Who says who gets WMDs? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

losthellhound · 11-15-2005, 11:36 PM

Im sorry if this has already been discussed.. You try searching for WMD in this forum

brings up every thread..

This has been a question of mine for awhile. Who gets the right to say who has WMDs and who can develop them? I know we don't wand WMDs, and it would be great to not have them anymore.. BUT

First we have to classify what a weapon of mass destruction is..

Everyone has a different opinion on what weapons are.. Mass destructive..
US Civil defence says..

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. (18 U.S.C. Section 2332a)

source - wikipedia (and they got it from an official US website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD

The UN has a different meaning, and so on and so forth.

WMDs are not restricted by ANY treaty, only weapons considered WMDs individually (nuclear disarmmament, use of napalm against civilian targets)..

The US, UK and several other governments (aka the colition in Iraq) say that Iraq was doing the great evil of developing Weapons of Mass destruction.. BUT - The US is constantly developing weapons that are WMDS.

I submit..

The BLU82-B

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

This big baby is 15,000 pound conventional bomb with an effective kill radius of 300-900 feet). This is not a bunker buster. Its an anti personel weapon. Thats a pretty big weapon for killing a soldier..

I mention that because of the US Military's view on WMDs that include "Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people".. I rest my point.

The US government now wants to create Nuclear bunker busters..

http://www.ananuclear.org/rnep.html

So... Who are we to stop Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea from developing WMDs? Seems we are perfectly willing to start up an arms race, go back to MAD (mutually assured destruction). If I was a government that had frosty relations with the US I'd be doing my hardest to develop WMDs.. That way I can point something back at the US as an assurance that I won't get invaded when someone has a bad mood, or needs to get re-elected.

Thoughts?

trickyy · 11-16-2005, 12:04 AM

one thing to mention in this discussion is the nuclear nonproliferation treaty
EDIT: i know this isn't quite what you're talking about, but i included it for reference

basically says that existing nuclear powers scale down their arsenal and non-nuclear states will remain non-nuclear. this has not been completely followed, as india/pakistan/israel got the bomb...and supposedly north korea...and iran seems to want to. alternately, the US probably has not scaled back as much as it could.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

losthellhound · 11-16-2005, 12:36 AM

Not scaled back, and seeking a new weapon in the arsenal...

I do recognize that many, MANY old warheads have been destroyed in accordance with the treaty, BUT, those missiles are outdated. Its easy to destroy them because they are antiquated and there are much better delivery methods. {a Minuteman missile that takes an hour to fuel (and can be seen from orbit that you're fueling it) as apposed to a tomahawk cruise missile that can be rearmed and fired in ten minutes}

Bill O'Rights · 11-16-2005, 05:23 AM

Question: "Who says who gets WMDs?"

Answer: Those who have them.

losthellhound · 11-16-2005, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Question: "Who says who gets WMDs?"

Answer: Those who have them.

Ahh very good..

Ive done a lot of reading about Iran's nuclear program, and the State's persistance that it doesnt go through. People state that Iran will be the next country invaded. n

It will not be because of Oil interests, but because the US's hegemony is threatened more and more as countries aquire the means to produce weapons on thier own.

Rekna · 11-16-2005, 06:01 AM

If we the US decide to invade every country that tries to produce WMDs you can bet that as the years pass by the probability that we will be in at least 1 war and maybe more will be 1!

Bill O'Rights · 11-16-2005, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by losthellhound

Ive done a lot of reading about Iran's nuclear program, and the State's persistance that it doesnt go through. People state that Iran will be the next country invaded. n

It will not be because of Oil interests, but because the US's hegemony is threatened more and more as countries aquire the means to produce weapons on thier own.

Perhaps. But, I really don't think that it's quite as simple as that. There are countries that I do feel are stable, and responsible, enough to possess WMDs. Iran ain't one of 'em.

Charlatan · 11-16-2005, 06:09 AM

Why shouldn't it be about oil? The last time the US toppled the Iranian goverment it was about the oil... have things really changed all that much, besides the Western national having an even greater dependence on oil?

