Syrian civil war (46 Viewers)

[Seven]

They wont and they shouldnt.

Nuclear capability of russia and the US is what kept the cold war from turning into an actual war.

It doesn't matter.

Technology can't be undone. The US can't unlearn how to make atomic bombs. That means that in the event of an actual war, the US will use them if they think the time is right. You can't design rules to control a total war. That's not what war is.

- - - Updated - - -

http://fair.org/extra/ignoring-the-u-s-s-quotbad-atomsquot/

Sure. I can agree with what they write. The question is does the world become safer if the US gets rid of its nuclear weapons? I don't think so.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[IliveForJuve]

Art. VI:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

I know it's a good faith obligation, but you can't seriously claim the US have tried to pursue complete nuclear disarmament.

Indeed, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."

Also, this matter was taken up to the ICJ, who says, “This obligation involves all NPT parties (not just the nuclear weapon states) and does not suggest a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.”

Therefore, it's hard to argue the US violates Article VI because there are no specifics given anyway.

 

[Zacheryah]

It doesn't matter.

Technology can't be undone. The US can't unlearn how to make atomic bombs. That means that in the event of an actual war, the US will use them if they think the time is right. You can't design rules to control a total war. That's not what war is.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure. I can agree with what they write. The question is does the world become safer if the US gets rid of its nuclear weapons? I don't think so.

The fear of using them, is exactly what kept us from total war

I'm as pro nuclear as it gets

 

[Seven]

Indeed, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."

Also, this matter was taken up to the ICJ, who says, “This obligation involves all NPT parties (not just the nuclear weapon states) and does not suggest a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.”

Therefore, it's hard to argue the US violates Article VI because there are no specifics given anyway.

I know. So let me ask you this: do you believe the US is negotiating in good faith?

- - - Updated - - -

The fear of using them, is exactly what kept us from total war

I'm as pro nuclear as it gets

The entire reason we could destroy the planet are those very same nuclear weapons. Before the a-bomb, it was impossible to do so much damage to the planet as to make it uninhabitable for the human species.

But like I said, any opinion on this matter is useless. We have the technology to make nuclear weapons. The US have procured the necessary raw material too. In the event of an actual war, they will resort to nuclear weapons, whether one thinks it's okay or not.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I know. So let me ask you this: do you believe the US is negotiating in good faith?

- - - Updated - - -



The entire reason we could destroy the planet are those very same nuclear weapons. Before the a-bomb, it was impossible to do so much damage to the planet as to make it uninhabitable for the human species.

But like I said, any opinion on this matter is useless. We have the technology to make nuclear weapons. The US have procured the necessary raw material too. In the event of an actual war, they will resort to nuclear weapons, whether one thinks it's okay or not.

He doesn't have to answer

https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2017-04/news-briefs/us-reconsiders-nuclear-abolition-goal

 

[IliveForJuve]

I know. So let me ask you this: do you believe the US is negotiating in good faith.

It's hard to know but you have to consider that no matter how much good faith you have, the world is probably a safer place with the US keeping its nuclear strength. I'm sure that's partially how US thinks.

Of course they have other interests but it's almost irrelevant when dangerous countries like North Korea have nuclear weapons.

 

[Seven]

It's hard to know but you have to consider that no matter how much good faith you have, the world is probably a safer place with the US keeping its nuclear strength. I'm sure that's partially how US thinks.

Of course they have other interests but it's almost irrelevant when dangerous countries like North Korea have nuclear weapons.

Sure. And that's why people aren't hard on the US when it comes to this subject. But they're still in violation.

 

[Post Ironic]

Thats bullshit, cause every democrat and other left winger is by definition authoritarian, while a good part of the rightwing/conservatives are libertarian for example, which detests it.


You for example are infinitly more authotorian minded than me. You just dont like its the big buffoon holding the steering wheel.

You are so fucking naive and ignorant it would be quite amusing if it weren't so sad. The fact you are such a loudmouth about spewing your rubbish makes it even worse.

There's a reason no modern country in the world is organized under libertarian principles or government. Libertarianism is feudalism. The world tried it already, for hundreds of years. It allows people to barter their basic human rights away and become slaves out of "necessity". All libertarianism does is take the things you associate with liberal government and place them under feudal, private governance. Replace feudal lords with corporations. The fact you don't recognize this only shows your own nearly impossible to believe ignorance.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It doesn't matter.

