Libya Superthread

Discussion in 'The Political/Current Events Coffee House' started by noelsoong, Feb 17, 2011.

Page 36 of 152

  1. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CheFlegel, Apr 17, 2011
    #701

  2. 0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,746
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Canada
    If they did i think Libya would have fallen by now because of all the massive bombings and the massive number of troops invading at the time. Also if he decided to nuke the rebels he would also kill his own supporters.
    0bserver92, Apr 17, 2011
    #702

  3. Lenin Cat Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,591
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    New York
    Lenin Cat, Apr 17, 2011
    #703

  4. Kalalification Guest

    Member Since:
    Message Count:
    0
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Eh, I don't think anyone has the right to WMDs. The whole purpose of a WMD is to cause massive destruction, both of property and human life. That's not a good thing. Generally these weapons have longer-lasting or wider-range effects, like radiation. So using one is almost never a good idea, even for the aggressor. But more importantly, the use of WMDs doesn't just affect the belligerents, it affects the entire world.

    That said, there's very little modern backing to the old deterrent effect consensus, especially with weapons that are outdated and have limited deployment capabilities. Hell, even the most advanced ICBMs aren't seen as genuine peacekeepers by too many people anymore. Really the whole idea rests on a bipolar world, where any aggression can be immediately met with massive destruction on a large scale, not the unipolar one we live in.
    Kalalification, Apr 17, 2011
    #704

  5. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Apparently you are not familiar with a map. Because France is pretty damn close to Libya. Nukes are insurance policy's.
    CheFlegel, Apr 17, 2011
    #705

  6. JayJayGT Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    89
    Nukes should never be used in real combat situations, only, as Che says, for insurance policys (not literally insurance)
    JayJayGT, Apr 17, 2011
    #706

  7. 0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,746
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Canada
    I hope you know most developed nations have defenses against missiles being launched at them.
    0bserver92, Apr 17, 2011
    #707

  8. JayJayGT Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    89
    I hope you know most developed nations have defenses against missiles being launched at them.[/quote]

    Oh yeah the NMD
    JayJayGT, Apr 17, 2011
    #708

  9. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Did you also know that they do not have a 100% catch rating?
    CheFlegel, Apr 17, 2011
    #709

  10. Lenin Cat Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Message Count:
    2,591
    Likes Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Location:
    New York
    They are getting pretty damn close to it.
    Lenin Cat, Apr 17, 2011
    #710

  11. 0bserver92 Grand King of Moderation

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,746
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    143
    Location:
    Canada
    Neither is the chance of Gaddafi launching a successful missile attack and also nuking France would bring negative consequences to Libya mainly retaliation form the powers and natural side effects from radiation.
    0bserver92, Apr 17, 2011
    #711

  12. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    THATS WHY IT IS AN INSURANCE POLICY!!!!

    Oh my god!!! You are so infuriating! They would not nuke for the sake of nuking, they would nuke under the threat of annihilation. Seriously you are like talking to a child, which you are anyways.
    CheFlegel, Apr 17, 2011
    #712

  13. BurGroBro Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    Nuclear disarmament should be enacted. Its too dangerous having moar states with nukes. If there is a threat of a new nuclear state then the international community must remove that threat nomater where it is and existing nuclear armed nation MUST disarm.
    BurGroBro, Apr 17, 2011
    #713

  14. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    America has no right to tell ANYONE they are not allowed to have nukes unless they themselves disarm ALL of theirs. Until then you keep on trucking Iran.
    CheFlegel, Apr 17, 2011
    #714

  15. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    Looks like were stocking up...

    [IMG]

    Also Obama has advocated repeatedly for a nuclear free world, and while I doubt that will ever happen, we're certainly moving in that direction.
    pedro3131, Apr 17, 2011
    #715

  16. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Okay well when America has zero then theres an actual reason for the DPRK to disarm. Until then I hope the DPRK only increases their WMD stockpile.
    CheFlegel, Apr 17, 2011
    #716

  17. BurGroBro Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,319
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    98
    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    What about Russia? I'm sure they have at least 5000 nukes.
    BurGroBro, Apr 17, 2011
    #717

  18. JayJayGT Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Message Count:
    1,569
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    89
    I hope this answers your question
    JayJayGT, Apr 17, 2011
    #718

  19. pedro3131 Running the Show While the Big Guy's Gone

    Member Since:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,949
    Likes Received:
    633
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Location:
    Tempe, Az
    That's a fair philosophical argument, but the IR argument is that there are certain belligerent nations that are more predisposed to use nuclear weapons in a non deterrent fashion. Also such nations are more likely to sell off their weapons to non state actors who may have similar agendas. The net of this is you have a significantly greater chance of a nuclear conflict because instead of the brinkmanship of the cold war, you have a "well I guess we better use these things" attitude. Now obviously you don't see DPRK (look I used the actual acronym this time) as a belligerent nation, but most of the world does, and most of the world believes they aren't obtaining weapons to use as a deterrent.

    Now personally I don't think that the DPRK is just going to go launching of Nuclear weapons the second they have the ability to do so. However, I do see them thinking they're in a corner and firing them off as a last ditch methods of defense, even though they're not in the extreme dire straits necessary to justify their use. Also in using them they would be completely wiped out by retaliation, it doesn't even mean the would be nuked into oblivion, but the entire world wouldn't rest until the regime was removed from power, and they likely would be given the same historical treatment as the Nazis.

    So in the end, why even have them? Both sides seem pretty content with the status quo. War games on the part of the South don't really count as a "let's break out our nuclear arsenal to stop their army from training" type offense. I think DPRK would be best served to abandon her nuclear ambitions and use that as a bargaining chip to show her willingness to compromise
    pedro3131, Apr 17, 2011
    #719

  20. CheFlegel New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Message Count:
    3,439
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Remember when Gaddafi called for independent investigations to be held in Libya? Well, it appears that said investigations have concluded with such:
    http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Wo...addafi_Forces_Using_Violence_In_Western_Libya

    It's funny how all this time Gaddafi was constantly telling the UN to send an independent investigation to prove his innocence. But hey, Imperialism needs no truth, shoot first investigate later.
    CheFlegel, Apr 19, 2011
    #720
Page 36 of 152

Share This Page

Facebook: