|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
http://home.peoplepc.com/psp/newsstory.a...50330-470406243Quote:
Poll: No Nation Should Have Nuke Weapons
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
WASHINGTON - Though the Soviet Union is gone, the nuclear fears that fueled the Cold War haven't disappeared. Most Americans think nuclear weapons are so dangerous that no country should have them, and a majority believe it's likely that terrorists or a nation will use them within five years.
The Bush administration repeatedly warns about nuclear weapons and is using diplomacy - and force - to try to limit the threat.
Still, North Korea claims it has nuclear weapons now and is making more. Iran is widely believed to be within five years of developing such weapons. And security for the nuclear material scattered across the countries of the old Soviet Union remains a major concern.
Lurking in the background is the threat that worries U.S. officials the most - terrorists' desire to acquire nuclear weapons.
All that helps explain why 52 percent of Americans think a nuclear attack by one country against another is somewhat or very likely by 2010, according to an AP-Ipsos poll. Fifty-three percent think a nuclear attack by terrorists is at least somewhat likely.
Two-thirds of Americans say no nation should have nuclear weapons, including the U.S., and most of the others say no more countries should get them.
"I worry about Pakistan and India," said Barbara Smith, who lives in a Philadelphia suburb. "I don't know what's going to happen with Iran, don't know what's going to happen with North Korea."
Smith said she wants to see the spread of nuclear weapons stopped. "It's too dangerous, too many things can go wrong," she said.
About one-third of those in an ABC News-Washington Post poll in the mid-1980s - when the Cold War was hot - thought there would be a nuclear war in the next few years between the two superpowers.
The AP-Ipsos poll found 44 percent of those surveyed said they frequently or occasionally worry about a terrorist attack using nuclear weapons, while 55 percent said they rarely or never do.
"Terrorists are more likely to use a nuclear weapon because they are unpredictable," said John Saint of Syracuse, N.Y., who works for a trucking company.
Susan Winter of McLean, Va., says her awareness of the nuclear threat doesn't cause her to fret constantly.
"I'm concerned, but I don't worry about it," Winter said. "I'm not a nail biter. I don't lose sleep over it."
Fears about the use of a nuclear weapon are pretty evenly spread across all age groups. But a generational divide emerges when Americans are asked whether they approve of the United States' decision to drop atomic bombs on Japan in 1945.
Six in 10 Americans 65 and older approve of the use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, while six in 10 from 18 to 29 disapprove.
Albert Kauzmann, a 57-year-old resident of Norcross, Ga., said using the bomb in 1945 "was the best way they had of ending" World War II.
Overall, 47 percent of those surveyed approved of dropping the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki while 46 percent disapproved, according to the poll of 1,000 conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs from March 21-23 with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
The United States, Britain, Russia, France and China have nuclear weapons, and Pakistan and India have also conducted nuclear tests. Many believe Israel has nuclear weapons, but that country has never acknowledged it. North Korea claimed in February that it had nuclear weapons.
The threat from nuclear terrorism is greatest, analysts say, because terrorists with nuclear weapons would feel little or no hesitance about using them. That's why those who monitor nuclear proliferation are so concerned about securing weapons stockpiles and dismantling weapons as quickly as possible.
"We're in the race of our lives," said Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "and we're not running fast enough."
Thoughts? Preferably disregarding Hiroshima and Nagasaki, merely because it's a debate we've had before.
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,951 Likes: 6 |
In a perfect world, no nation would have nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately it isn't, and can never be, a perfect world.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106
faggot 15000+ posts
|
|
faggot 15000+ posts
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 24,106 |
but at least we have radio communications!
Old men, fear me! You will shatter under my ruthless apathetic assault!
Uschi - 2
Old Men - 0
"I am convinced that this world is of no importance, and that the only people who care about dates are imbeciles and Spanish teachers." -- Jean Arp, 1921
"If Jesus came back and saw what people are doing in his name, he would never never stop throwing up." - Max von Sydow, "Hannah and Her Sisters"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
 Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I don't think we'd need to be perfect to rid ourselves of all nuclear weapons, just better.
That said, it ain't happenin' any time soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 140
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 140 |
And in a world where the U.S. invades nations WITHOUT nukes but uses diplomacy for those with them, I don't forsee ridding the world of them anytime soon.
