North Korea claims to have conducted hydrogen bomb test

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by nik-

Yeah, but it doesn't matter that it's hypocritical. It's still a good idea to prevent any more countries from having them. There's a reason the NPT exists and that countries that don't have them signed it.

Obviously it's a bad idea that anyone has them, but it's too late. Idealism won't help anyone, it's about realism.

So first you claimed it only seemed hypocritical to me, but wasn't actually.
Now that I've shown you it is in fact the definition of hypocrisy - it doesn't matter if it's hypocritical?

I'm for all nukes being gone. Clearly you aren't.

It's idealism ? Haha. Ok mate I'll go off living in my idealistic world where countries hold fast to treaties that make sense, and you go off living in your fearful hypocritical world where some nations can have WMD and others can't, but only the ones we choose.



Thanks for the compliment^ but unfortunately I copied this username from a Newcastle United forum I am a member of.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Lol, love the username, this is the first I've seen it.

Agreed

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

So first you claimed it only seemed hypocritical to me, but wasn't actually.
Now that I've shown you it is in fact the definition of hypocrisy - it doesn't matter if it's hypocritical?

I'm for all nukes being gone. Clearly you aren't.

It's idealism ? Haha. Ok mate I'll go off living in my idealistic world where countries hold fast to treaties that make sense, and you go off living in your fearful hypocritical world where some nations can have WMD and others can't, but only the ones we choose.



Thanks for the compliment^ but unfortunately I copied this username from a Newcastle United forum I am a member of.

I live in the real world.

The "seems hypoctical" was a figure of speech, you didn't "show me" anything. I would love if all nukes would be gone tomorrow. I'm just not naive enough to believe it's ever going to happen. In the meantime, lets prevent any other countries from getting them. "We have them, so we shouldn't prevent others from having them" is a ridiculous position to have with nuclear weapons.

Your entire post is just odd and completely out of touch with reality.

I feel like I'm being punked here. How you get I clearly don't want nukes gone from my post, which was merely pragmatic, makes zero sense to me.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by nik-

I live in the real world.

The "seems hypoctical" was a figure of speech, you didn't "show me" anything. I would love if all nukes would be gone tomorrow. I'm just not naive enough to believe it's ever going to happen. In the meantime, lets prevent any other countries from getting them. "We have them, so we shouldn't prevent others from having them" is a ridiculous position to have with nuclear weapons.

Your entire post is just odd and completely out of touch with reality.

I feel like I'm being punked here. How you get I clearly don't want nukes gone from my post, which was merely pragmatic, makes zero sense to me.

That sounds totally stupid. So let's prevent countries getting nukes, but keep our own and show not one ounce of interest in disarmament..because it's idealism and not realism

I'm the loser in all this, debating NPT with someone who has a monopoly on reality. You would probably drown in the Dead Sea. Good bye

[nik-]

Again, it doesn't matter what you think, because not wanting them to spread is a good idea. Yup, no one is getting rid of theirs and that sucks. That doesn't mean we want more countries to get them. The fact that you don't understand that is completely beyond my comprehension.

Sorry I'm not John Lennon, living in a fantasy world

[afc wimbledon]

We in the west have nothing to do with deciding who has nukes, that's solely a U.S. Russia thing.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West...disambiguation)

USA RUSSIA = west.

WE = west.

West is not just a direction.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

That sounds totally stupid. So let's prevent countries getting nukes, but keep our own and show not one ounce of interest in disarmament..because it's idealism and not realism

I'm the loser in all this, debating NPT with someone who has a monopoly on reality. You would probably drown in the Dead Sea. Good bye

If you are arguing that it's hypocritical that NK can't have nukes while other nations can...you're technically right...but is the same way that a terrorist is not allowed to have weapons but the police are.

Geopolitics has over time led to a situation where some nations have nuclear weapons and won't be giving them up anytime soon (Why would they?).

NK is a nation that is irrational and likely to make a very bad decision sooner or later and the less carnage they can create when (not if) the regime falls is A-OK with this hypocrite.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

If you are arguing that it's hypocritical that NK can't have nukes while other nations can...you're technically right...but is the same way that a terrorist is not allowed to have weapons but the police are.

Geopolitics has over time led to a situation where some nations have nuclear weapons and won't be giving them up anytime soon (Why would they?).

NK is a nation that is irrational and likely to make a very bad decision sooner or later and the less carnage they can create when (not if) the regime falls is A-OK with this hypocrite.

Great comparison. Terrorists and police. BRILLIANT. Nothing at all is lost when comparing North Korea vs Americas right to nukes, and the police and terrorists rights to weapons. Wow. You must be a Harvard grad.

We are the police, they are the terrorists. I can feel my chakras lining up and my mind expanding just by speaking with you fellows. This is enlightening. Nik- believes he knows exactly what reality is, who is living in reality and who isn't. (Quite the ability.)

Wimbledon believes western world doesn't include Canada.

