Iran aren't third world as well right?

My bad for thinking they were. But since they ARENT third world nations then wouldnt that mean that they arent easily bought, easy to attack, or steal from?

Cept, Iran could easily end up giving nukes to the terrorist groups they support.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:29:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:09:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Used:
Having already been used: "scrawling on the back of a used envelope".
Secondhand: "a used car".
If under used you include testing by definition (as the question does not specify in acts of war) then the following have used nukes:
Soviet Union (700 tests)
UK (45 tests)
China (45 tests)
India (6)
Pakistan (6)
N. Korea (2)
France (210)

Anything else you would like to babble about???

This is pretty ironic, considering that you complained that I was arguing semantics previously. It was pretty clear that I meant using them for an attack.

If HitchSlap uses semantics, he's clever. If I do, then I'm being dishonest to beat him in an argument. No wonder your GPA is so poor.

So .. whatever happened to my debate challenge?

Oh yeah. You ran away claiming you were too busy, but engaged in 4 more debates since then ... hmmm .....
Thank you for voting!
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:32:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:30:51 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:18:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me

This assumes rationality and the people in charge care about the lives of their civilians.

It goes deeper then that though, the people in charge care more about staying in power then caring for their people, and the best way to stay in charge of a nation still includes not launching nukes at anyone, and that is a hell of incentive to not launch them.

What if they care more about doing something the world will remember than their own lives? There are of course people that exist in the real world that do that. Why not dictators?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:35:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:32:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:30:51 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:18:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me

This assumes rationality and the people in charge care about the lives of their civilians.

It goes deeper then that though, the people in charge care more about staying in power then caring for their people, and the best way to stay in charge of a nation still includes not launching nukes at anyone, and that is a hell of incentive to not launch them.

What if they care more about doing something the world will remember than their own lives? There are of course people that exist in the real world that do that. Why not dictators?

Dictators remain dictators because they are not willing to sacrifice their own lives for whatever cause they espouse.

It's not like a dictator has a safe life. His subjects are trying to kill him, his advisers want to overthrow him, and anyone who thinks they are powerful enough will try and destroy him.

Anyone who remains a dictator for a long period of time can be assumed to be very interested in self-preservation regardless of their fanaticism.
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:35:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:18:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me

This assumes rationality and the people in charge care about the lives of their civilians.

Didn't you learn in your first class of economics that the way that the majority of the people use the word "rational" is down-right wrong and everybody is rational?
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
imabench
Posts: 21,219
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/14/2012 5:36:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/14/2012 5:32:21 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:30:51 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:18:59 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/14/2012 5:11:50 PM, imabench wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:44:23 PM, OberHerr wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:42:10 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 9/14/2012 4:41:06 PM, imabench wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks that nukes these days are utilized by these unstable 3rd world countries solely as the ultimate deterrent to outside nations invading them, NOT so that they can use it to attack countries they dont like?

This. Name a single nation that has used nuclear weapons besides the United States.

Well, plenty have tested them, so any natio with them I suppose.

Testing doesnt imply they will use them to blow a nation off the Earth.... The US tested dozens of nukes following WWII but we havent used one yet, infact weve disarmed several hundred of them ever since.

And, that whole "it's just for safety" thing is nice and all, Cept what happens when eventually one does use nukes? Or worse, because it a frisking third world country, someone steals them, OR they sell them?

More nukes = More defense for these countries, so why use one nuke and bring about world condemnation and most likely bring about the demise of your own country when that same nuke can prevent an overzealous country like Israel or the US from invading you and all the nuke has to do is sit in a hole and do nothing?

As for stealing them, these third world countries go through great expense to defend their expensive creations and these rouge nations that do have nukes are usually armed to their teeth in guns. Iran? check. North Korea? check. Pakistan? check.

Also I doubt that a country would sell a nuke to any rogue group of individuals because it would be just as bad as them firing it themselves and lead to their demise. If you make a weapon while the world condemns you for making it, then sell it to a group of people you KNOW are going to use it, then you are giving the world a damn good reason to overrun you and wipe you off the map.

But thats just me

This assumes rationality and the people in charge care about the lives of their civilians.

It goes deeper then that though, the people in charge care more about staying in power then caring for their people, and the best way to stay in charge of a nation still includes not launching nukes at anyone, and that is a hell of incentive to not launch them.

What if they care more about doing something the world will remember than their own lives? There are of course people that exist in the real world that do that. Why not dictators?

And THAT, is what people should be asking themselves.

You have completed your training darkkermit, now go out and share this wisdom with the world!

*hug*
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015