Sure there are a few other reasons to wish to invade Iran but why ignore the obvious?

feelgood · 11-16-2005, 07:07 AM

Nobody should have to say who gets the WMD. Although, those who do have them should collectively decide if the nation in question, is responsible enough to have it.

For example, Iraq supposely have (or had) WMD and based on Saddam's previous history of warfare (Gulf War) the US and other major power (Russia, Canada, GB, France, etc) decided that Iraq/Saddam isn't responsible enough to have it. Especially with all the terrorism running around freely these day in middle east.

losthellhound · 11-16-2005, 07:29 AM

I don't mean to be flippant and please understand I'm not flaming but:

Not one country who has weapons of mass destruction has the moral highground to say, or participate in saying who else should have them. The very nature of those weapons is against the common interest we should have as humans to survive. In an effort to remove Iraq's ability to attain weapons in the future the states USED wmds on them (yay shock and awe)

Even the UN, which is a unified voice, lacks the moral highground because it is controlled by a security council which kowtows to the armed minority.

I know I'm not providing a solution. Perhaps the only solution we have is G-Nut (for those fans of obscure references, prize for you if you recognize this)

nezmot · 11-16-2005, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Not one country who has weapons of mass destruction has the moral highground to say, or participate in saying who else should have them.

Quite right - but who needs the moral high ground? Might is right - especially when you are talking about weapons of mass destruction.

The moral high ground was never there, to try and hang on to it now is just a cursory gesture to placate the few people who care about such things. War is about exerting your power over others, for your own reasons, not for morality or for some greater, higher good. You do it because it helps you. Your country does it because it is in your country's interests.

Whether you look short or long-term as you persue your interests depends on your president at the time.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-16-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

one thing to mention in this discussion is the nuclear nonproliferation treaty
EDIT: i know this isn't quite what you're talking about, but i included it for reference

basically says that existing nuclear powers scale down their arsenal and non-nuclear states will remain non-nuclear. this has not been completely followed, as india/pakistan/israel got the bomb...and supposedly north korea...and iran seems to want to. alternately, the US probably has not scaled back as much as it could.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty

Not to nitpick, but following your link, Israel,India, and Pakistan are not party to the treaty, therefore it has no power over them. Countries like North Korea and Iran are party to it, and that's a problem.

trickyy · 11-16-2005, 12:03 PM

you're right, they never agreed, and i implied they broke the treaty

Willravel · 11-16-2005, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Perhaps. But, I really don't think that it's quite as simple as that. There are countries that I do feel are stable, and responsible, enough to possess WMDs. Iran ain't one of 'em.

What makes a country responsible enough to have these weapons? I mean if we (the US, and the rest of our nuclear family) are going to say yes to some and no to others, I think they have a right to know why we are threatening them and pushing them around. The first obvious answer is independant militant extreemist groups (often incorrectly refered to as terrorists). If a country has links to such groups, we present evidence of said connection, and say no way, Jose (or no way, Osama). The second seemingly obvious answer is a radical theocracy. Of course this is problematic, since India and America are having trouble seperating democracy from loose theocracy right now, and we both have a plethera of nukes. If we were to use that as a basis of rejection from the mile high mushroom cloud club, we risk getting called hypocrits (again) and would simply be ignored or circumvented. I could go on listing atributes and associations, but I know this won't happen.

Charlatan · 11-16-2005, 02:02 PM

the mile high mushroom cloud club -- that's a good one.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-16-2005, 02:50 PM

If that's the way it is Will, then you are pressed with one thing to do, or in this case not do. Don't sign the Proliferation treaty, it's that simple. Sign it and be bound by it, or don't sign and do as you please.

hannukah harry · 11-16-2005, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

If that's the way it is Will, then you are pressed with one thing to do, or in this case not do. Don't sign the Proliferation treaty, it's that simple. Sign it and be bound by it, or don't sign and do as you please.

that's something that i was actually thinking about the other day... lets say president A signs the treaty. 20 years later we've had presidents B, C, D and president E is now in office. there's a different political party in power. do they have to reaffirm all treaties? they didn't agree to it after all, a previous govt. did.

just curious how that works.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-16-2005, 03:10 PM

All treaties signed are ineffect law unless they are later voted down/changed or revolution I would imagine. Also treaties often have time tables on them.