And you are here comparing terrorists and policemen...to wether or not nations should be allowed to have something that we have, and we are not showing any interest in getting rid of.

If I had my own country crumpystan, I wouldn't be trying to get nukes, I'd be advocating for disarmament. However if I noticed nobody was taking disarmament seriously, not least the nations with the nukes already - I would say OK well the dudes who have the nukes are perfectly content keeping them with no interest in destroying their weapons. Also who chooses which nation is terrorist or police? Their background, race, religion? the UN. Haha.

So why have a double standard. Who gave you the moral high ground to decide who is police and who is terrorist in the world of politics.. OK so you believe Iran and NK are terrorist and shouldn't have WMD. So who should? Please answer that. Give me a list of 10 nations who should have nukes, or the police for the sake of your analogy.

There is only one country that has used an atomic bomb on people. Hint: It's not Pakistan.

You are so pro establishment and so indoctrinated you wouldn't know a terrorist unless he was screaming Allahu Akbar.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So can you think of any nations that do that? Or is it just bearded idiots running about in the Middle East.

It's funny I read a newspaper in France describe anders brevik the Norway killer as someone who used terrorist like tactics. ???? The man was a terrorist he killed 77 Norwegian kids on an island because he hated Islam. How is it that we label one person a terrorist and not the other. As if terrorist means one specific very small thing.

Hiroshima Nagasaki is literally the best example of terrorism in the history of the world.

I pray for your brains.

[nik-]

lol wow

[flylock shox]

I'm not generally a fan of superpowers interfering with smaller nations, but North Korea seems like a dark spot that - if left to fester - will be full blown cancerous before long.

I'd love to see a cooperative effort to wipe that regime out.

[CaptainYooh]

Does anyone here actually and sincerely believe that North Korea WILL initiate a nuclear attack against another country first?

[pylon]

Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt

Great comparison. Terrorists and police. BRILLIANT. Nothing at all is lost when comparing North Korea vs Americas right to nukes, and the police and terrorists rights to weapons. Wow. You must be a Harvard grad.

We are the police, they are the terrorists. I can feel my chakras lining up and my mind expanding just by speaking with you fellows. This is enlightening. Nik- believes he knows exactly what reality is, who is living in reality and who isn't. (Quite the ability.)

Wimbledon believes western world doesn't include Canada.

And you are here comparing terrorists and policemen...to wether or not nations should be allowed to have something that we have, and we are not showing any interest in getting rid of.

If I had my own country crumpystan, I wouldn't be trying to get nukes, I'd be advocating for disarmament. However if I noticed nobody was taking disarmament seriously, not least the nations with the nukes already - I would say OK well the dudes who have the nukes are perfectly content keeping them with no interest in destroying their weapons. Also who chooses which nation is terrorist or police? Their background, race, religion? the UN. Haha.

So why have a double standard. Who gave you the moral high ground to decide who is police and who is terrorist in the world of politics.. OK so you believe Iran and NK are terrorist and shouldn't have WMD. So who should? Please answer that. Give me a list of 10 nations who should have nukes, or the police for the sake of your analogy.

There is only one country that has used an atomic bomb on people. Hint: It's not Pakistan.

You are so pro establishment and so indoctrinated you wouldn't know a terrorist unless he was screaming Allahu Akbar.

Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

So can you think of any nations that do that? Or is it just bearded idiots running about in the Middle East.

It's funny I read a newspaper in France describe anders brevik the Norway killer as someone who used terrorist like tactics. ???? The man was a terrorist he killed 77 Norwegian kids on an island because he hated Islam. How is it that we label one person a terrorist and not the other. As if terrorist means one specific very small thing.

Hiroshima Nagasaki is literally the best example of terrorism in the history of the world.

I pray for your brains.

Where to start?....

The dropping of the bombs on Japan, likely saved millions of lives. Had the US fought a ground war against Japan estimates are it would have cost 400-800,000 American lives, and that does not even include Japanese casualties. As sadistic as it sounds, the show of force by the US was damn near an act of mercy. An invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic for both countries. Like it or not, it was probably the best case scenario for nuclear weapon deployment. As crappy as it was for those that lost their lives, it saved countless others.

Secondly, there is a difference between the US, Russia, and North Korea. The US, and Russia (as much as people don't like to admit it) aren't run by mad men that have enslaved their own citizens. Even though we my not like their form of freedom, Russia is a democracy, a somewhat corrupt one, but who's to say the US isn't to a degree as well. But at the end of the day, their nuclear arsenals aren't controlled by complete maniacs. Even if Putin or Obama, tomorrow, demanded all the nukes be launched, it wouldn't happen. There are enough people in place, to stop that from happening.

NK however, sadly, worships their leader like a god. And their god is a complete mad man. A country like that, does not deserve, or have the responsibility to have the destructive power of a WMD.

