What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
Who knows you better than your phone? view!
youtube.com - See you from the perspective of your phone.
50 Comments
- poidh, on 07/11/2009, -5/+16It's not going to persuade either state to give up their nukes.
Our leaders are so naive. - anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -7/+14Yes. Because if there is anything that Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain has taught the world and the British people, it's that complacency and appeasement will work to the fullest extend in making sure there is peace. By signing the Munich Agreement, there was nothing but prosperity afterwords for all! I mean, thanks to his position on Germany, the years of 1939-1945 were the least turbulant of the 20th century! Those nice Nazis just played some futbol with the Polish, and punch was served!
Oh, wait....let's remember the words of Leo Amery to Chamberlain, after the failure of the British to protect Norway from the Evil that was Nazi Germany:
"You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go"
This is just history repeating itsself. Appeasment will do nothing to satisfy Kimmy's megalomanicidal ambitions. - warriorscot, on 07/11/2009, -0/+6This is just Brown trying to see if he can get some positive spin on putting the UK nuclear deterrent into mothballs. They can't afford to replace the missile system and buy all the new hardware they want for the Navy so that is what they are going to have to do. To be honest its pretty sensible from a military point of view. The nukes aren't actually all that useful as weapons or deterrents you don't even really need them to do a lot of damage we have plenty of other weapons that can get the job done for much less money.
- NorthMass, on 07/11/2009, -5/+11I am a pacifist but getting rid of nukes is a dumb idea. It leaves you vulnerable to an attack. There is no reason you can't be anti-war but also support building a large nuclear program and missile defense system at the same time.
- anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -0/+6The reason so many nations are against missile defense systems is it violates the principal of Mutually Assured Destruction, which has in theory kept us from going over the point.
If a nation can stop nukes before they hit their soil, there is no reason why they would be deterred from launching first. - illt, on 07/11/2009, -0/+5well reducing stockpile in general as a means of showing peace is pretty naive unless they're fully removed.
i believe it was carl sagan who made the analogy of nations sitting in a pool of gasoline, bragging about how many matches they have. - askantik, on 07/11/2009, -1/+5Vulnerable to attack? It doesn't matter if you have 95% of the nukes in the world. The other 5% can still wipe your country (maybe not the entire US, but most smaller countries and certainly NY and CA at least) off the face of the earth. At that time, "revenge" or sending out our own nukes will really not be that gratifying.
- purplesawdust, on 07/11/2009, -3/+7Never appease a tyrant
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -0/+4Because they're kooks that want to turn the whole world into a caliphate. Unless you like praying 5 times a day at the point of a gun I say keep the nukes.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -1/+5The only way these states will ever become peaceful is through trade. Through economic interconnectedness we become reliant on one another and therefore more peaceful with one and other. Harsh sanctions over time do nothing but bolster the tyrant in power. I have absoloutley no fear of the US ever going to war with China, simply because both parties are tied at the hip. Obviously a person like Kim Jong has dug his own grave, but at the core of it the problem is that their country has no economic links to the rest of the world (which squarely is the fault of Kim).
- LokitheComplex, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2And those same souls were then enslaved under the Soviet dictatorship. So the mission failed in that respect.
From here the war looks inevitable but that was not the view at the time. And the UK was not in a position to fight another war. It needed to buy time to prepare.
NK may have the bomb but really isn't going anywhere with it is it? It was more of a show to its own oppressed people. - anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2The problem was, Chamberlain basically sold away the souls of much of Eastern Europe to the Nazis to attempt to avoid a war that they never would have been able to avoid. Hitler wasn't going to stop until he conquored the world. It's a known fact that had Germany won the European theater, he would have taken Italy from Mousolini, and then would have moved on to Asia and Japan.
Kimmy isn't a Hitler, but he is smart and spoiled enough to know that a nuke is a major bargining chip in that region. It's even making the Chinese to the North a little nervous, enough so to threaten to pull military support and alliance from North Korea if they make a move. - Frostek, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2Of course, someone who goes by the name of "Loki" should be considered trustworthy! ;-)
- Jack8274, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2What the ***** does that even mean? I put a gnome in a rocket once but thats the closest that game gets to this.
- anonymousmedic, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2No, but once he starts getting a little taste of what he wants, and history has proven Kim Jong-Il to do this, he will push a little farther. And a little farther. Next, if you don't give his country x amount of aid, he'll launch that nuke at Seoul, or Tokyo. Or he'll sell it to the highest biddder.
- Railz, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2It costs more to build deterring units then a small yield nuke. The deterrence are for rogue nations nuke attacks who don't fear MAD
- LokitheComplex, on 07/11/2009, -0/+2You're on to something even if the UK disarmed it nukes no one would believe us. Anyone paranoid enough to nuke us would never trust us to disarm.