Willravel · 11-16-2005, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei

If that's the way it is Will, then you are pressed with one thing to do, or in this case not do. Don't sign the Proliferation treaty, it's that simple. Sign it and be bound by it, or don't sign and do as you please.

What if a nation signs it and procedes do what it pleases? Are there necessary punishments for breaking the treaty?

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-16-2005, 05:20 PM

Probably not because the UN is a group of pussies first and foremost, and second off World Organizations don't have any real authority, which I think is the way it should be. I mean sanctions don't really mean shit to countires like North Korea were there is no money and the chance of epic famine always looms, what can you do to a country that has nothing and is run by a crazy?

It'd be nice if there was some means of doing something that stuck that didn't involve dropping a boot in someone's ass, but as history as shown international law isn't binding or enforceable, and diplomatic means to solving a problem doesn't work when the stakes are real.

losthellhound · 11-16-2005, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Probably not because the UN is a group of pussies first and foremost

I hate that people think that.. The UN are not pussies. There are forces within the UN that do great work at a horrible cost to themselves (usually just the humanitarian sectors, but also the peace keeping corps) However, because they cannot act without the security council's blessing, and the "super powers" have a veto, thier hands are usually tied. I dont know if YOU'RE calling them pussies, but the impression is out there. They also have to bear the burden of the failure of the Leauge of Nations partially as it was the forerunner to the UN and it failed horribly.

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-16-2005, 10:55 PM

I'm not calling any one country pussies, and as it goes in the context of the thread obviously I'm talking about the SC. The SC is the only part of the UN with clout, and as it goes it is a broke group of self serving regime representing phonies. They are pussies, they are cowards, they don't stand up for half the shit they should, read situations like Sudan. As it goes the US is part of the problem, but since I'm selfish and don't like multinational organizations, I would rather have America look out for it's own selfish interests then be party to a joke like the UN.

11-15-2005, 11:36 PM	#1 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Who says who gets WMDs? Im sorry if this has already been discussed.. You try searching for WMD in this forum brings up every thread.. This has been a question of mine for awhile. Who gets the right to say who has WMDs and who can develop them? I know we don't wand WMDs, and it would be great to not have them anymore.. BUT First we have to classify what a weapon of mass destruction is.. Everyone has a different opinion on what weapons are.. Mass destructive.. US Civil defence says.. (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. (18 U.S.C. Section 2332a) source - wikipedia (and they got it from an official US website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD The UN has a different meaning, and so on and so forth. WMDs are not restricted by ANY treaty, only weapons considered WMDs individually (nuclear disarmmament, use of napalm against civilian targets).. The US, UK and several other governments (aka the colition in Iraq) say that Iraq was doing the great evil of developing Weapons of Mass destruction.. BUT - The US is constantly developing weapons that are WMDS. I submit.. The BLU82-B http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm This big baby is 15,000 pound conventional bomb with an effective kill radius of 300-900 feet). This is not a bunker buster. Its an anti personel weapon. Thats a pretty big weapon for killing a soldier.. I mention that because of the US Military's view on WMDs that include "Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people".. I rest my point. The US government now wants to create Nuclear bunker busters.. http://www.ananuclear.org/rnep.html So... Who are we to stop Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea from developing WMDs? Seems we are perfectly willing to start up an arms race, go back to MAD (mutually assured destruction). If I was a government that had frosty relations with the US I'd be doing my hardest to develop WMDs.. That way I can point something back at the US as an assurance that I won't get invaded when someone has a bad mood, or needs to get re-elected. Thoughts? __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

11-16-2005, 12:04 AM	#2 (permalink)
trickyy ►	one thing to mention in this discussion is the nuclear nonproliferation treaty EDIT: i know this isn't quite what you're talking about, but i included it for reference basically says that existing nuclear powers scale down their arsenal and non-nuclear states will remain non-nuclear. this has not been completely followed, as india/pakistan/israel got the bomb...and supposedly north korea...and iran seems to want to. alternately, the US probably has not scaled back as much as it could. http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear...eration_Treaty Last edited by trickyy; 11-16-2005 at 12:08 AM..