Either way, even if they have the means to blow one up, I highly, highly doubt, they have the means to deliver such a device. Their airforce is right out of the 50's, and being so isolated from the world for the last 50 years, is is extremely doubtful, they would have a missile system even remotely capable of getting it within range of a worthy target.

[corporatejay]

Yeah, I feel like there are countries that are civilized and those that aren't. Not a huge fan of countries that aren't having nukes.

And, frankly, once the cat is out of the bag, how do you disarm them, you can only prevent people from getting them going forward but good luck trying to disarm india or pakistan.



Also, when did Russia become "the west"?

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Since west means those influenced by Greece and Rome.

[nik-]

Except people have used "the West" to refer to the Western Bloc for the last 60 years. So Russia is not the West.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by pylon

Where to start?....

The dropping of the bombs on Japan, likely saved millions of lives. Had the US fought a ground war against Japan estimates are it would have cost 400-800,000 American lives, and that does not even include Japanese casualties. As sadistic as it sounds, the show of force by the US was damn near an act of mercy. An invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic for both countries. Like it or not, it was probably the best case scenario for nuclear weapon deployment. As crappy as it was for those that lost their lives, it saved countless others.

Secondly, there is a difference between the US, Russia, and North Korea. The US, and Russia (as much as people don't like to admit it) aren't run by mad men that have enslaved their own citizens. Even though we my not like their form of freedom, Russia is a democracy, a somewhat corrupt one, but who's to say the US isn't to a degree as well. But at the end of the day, their nuclear arsenals aren't controlled by complete maniacs. Even if Putin or Obama, tomorrow, demanded all the nukes be launched, it wouldn't happen. There are enough people in place, to stop that from happening.

NK however, sadly, worships their leader like a god. And their god is a complete mad man. A country like that, does not deserve, or have the responsibility to have the destructive power of a WMD.

Either way, even if they have the means to blow one up, I highly, highly doubt, they have the means to deliver such a device. Their airforce is right out of the 50's, and being so isolated from the world for the last 50 years, is is extremely doubtful, they would have a missile system even remotely capable of getting it within range of a worthy target.

I will start by saying I applaud your actually showing some level of knowledge on the subject.

I will end by challenging you to do a google image search of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - because I won't be posting images of maimed people and babies born with 2 heads. Then tell me that is an act of mercy.

Also I challenge you to go to Japan and convince anyone of your version of history. Are the history professors in Toyko stupid? Or is it the fact you have been taught a certain version of events.

Either way you slice it if that is mercy then I think you are either insensitive to humans or some super right wing sheep who believes whatever was in his social studies curriculum.

People to this day are born with defects from this event which you claim was merciful and saved millions of lives, as if there was absolutely no other way of achieving peace.

PS countries that are civilised? Which countries are those. Please make me a list of civilised and uncivilised countries.

Would Jamaica be civilised? Russia? Pakistan? Malaysia?

I ask because the first 3 countries don't accept homosexuals. In Jamaica it's actually illegal because of the bible.

So I'd love to know what qualifies civilised. Is Israel civilised? Is Israel even a civilised, rational, peaceful nation or is most of its territory occupied? How would this reflect on their status as a civilised nation and their right to have WMD? Obviously the answers vary depending on your political party, religion race etc. IF you don't think every one of us is biased in some way I've got some awesome property to sell you in Pyongyang

The world isn't black and white - it isn't civilised and uncivilised. Muslim or Christian. There are so many in betweens.

Anyway it sounds like you don't know what you are talking about and you don't realise the implications of 'wipe them all out', 'they are civilised and they are not', 'dropping a nuke on men women and children was an act of mercy'

You make me absolutely sick.

[nik-]

Japan doesn't think it should have had nukes dropped on it. Revolutionary stuff here. WW2 was hell, basically the war of the brutalized civilians. Unfortunately it is still likely that significantly less people died as a result of the two atomic bombings than would have died in the home islands invasions.

So yeah, probability. Horrible probability, but probability none the less.

You're really off on a tangeant with the rest, but i guess that's to be expected. Nukes spreading is bad, even if the existing g countries won't give them up. End of story.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by nik-

Except people have used "the West" to refer to the Western Bloc for the last 60 years. So Russia is not the West.

You aren't qualified to be in on this. You thought NPT was about having no new nations with WMD. The west means a lot of things. Calgary Flames are in the western conference. Yes the western bloc..I'm familiar.

But western world is a broad concept I'm not sure you have the capacity for it, or maybe you are a bitter troll who didn't like the fact I slapped you with information on the last page. You keep buzzing about, saying things that have nothing to to with anything. Go to sleep, stop visiting my profile and preying over this thread. You are the butt hurts poster boy.

[Crumpy-Gunt]

Originally Posted by nik-

Japan doesn't think it should have had nukes dropped on it. Revolutionary stuff here.

And along with your lol WUt comments and saying the western bloc and Japan doesn't think it should have been nuked, what have you contributed?

Obviously your whittle feewings are hurt, or you are taking this too personally. Go to sleep you little fly.