Are we beginning to see the secondaries? Libya to abandom WMD

Blair Maynard wrote:
"Nick Pedley" wrote in message
...
"tadaa" wrote in message ...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK,
Russia, China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's
moral example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

Didn't Sweden do that too?


This website might answer some questions. Certainly they could have
built one and had plans to be able to do so quickly if needed. It seems
they never actually built a bomb.

Are you forgetting the Volvo 244?

Hey, watch it. the 244's a great car. Takes a lickin' and keeps on
tickin'. Mine has 234,000 miles on it and is still going strong.

-Marc
--
Marc Reeve
actual email address after removal of 4s & spaces is
c4m4r4a4m4a4n a4t c4r4u4z4i4o d4o4t c4o4m

"David Nicholls" wrote in message ...
It will be nice to see all countries with declared WMD (i.e. US, UK, Russia,
China, France, Israel, India, Pakistan) following Libya's moral example!!!

David
(from South Africa, the only country to independantly dismatle its
operational nuclear weapons program)

I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.





"John Keeney" wrote in message
...
It is now on record that Libya earlier this year admitted to having WMD
programs, invited in inspectors and will dismantle the programs:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3335965.stm

Is this the beginning of the useful changes in the middle east that
some suggested would follow the "more active" approach taken
in dealing with terrorist states?

(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are US soldiers
dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration," surely
it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost so many of its
soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob

"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.


"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
(Bill Negraeff) wrote in message
om...
I think the US will wait until everybody else disarms and destroys
their WMDs. Remember, unlike all those other countries, the US has
these things for purely defensive purposes.

That's pretty much the heart of the matter, isn't it? Do we, or do we
not, believe that the US would only use its nukes in self defence,
that is, either as a deterrant or retalliation to a similar attack?
The current administration seems to have little qualms about using
them to bully other parties into compliance or, given the research
into nuclear 'bunker busters', to actually use them as whim or
convenience dictate.

Rob




Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in message ...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their WMD
programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and our triad of
effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear inventory was NOT used
to "bully" anyone into compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty.
(we certainly have not nuked anyone since Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless. As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force have
some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob

(Rob van Riel) wrote in
om:

Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why
are US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have
been used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current
administration," surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first
place and not lost so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.

If a nuclear power is believed to be unwilling to use their nukes,then they
aren't much of a deterrent or any intimidation.If that "global oucast"
threat you believe in is so effective,than that would negate any power of
possessing nukes.

Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.

Well,we nuked Japan,but did NOT "nuke them out of existence",and at that
time,it would NOT have "turned the US into a global outcast". Even today,I
suspect nations would stil trade with the US,those boycotts don't seem to
work very well or for very long.


Seems to me that since so many countries have proceeded with their
WMD programs DESPITE the long US possession of nuclear weapons and
our triad of effective worldwide delivery systems,that US nuclear
inventory was NOT used to "bully" anyone into compliance with the
Non-Proliferation treaty. (we certainly have not nuked anyone since
Japan in WW2)

And for just how many of those long years has the current
administration been in power? Even compared to the very limited period
of time we're talking about here, not very long. 3 years out of 60, if
memory serves. Also note that for most of those 60 years, there was a
factor counterbalancing US power and pressure. Also note that threat
of power does not require use of power, so the absense of nukes used
in anger is meaningless.

Counterbalancing;so that would have prevented us from nuking Libya instead
of sending in FB-111's? (different administration,too)
Like the USSR would have gone to war over Libya.Right,sure.


As for noone having been nuked since WWII,
that too is not strictly correct, as testing of these systems has left
large areas uninhabitable, and killed considerable numbers of people,
not to mention other living beings.

Testing has killed "considerable numbers" of people? Certainly not by
direct weapons effects.Please explain this,it ought to be humorous.


Only since our recent willingness to use CONVENTIONAL military force
have some nations begun complying with the treaty they signed.

Which has nothing to do with what I said earlier. The US have never
been shy about throwing their conventional weight around before, only
the agenda has changed.

The reality is the exact opposite of what Mr.Van Riel has claimed.

Maybe, but that is far from established. Certainly it has not been
contradicted so far.

Rob



--
Jim Yanik
jyanik-at-kua.net

"Rob van Riel" wrote in message
om...
Jim Yanik wrote in message
...
"Blair Maynard" wrote in
:

If "[t]he current administration seems to have little qualms about
using them [nukes] to bully other parties into compliance...," why are
US soldiers dieing in Iraq and Afghanistan while no nukes have been
used?

If you are correct in your judgment on the "current administration,"
surely it would have just nuked Iraq in the first place and not lost
so many of its soldier's lives.

Show us, with logic, that you aren't just full of ****.

Intimidation does not require mushroom clouds all over the place.
Even though I hold the current US administration in very low regard,
even they are not stupid enough to nuke a country out of existence
without extreme provocation. Doing so would turn the US into a global
outcast, which would be very bad for business.


So you are saying that the current administration is being very bad because
it is "intimidating" other nations with nukes everybody knows it can't use?

Kinda difficult to believe.

In any case, how do you know it is not the threat of conventional force
which is "intimidating" other nations?