If anything, they're a guarantee that you won't be "liberated".
From Washington Times interview with DeLay:
Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?
Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
yeah, I'm sorry to say, that does hold to how the world looks today. I'm pretty sure that the US. would have or is seriously considering invading North Korea if it wasn't for NK's Nuclear capability
That said, I still don't think any nation should have nuclear weapons. But I'd rather see them in the hands of nations who would know when NOT to use them rather than nations who'd only use them as a last resort
Last edited by Chant; 2005-03-31 10:56 AM.
Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Don't respond to the troll! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
OP
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Don't respond to the troll!
What troll? Mandral actually made a good point. How's that trolling?
"Well when I talk to people I don't have to worry about spelling." - wannabuyamonkey
"If Schumacher’s last effort was the final nail in the coffin then Year One would’ve been the crazy guy who stormed the graveyard, dug up the coffin and put a bullet through the franchise’s corpse just to make sure." -- From a review of Darren Aronofsky & Frank Miller's "Batman: Year One" script
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205
fudge 4000+ posts
|
|
fudge 4000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 4,205 |
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Don't respond to the troll!
What troll? Mandral actually made a good point. How's that trolling?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think he meant me...
Racks be to MisterJLA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
|
|
Kisser Of John Byrne Ass 15000+ posts
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 16,240 |
Quote:
Chant said:
yeah, I'm sorry to say, that does hold to how the world looks today. I'm pretty sure that the US. would have or is seriously considering invading North Korea if it wasn't for NK's Nuclear capability
That said, I still don't think any nation should have nuclear weapons. But I'd rather see them in the hands of nations who would know when NOT to use them rather than nations who'd only use them as a last resort
I think it has to do more with China....since NK is basically a puppet nation of China...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
|
|
devil-lovin' Bat-Man 15000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 33,919 |
Quote:
the G-man said:
In a perfect world, no nation would have nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately it isn't, and can never be, a perfect world.
That sounds a bit communist. Flags have been raised, watch out. Just saying.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000
5000+ posts
|
|
5000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,000 |
Quote:
Chant said:
yeah, I'm sorry to say, that does hold to how the world looks today. I'm pretty sure that the US. would have or is seriously considering invading North Korea if it wasn't for NK's Nuclear capability
I disagree. The US cannot invade North Korea because it cannot go to war with China. The way I see the new policy towards the mideast is, "You fucked us, now fuck you!" It may be that President Bush was looking for an excuse to go into Iraq and bring their dicatorship to justice (and let's not get into that here, please), but he is also looking for a way to eliminate terrorism, and he's right in that it starts with removing the governments that pay them. Is it any wonder that he's all over Syria right now? I would question why he's not threatening Saudi Arabia, but lately they have been on the recieving end of their paychecks. I think he's hoping that they realize they have made their beds with the wrong people.
Anyway, my only relevant point here is that the US cannot invade North Korea because it cannot go to war with China because that actually could lead to nuclear war, and that would be a very bad thing.
<sub>Will Eisner's last work - The Plot: The Secret Story of the Protocols of the Elders of ZionRDCW Profile"Well, as it happens, I wrote the damned SOP," Illescue half snarled, "and as of now, you can bar those jackals from any part of this facility until Hell's a hockey rink! Is that perfectly clear?!" - Dr. Franz Illescue - Honor Harrington: At All Costs"I don't know what I'm do, or how I do, I just do." - Alexander Ovechkin</sub>
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251
6000+ posts
|
|
6000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,251 |
Quote:
Paul Mandral said:
And in a world where the U.S. invades nations WITHOUT nukes but uses diplomacy for those with them, I don't forsee ridding the world of them anytime soon.
If anything, they're a guarantee that you won't be "liberated".
Right and this is the same logic as to why a police man reacts quicker when a perp is pulling a gun then when the perp allready has the gun pointed at a hostage.
Putting the "fun" back in Fundamentalist Christian Dogma.
" I know God exists because WBAM told me so. " - theory9
JLA brand RACK points = 514k 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
|
|
"Hey this is PCG342's bro..." 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 34,236 Likes: 15 |
Quote:
I'm Not Mister Mxypltk said:
Quote:
the G-man said:
In a perfect world, no nation would have nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately it isn't, and can never be, a perfect world.
That sounds a bit communist. Flags have been raised, watch out. Just saying.
