Peace Sells no one buying
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
Greetings everyone. I'm new here. But -- I think I may have something to share with everyone here.
Why Nations Need Nukes:
First of all, when some nations with less than honest intentions have nuclear weapons (USA, etc) it's in the best interest of non-affiliated, developing nations to procure the same. Decades ago the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the US and USSR from declaring war against one another. (Covert wars, propaganda campaigns and espionage, on the other hand, were condoned) If one of the two sides greatly outnumbered the other then war could have occurred. Thankfully we all know that this did not happen.
In order to stay within this buffer zone of MAD, smaller nations have had to develop nuclear programs of their own. This is logical and rational in that having these arms prevents being attacked by them.
Nuclear Nations in Asia:
The time line suggests that China's advancement in this area (essentially joining the nuclear club) forced India's hand into working towards nuclear weapons themselves. Of course, the overt safety of Pakistan would be threatened if their closest 'enemy' had weapons that they did not have. India and Pakistan's nuclear programs developed because that was the only way to prevent the threat of destruction.
The leaders of China, India and Pakistan were doing 'good' in developing nuclear weapons for the safety of their own people, and prevention of any erstwhile threats.
That said, the use of nuclear weapons causes many problems. First of all, for the threat of MAD to be anything but a bluff -- then all concerned nations MUST use them.
This is insanity.
MAD only works as a theory or working model which prevents using the absolute weapons available. It's because of MAD that our planet is not a smoking crater right now. If we change the situation to two bank robbers pulling a gun on each other after the robbery perhaps we can simplify the situation. Both people pull a gun, both people don't shoot -- both people can walk away with a share of the loot and life for another day. If one of the two people gets an itchy trigger finger and fires *convention states that* the other MUST fire back. End result, two dead thieves, and no one gains any of their stolen loot. Of course, you can miss with guns . . . but not with nukes.
Of course, this would be the logical part of my post where I describe the ill-effects of radiation and just how bad it is for human life. [For years the UN (USA and friends) have been using Depleted Uranium (DU) on people in Europe and the Middle East. This has increased birth defects upwards of 300% in Iraq alone after the 1992 Gulf War. Imagine what nuclear war would do...] I'm not going to do that. Instead I'm going to introduce something else, a factor in all of this that we, armchair angels of death, usually do not think of.
Weather.
Yes, weather.
Weather is very powerful all over the world, and one of the places on this planet where weather can be seen is in the South Asian weather systems. (I don't need to go into it, we all should know about this firsthand by now.)
Scenario 1: India nukes Pakistan
Not only is Pakistan's ecology going to be adversely affected, but all of the radiation will also be passed through into the weather systems. As the winds will go, so too will the toxic pollution travel from Pakistan into India (West to East). Additionally, this irradiated vapors will swell in the clouds and fall all over South Asia during monsoon season. (So yes, an Indian attack on Pakistan will not only hurt Pakistan, but also doom India itself, along with all the other nations that these winds affect)
Scenario 2: Pakistan nukes India
Pakistan is West of India, but some parts of Pakistan are also affected by the seasonal monsoon. Worse, though, is that the winds and monsoon will carry the toxic radiation to Bangladesh (Muslim nation in South Asia), parts of China (major trade and technology partner of Pakistan) and other parts of South and South East Asia. Pakistan would hurt India -- but also hurt many friends and potential allies. (Expect sanctions from SAARC, among other groups)
Scenario 3: China attacks any part of South Asia (most likely India)
Most of Pakistan would likely be spared, but weather systems will spread the after-effects through India, Bang. and other nations -- potentially even some parts of China (or trade partners of China).
A nuclear attack on any South Asian nation would negatively affect the health and welfare of most of South Asia (if not all) for many generations after the attack. Additionally, we'd all be labeled monsters and have the UN impose draconian rules upon our developing economies and substantial international trade activities.
Conclusion:
I fully accept the notion that the nations of China, India and Pakistan *need* nuclear weapons to act as deterrents. I even support it, as if there was inequality between nations, major wars would occur. Such that, for peace, these nations must be well defended and strong.
I do think that nuclear war anywhere on this planet is the wrong thing. Furthermore, I strongly feel as though the particular weather systems at these latitudes and proximity to a large body of water pose a very difficult problem that we often overlook. (one potential reason why the US/Israel does not use nuclear weapons on certain nations in the middle east is because of the weather that will carry radiation to South Asia -- as the US/Israel currently has no problems with South Asia, and that would be an international crime.)
I think we can agree that nuclear war in South Asia must be avoided at all costs -- regardless of our own opinions about the nations in South Asia. [We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, in order to get rid of a fly on our sandal.]
Thank you all, I know this was really long.