- Mankind121, on 07/11/2009, -2/+3Heckuva job there Brownie
- itlnstln, on 07/11/2009, -3/+4I saw nuclear Stockpile and read the name as Gordon Freeman
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -5/+6You overzealous, overly-religious, beef-loving, downhome-cooking loving, ranch time-spending, Southern-accented, pickup-owning Texan *****.
Ref: http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/311009 - LokitheComplex, on 07/11/2009, -1/+2Sometimes you should appease a tyrant. The ends justifies the means.
- Yage2006, on 07/11/2009, -5/+6Asshat
- fracaso089, on 07/11/2009, -1/+2unfortunately the only way that nations can really trust each other is through mutually assured destruction, and so as dangerous as they are, i don't think i could ever really advocate getting rid of our nuclear arsenal, even just some of it
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1Good point and of course sad point as well. If Iran had operable nukes they would be about as interesting as India and Pakistan used to be (before the wars on terror anyway).
- KyotoWolf, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1Do you have a source for this 'known fact' that Hitler planned to attack Italy and Japan in a plan of world domination?
- 3rdDay, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1We have no WMD. Swear.
- fandyboy, on 07/20/2009, -0/+1We need to get rid of Brown, like right ***** now, the guy is losing the plot.
- MidnightWatcher, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1By the time the UK "needs any nukes" there would be no more UK.
- ViscidGobs, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Isn't this contradictory? Over the past 10 years, the world has been brow-beaten regarding the supposed terrorist threat. What about the terrorists? Or has that taken a backseat to financial crisis. Notching the "state-of-fear" up and down. Would anyone want to be around after a nuclear confrontation? If there is going to be a nuclear confrontation, I, frankly, would like to sign up to have a nuke dropped on my house. That way there is no debate as to what the outcome of a nuclear confrontation will result in and therefore I have no need to worry. Bollocks!
- SirCharge, on 07/11/2009, -0/+1Now we only have enough warheads to destroy every major city in your country five times. See? You don't even need nukes anymore.
- kobold2, on 07/13/2009, -0/+0I think it's primarily the israeli nukes that need to be reduced or preferably liquidated for iran to feel good. israeli influence in the us must be alarming for the iranians as well, so maybe the us should reduce its nukes too. since the russians primarily see the us as threat, maybe they would reduce their arsenal in this case too.
- LokitheComplex, on 07/11/2009, -1/+1From a practical view I don't see the point in the UK having nukes these days.
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -1/+1Peace for our time!
- LokitheComplex, on 07/11/2009, -2/+2Chamberlain gets a bad rap.
Doing everything possible to avoid the worst war in history that killed 70 million people seems fair to me. - ImperialSoren, on 07/11/2009, -2/+2yeah well didn't Britain already get rid of their nukes?... wink wink...
- MidnightWatcher, on 07/11/2009, -3/+2I am just curious, do you really not know the answer to your question?
- BotchaMcCoola, on 07/11/2009, -4/+3I cetainly hope they can persuade Israel to reduce their arsenal. So many in such a small space is dangerous and probably tempting to the smarter 911 type terrorists.
- ohreilly, on 07/11/2009, -1/+0If we're getting rid of them, will Gordon ensure that they are sold on the open market during a low point in the nuclear arms market?
He did this very nicely for gold, selling our reserves at a low and telling everyone well in advance. - inactive, on 07/11/2009, -5/+4I am just curious, why should Iran give up nuclear power and U.S, G.Britain and Israel should not?
- Presbyterian, on 07/11/2009, -2/+1Israel started the six day war.
- MidnightWatcher, on 07/11/2009, -3/+2Are you out of your mind? If Israel's enemies would lay down their arms, there would be no more wars with Israel. If Israel were to lay down their arms, there would be no more Israel.
- warriorscot, on 07/11/2009, -2/+1Hardly. As weapons nukes are practically useless if you ever actually use them they will do you almost as much harm at the end of the day as they did the enemy. And if it avoids a war and the use of nuclear weapons by an unstable country then that is a good thing.
- pathouston22, on 07/11/2009, -4/+2From the first answer...
"Usually very religious(normally catholic)"
People here are Baptist. Southern Baptist = nightmare - alamedaman, on 07/11/2009, -6/+4*****
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -3/+1youre right because america would have already blown up the threat
- inactive, on 07/11/2009, -4/+2it doesnt matter, if the UK needs any nukes in the future they have plenty of friends who would have no problem lending a couple...
- 1mean1, on 07/11/2009, -2/+0Putting spin on a the nuclear issue is rather tactless, and immature.
- lonza64, on 07/11/2009, -4/+0if your intrested in this article i think you might be in intrested in an article i ran across a few minutes ago just search north korea: the war game in your digg search bar i think that it will be a topic most of you find intresting
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is