11-16-2005, 12:36 AM	#3 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Not scaled back, and seeking a new weapon in the arsenal... I do recognize that many, MANY old warheads have been destroyed in accordance with the treaty, BUT, those missiles are outdated. Its easy to destroy them because they are antiquated and there are much better delivery methods. {a Minuteman missile that takes an hour to fuel (and can be seen from orbit that you're fueling it) as apposed to a tomahawk cruise missile that can be rearmed and fired in ten minutes} __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

11-16-2005, 05:23 AM	#4 (permalink)
Bill O'Rights will always be an Alyson Hanniganite Location: In the dust of the archives	Question: "Who says who gets WMDs?" Answer: Those who have them. __________________ "I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony "Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

11-16-2005, 06:09 AM	#8 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Why shouldn't it be about oil? The last time the US toppled the Iranian goverment it was about the oil... have things really changed all that much, besides the Western national having an even greater dependence on oil? Sure there are a few other reasons to wish to invade Iran but why ignore the obvious? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-16-2005, 06:01 AM	#6 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	If we the US decide to invade every country that tries to produce WMDs you can bet that as the years pass by the probability that we will be in at least 1 war and maybe more will be 1!

11-16-2005, 07:07 AM	#9 (permalink)
feelgood Free Mars! Location: I dunno, there's white people around me saying "eh" all the time	Nobody should have to say who gets the WMD. Although, those who do have them should collectively decide if the nation in question, is responsible enough to have it. For example, Iraq supposely have (or had) WMD and based on Saddam's previous history of warfare (Gulf War) the US and other major power (Russia, Canada, GB, France, etc) decided that Iraq/Saddam isn't responsible enough to have it. Especially with all the terrorism running around freely these day in middle east. __________________ Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

11-16-2005, 07:29 AM	#10 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	I don't mean to be flippant and please understand I'm not flaming but: Not one country who has weapons of mass destruction has the moral highground to say, or participate in saying who else should have them. The very nature of those weapons is against the common interest we should have as humans to survive. In an effort to remove Iraq's ability to attain weapons in the future the states USED wmds on them (yay shock and awe) Even the UN, which is a unified voice, lacks the moral highground because it is controlled by a security council which kowtows to the armed minority. I know I'm not providing a solution. Perhaps the only solution we have is G-Nut (for those fans of obscure references, prize for you if you recognize this) __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death

11-16-2005, 12:03 PM	#13 (permalink)
trickyy ►	you're right, they never agreed, and i implied they broke the treaty

11-16-2005, 02:02 PM	#15 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	the mile high mushroom cloud club -- that's a good one. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

11-16-2005, 02:50 PM	#16 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	If that's the way it is Will, then you are pressed with one thing to do, or in this case not do. Don't sign the Proliferation treaty, it's that simple. Sign it and be bound by it, or don't sign and do as you please. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-16-2005, 03:10 PM	#18 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	All treaties signed are ineffect law unless they are later voted down/changed or revolution I would imagine. Also treaties often have time tables on them. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-16-2005, 05:20 PM	#20 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Probably not because the UN is a group of pussies first and foremost, and second off World Organizations don't have any real authority, which I think is the way it should be. I mean sanctions don't really mean shit to countires like North Korea were there is no money and the chance of epic famine always looms, what can you do to a country that has nothing and is run by a crazy? It'd be nice if there was some means of doing something that stuck that didn't involve dropping a boot in someone's ass, but as history as shown international law isn't binding or enforceable, and diplomatic means to solving a problem doesn't work when the stakes are real. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-16-2005, 10:55 PM	#22 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	I'm not calling any one country pussies, and as it goes in the context of the thread obviously I'm talking about the SC. The SC is the only part of the UN with clout, and as it goes it is a broke group of self serving regime representing phonies. They are pussies, they are cowards, they don't stand up for half the shit they should, read situations like Sudan. As it goes the US is part of the problem, but since I'm selfish and don't like multinational organizations, I would rather have America look out for it's own selfish interests then be party to a joke like the UN. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.