References / More Information:
References and links can be sent only after I've made 15+ posts!!
Why Nations Need Nukes:
First of all, when some nations with less than honest intentions have nuclear weapons (USA, etc) it's in the best interest of non-affiliated, developing nations to procure the same. Decades ago the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) kept the US and USSR from declaring war against one another. (Covert wars, propaganda campaigns and espionage, on the other hand, were condoned) If one of the two sides greatly outnumbered the other then war could have occurred. Thankfully we all know that this did not happen.
In order to stay within this buffer zone of MAD, smaller nations have had to develop nuclear programs of their own. This is logical and rational in that having these arms prevents being attacked by them.
Nuclear Nations in Asia:
The time line suggests that China's advancement in this area (essentially joining the nuclear club) forced India's hand into working towards nuclear weapons themselves. Of course, the overt safety of Pakistan would be threatened if their closest 'enemy' had weapons that they did not have. India and Pakistan's nuclear programs developed because that was the only way to prevent the threat of destruction.
The leaders of China, India and Pakistan were doing 'good' in developing nuclear weapons for the safety of their own people, and prevention of any erstwhile threats.
That said, the use of nuclear weapons causes many problems. First of all, for the threat of MAD to be anything but a bluff -- then all concerned nations MUST use them.
This is insanity.
MAD only works as a theory or working model which prevents using the absolute weapons available. It's because of MAD that our planet is not a smoking crater right now. If we change the situation to two bank robbers pulling a gun on each other after the robbery perhaps we can simplify the situation. Both people pull a gun, both people don't shoot -- both people can walk away with a share of the loot and life for another day. If one of the two people gets an itchy trigger finger and fires *convention states that* the other MUST fire back. End result, two dead thieves, and no one gains any of their stolen loot. Of course, you can miss with guns . . . but not with nukes.
Of course, this would be the logical part of my post where I describe the ill-effects of radiation and just how bad it is for human life. [For years the UN (USA and friends) have been using Depleted Uranium (DU) on people in Europe and the Middle East. This has increased birth defects upwards of 300% in Iraq alone after the 1992 Gulf War. Imagine what nuclear war would do...] I'm not going to do that. Instead I'm going to introduce something else, a factor in all of this that we, armchair angels of death, usually do not think of.
Weather.
Yes, weather.
Weather is very powerful all over the world, and one of the places on this planet where weather can be seen is in the South Asian weather systems. (I don't need to go into it, we all should know about this firsthand by now.)
Scenario 1: India nukes Pakistan
Not only is Pakistan's ecology going to be adversely affected, but all of the radiation will also be passed through into the weather systems. As the winds will go, so too will the toxic pollution travel from Pakistan into India (West to East). Additionally, this irradiated vapors will swell in the clouds and fall all over South Asia during monsoon season. (So yes, an Indian attack on Pakistan will not only hurt Pakistan, but also doom India itself, along with all the other nations that these winds affect)
Scenario 2: Pakistan nukes India
Pakistan is West of India, but some parts of Pakistan are also affected by the seasonal monsoon. Worse, though, is that the winds and monsoon will carry the toxic radiation to Bangladesh (Muslim nation in South Asia), parts of China (major trade and technology partner of Pakistan) and other parts of South and South East Asia. Pakistan would hurt India -- but also hurt many friends and potential allies. (Expect sanctions from SAARC, among other groups)
Scenario 3: China attacks any part of South Asia (most likely India)
Most of Pakistan would likely be spared, but weather systems will spread the after-effects through India, Bang. and other nations -- potentially even some parts of China (or trade partners of China).
A nuclear attack on any South Asian nation would negatively affect the health and welfare of most of South Asia (if not all) for many generations after the attack. Additionally, we'd all be labeled monsters and have the UN impose draconian rules upon our developing economies and substantial international trade activities.
Conclusion:
I fully accept the notion that the nations of China, India and Pakistan *need* nuclear weapons to act as deterrents. I even support it, as if there was inequality between nations, major wars would occur. Such that, for peace, these nations must be well defended and strong.
I do think that nuclear war anywhere on this planet is the wrong thing. Furthermore, I strongly feel as though the particular weather systems at these latitudes and proximity to a large body of water pose a very difficult problem that we often overlook. (one potential reason why the US/Israel does not use nuclear weapons on certain nations in the middle east is because of the weather that will carry radiation to South Asia -- as the US/Israel currently has no problems with South Asia, and that would be an international crime.)
I think we can agree that nuclear war in South Asia must be avoided at all costs -- regardless of our own opinions about the nations in South Asia. [We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot, in order to get rid of a fly on our sandal.]
Thank you all, I know this was really long.
References / More Information:
References and links can be sent only after I've made 15+ posts!!