Technology can't be undone. The US can't unlearn how to make atomic bombs. That means that in the event of an actual war, the US will use them if they think the time is right. You can't design rules to control a total war. That's not what war is.

- - - Updated - - -



Sure. I can agree with what they write. The question is does the world become safer if the US gets rid of its nuclear weapons? I don't think so.

Pragmatically i am for the American Empire, I just wonder if the government's actions are not primarily moved by special interests and foreign powers.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Sure. And that's why people aren't hard on the US when it comes to this subject. But they're still in violation.

It's arguable and hard to prove. But they have reduced their arsenal so technically they're not violating the treaty.

It's a Mickey Mouse treaty anyway.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

You are so fucking naive and ignorant it would be quite amusing if it weren't so sad. The fact you are such a loudmouth about spewing your rubbish makes it even worse.

There's a reason no modern country in the world is organized under libertarian principles or government. Libertarianism is feudalism. The world tried it already, for hundreds of years. It allows people to barter their basic human rights away and become slaves out of "necessity". All libertarianism does is take the things you associate with liberal government and place them under feudal, private governance. Replace feudal lords with corporations. The fact you don't recognize this only shows your own nearly impossible to believe ignorance.

Hey man keep it civil please

 

[Seven]

You are so fucking naive and ignorant it would be quite amusing if it weren't so sad. The fact you are such a loudmouth about spewing your rubbish makes it even worse.

There's a reason no modern country in the world is organized under libertarian principles or government. Libertarianism is feudalism. The world tried it already, for hundreds of years. It allows people to barter their basic human rights away and become slaves out of "necessity". All libertarianism does is take the things you associate with liberal government and place them under feudal, private governance. Replace feudal lords with corporations. The fact you don't recognize this only shows your own nearly impossible to believe ignorance.

Zach has little to no education on these subject. And I say that respectfully. Because I know he's not a stupid man. But he's very misinformed about many of these subjects and does not seem to have acquired the necessary critical thought for thinking in a more political / legal way. The fact he insists on speaking in absolute terms pretty much proves it. Zach is a scientist, who doesn't understand non-binary circumstances and actions.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

It's arguable and hard to prove. But they have reduced their arsenal so technically they're not violating the treaty.

It's a Mickey Mouse treaty anyway.

Lol hard to prove?

 

[Seven]

It's arguable and hard to prove. But they have reduced their arsenal so technically they're not violating the treaty.

It's a Mickey Mouse treaty anyway.

Like I said, I don't even think it matters. But to have the USA parade as some sort of flagbearer the way Jiuliano13 is doing is just ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

Lol hard to prove?

It's hard to prove because the text of the treaty was written in such a way that it allows for ever shifting legal boundaries.

Deep down everyone knows the US has no intention whatsoever to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

 

[IliveForJuve]

Lol hard to prove?

Indeed, hard to prove.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Like I said, I don't even think it matters. But to have the USA parade as some sort of flagbearer the way Jiuliano13 is doing is just ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -



It's hard to prove because the text of the treaty was written in such a way that it allows for ever shifting legal boundaries.

Deep down everyone knows the US has no intention whatsoever to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

-US pledged to completely get rid of arsenal
-US declares things change and is impossible to do so

Slam dunk

 

[IliveForJuve]

Like I said, I don't even think it matters. But to have the USA parade as some sort of flagbearer the way Jiuliano13 is doing is just ridiculous.
US has no intention whatsoever to get rid of its nuclear weapons.

This I agree with.

The USA is no superhero.

 

[Seven]

Pragmatically i am for the American Empire, I just wonder if the government's actions are not primarily moved by special interests and foreign powers.

Anyone with half a brain should have foreseen that a businessman for president is just about the worst idea in the history of mankind. Trump has spent his entire life making deals at the cost of others. And now he's supposed to represent the American people? Hell yes, his actions are primarily moved by special interests.

Of course everyone is somewhat moved by potential personal gain, but I think Obama at least had the sense of reponsibility to consider what was actually best for the USA.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Indeed, hard to prove.

Besides the violations listed in the link i presented, this administration already shattered the good faith clause by admitting it's impossible to adhere to the treaty, there is nothing to prove, it is factual.

 

[IliveForJuve]

-US pledged to completely get rid of arsenal
-US declares things change and is impossible to do so

Slam dunk

That doesn't prove anything.