JBF, you've never heard of the idea that nuclear weapons are used to deter another rogue state from attacking because of those weapons? 
Buy on AliExpress.com
UK Politics (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter Red
- Start date
Buy on AliExpress.com
Countries don't use their nuclear artillery for international and political reasons, one of them is not having a real reason to in fact use them. But the fact that these weapons were once used in the past against a country that was military powerful at that time that it was almost the only way to defeat it, says it all really.
When there's an urgent need, a must war if you want to call it, those Nuclear weapons will be used eventually. Whether it was against a Nuclear country or a non nuclear one, these weapons will be used as to their very first purpose to put a powerful enemy to the ground.
When there's an urgent need, a must war if you want to call it, those Nuclear weapons will be used eventually. Whether it was against a Nuclear country or a non nuclear one, these weapons will be used as to their very first purpose to put a powerful enemy to the ground.
No both of those countries have nuclear powers/ambitions in order to impose their force and to negotiate from a better position, a winning one if I may add. While stating that Pakistan and India never thought or were never in fact close of actually using these destructive weapons means you don't know much about those two.
Ofcourse.
Ofcourse.
In reality Japan were defeated before then, and were on the brink of surrendering via their war council on favourable terms.
Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used by terrorists or unstable dictatorships such as Iran and North Korea than the US, UK, India, Russia etc. The Soviets and US had a treaty during the 60's of not using nuclear weapons in a high altitude arena (Space or high atmosphere) to defend themselves for fear of it leading to catastrophic events that would affect the Earth globally, such as it being shifted off its axis. It's not in the interests of developed, stable nations to use them.
Nuclear weapons are more likely to be used by terrorists or unstable dictatorships such as Iran and North Korea than the US, UK, India, Russia etc. The Soviets and US had a treaty during the 60's of not using nuclear weapons in a high altitude arena (Space or high atmosphere) to defend themselves for fear of it leading to catastrophic events that would affect the Earth globally, such as it being shifted off its axis. It's not in the interests of developed, stable nations to use them.
You can't have it both ways, JBF. Either these nations want to attack other nations through use of nuclear weapons by your own words or they actually might have them for defensive purposes.
It's funny how the verbiage used went from "attack" with the Western nations to "negotiate" for countries like Iran. Again, can't have it both ways so one can demonize the West.
It's funny how the verbiage used went from "attack" with the Western nations to "negotiate" for countries like Iran. Again, can't have it both ways so one can demonize the West.
Ofcourse not, and that's why they should lead the way to get rid of them rather than ask these small and helpless nations to get rid of theirs while them, the big guys, gets to keep their own. Its these double standards that would make small broken countries look for Nuclear weapons as a savior for their grief and a source of pride and strength to their nation
Because these small countries look for negotiating with the west, that's the whole point, to negotiate from a stronger position. For example, Pakistan, a nuclear country that is always under pressure to either get rid of it's arsenal or keep Americans at their bases to make sure that such weapons of mass destruction don't end up in the hands of Taliban, Qaida or any other terrorist group. Yet at the same time when Pakistan asks for more aid from the U.S to fight terrorism they don't get half what they ask for, and that is even when they ask for money to develop an area such as Wazeeristan, the one with all the fights from Taliban-Pakistan in the last 2 years or so.
Another example is Iran, their project is all about justice, as they feel threatened by Israel that have a deadly combination of both Nuclear and Biological arsenal, and they're the only country in the middle east to have such a weaponry while Iran's pursuit for such weapons are blocked and handicapped which is justified, but why concentrate on the result and not the reason. If Israel wasn't in such a powerful condition military speaking, then I bet no country in the Middle East would even think of going towards such a pursuit. Keeping in mind that both Iraq and Libya had a history of suspicious Nuclear weapons ownage.
Because these small countries look for negotiating with the west, that's the whole point, to negotiate from a stronger position. For example, Pakistan, a nuclear country that is always under pressure to either get rid of it's arsenal or keep Americans at their bases to make sure that such weapons of mass destruction don't end up in the hands of Taliban, Qaida or any other terrorist group. Yet at the same time when Pakistan asks for more aid from the U.S to fight terrorism they don't get half what they ask for, and that is even when they ask for money to develop an area such as Wazeeristan, the one with all the fights from Taliban-Pakistan in the last 2 years or so.
Another example is Iran, their project is all about justice, as they feel threatened by Israel that have a deadly combination of both Nuclear and Biological arsenal, and they're the only country in the middle east to have such a weaponry while Iran's pursuit for such weapons are blocked and handicapped which is justified, but why concentrate on the result and not the reason. If Israel wasn't in such a powerful condition military speaking, then I bet no country in the Middle East would even think of going towards such a pursuit. Keeping in mind that both Iraq and Libya had a history of suspicious Nuclear weapons ownage.
True 
For every country in the world. The double standards are amazing, people say Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because their is a bigger risk of them using them, yet the Israeli government who is probably responsible for more deaths than any other government in the past decade, there is no risk there, they are a peaceful government.
For every country in the world. The double standards are amazing, people say Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because their is a bigger risk of them using them, yet the Israeli government who is probably responsible for more deaths than any other government in the past decade, there is no risk there, they are a peaceful government.
True
For every country in the world. The double standards are amazing, people say Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because their is a bigger risk of them using them, yet the Israeli government who is probably responsible for more deaths than any other government in the past decade, there is no risk there, they are a peaceful government.
For every country in the world. The double standards are amazing, people say Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons because their is a bigger risk of them using them, yet the Israeli government who is probably responsible for more deaths than any other government in the past decade, there is no risk there, they are a peaceful government.