Not really. Commies always believed in the premise of a perfect world, the dumbfuckers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
Quote:
Chant said:
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Don't respond to the troll!
What troll? Mandral actually made a good point. How's that trolling?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think he meant me...
No. You say stuff I may disagree with. Whomod/Mandral, like r3x, says stuff because people disagree with it, in a manner guaranteed to piss off as many people as possible. Big difference.
And this layout change is killing me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 78
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 78 |
US have given away a lot of there nuclear arsneal to help minor country like Israel and Pakistan to shield them from incomning attack. The same goes for North Korea. If North Korea don't have a nuclear defence US will a open chance to attacked them, but now they have them and use them in a defence role. Israel would be invade again if they not have a nuclear defence like the 6-day invasion back in 1960. The worest thing is maybe that Iran is close to get acess to nuclear weapons and they are pretty piss on Israel and US. The last thing I heard about was the was planning on attack the site with a major airstrike. Bomb the facillity and depot. But Iran are not stupid, because they have a dozen of these spread out in there country. In peace time the chance for at nuclear rocket will be launch is small, but if a major country like US, China, Indiea invade a minor country with nuclear defence the chance are very likely. Why, the reason is the minor country don't have enough standard military to stop a major country, but with help of atomic, you can cripple the hole army incomning, and even bomb there home country like takning out a major city. This will of cause make the risk that the major country will retaliation. Maybe even end in a nuclear war.
My points are that myself don't like that Iran, North Korea got the bomb, not even India or china even Russia (former Soviet), because they can strike us if there is a dead serius good reason for it. For my country allied like Franc and England is good they have a nuclear defence, they shield European from Soviet during the Cold war. But if a was a citizen i North Korea or Iran I would complete want the nuclear bomb. It a matter of choice where you are born and live today.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 140
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 140 |
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Quote:
Chant said:
Quote:
Darknight613 said:
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Don't respond to the troll!
What troll? Mandral actually made a good point. How's that trolling?
I'm not entirely sure, but I think he meant me...
No. You say stuff I may disagree with. Whomod/Mandral, like r3x, says stuff because people disagree with it, in a manner guaranteed to piss off as many people as possible. Big difference.
And this layout change is killing me.
What's your major malfunction?!
I made a valid point. The monkey used some weird cop analogy to expand on/justify it. Just because you don't like to acknowledge the new political realities and people voicing them "piss(es) you off" doesn't mean you get to dismiss those who point them out as "trolls".
From Washington Times interview with DeLay:
Mr. Hurt: Have you ever crossed the line of ethical behavior in terms of dealing with lobbyists, your use of government authority or with fundraising?
Mr. DeLay: Ever is a very strong word.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 78
25+ posts
|
|
25+ posts
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 78 |
"What's your major malfunction", Full Metal Jacket
Last edited by Battlekruse; 2005-04-01 9:24 AM.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
Quote:
Battlekruse said:
US have given away a lot of there nuclear arsneal to help minor country like Israel and Pakistan to shield them from incomning attack. The same goes for North Korea. If North Korea don't have a nuclear defence US will a open chance to attacked them, but now they have them and use them in a defence role. Israel would be invade again if they not have a nuclear defence like the 6-day invasion back in 1960. The worest thing is maybe that Iran is close to get acess to nuclear weapons and they are pretty piss on Israel and US. The last thing I heard about was the was planning on attack the site with a major airstrike. Bomb the facillity and depot. But Iran are not stupid, because they have a dozen of these spread out in there country. In peace time the chance for at nuclear rocket will be launch is small, but if a major country like US, China, Indiea invade a minor country with nuclear defence the chance are very likely. Why, the reason is the minor country don't have enough standard military to stop a major country, but with help of atomic, you can cripple the hole army incomning, and even bomb there home country like takning out a major city. This will of cause make the risk that the major country will retaliation. Maybe even end in a nuclear war.
My points are that myself don't like that Iran, North Korea got the bomb, not even India or china even Russia (former Soviet), because they can strike us if there is a dead serius good reason for it. For my country allied like Franc and England is good they have a nuclear defence, they shield European from Soviet during the Cold war. But if a was a citizen i North Korea or Iran I would complete want the nuclear bomb. It a matter of choice where you are born and live today.
who was Battlekruse?
|
|
|
|
|
