RETAC21 Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 13 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Japan is actually a good example of a society aware a weapon class exists, but successfully banning it so a particular social order survived. We also have been fairly successful in not procuring chemical weapons, even though the knowleg3 of them have existed for over 100 years. Personally, I don't think we tried very hard. Only because nuclear weapons are even more effective that chemical ones. Would you be happy to live in a World in which Iran has nuclear weapons but no one else does? How can you convince India that having no nuclear weapons is good if China and Pakistan have the capacity to build them? Israel should trust the goodwill of the US? See here:
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 1 minute ago, RETAC21 said: Only because nuclear weapons are even more effective that chemical ones. Would you be happy to live in a World in which Iran has nuclear weapons but no one else does? How can you convince India that having no nuclear weapons is good if China and Pakistan have the capacity to build them? Israel should trust the goodwill of the US? See here: If you become aware some is developing nuclear weapons, you have a solid case for bombing them till they stop. The reason why we had a weak case against Iran or North Korea, because we have them too. No, I don't think it likely we are going to get there anytime soon, not till there is nuclear use, probably a hydrogen bomb. Like I say, the opportunity was fumbled.
urbanoid Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 There was no opportunity in the first place, ever.
Mighty_Zuk Posted November 9, 2024 Author Posted November 9, 2024 4 hours ago, glenn239 said: Provided MZ and Israel were OK with Ukrainian officers selling Iraq and Iran, etc, nuclear weapons for huge profits, then yes, Ukraine should have kept its nuclear arsenal after 1991. Ukraine's history of defense trade with Iran is exactly why I was and still am reluctant about Israeli military aid to Ukraine.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 1 hour ago, urbanoid said: There was no opportunity in the first place, ever. As far as opportunity, there certainly was. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjavík_Summit And why was Reagan so dead set on Keeping SDI? Because Edward Tellar and Lawrence Livermore outright lied to him how close SDI was to fielding. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 1 hour ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Ukraine's history of defense trade with Iran is exactly why I was and still am reluctant about Israeli military aid to Ukraine. You gave military aid to post revolution Iran too you know...
urbanoid Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 2 minutes ago, Stuart Galbraith said: As far as opportunity, there certainly was. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reykjavík_Summit And why was Reagan so dead set on Keeping SDI? Because Edward Tellar and Lawrence Livermore outright lied to him how close SDI was to fielding. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur Ok, opportunity that actually could come to realisation. It's out, it's never going back to the closet. Maybe it's actually a good thing.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 9, 2024 Posted November 9, 2024 3 minutes ago, urbanoid said: Ok, opportunity that actually could come to realisation. It's out, it's never going back to the closet. Maybe it's actually a good thing. Yep, it's not coming back till we use one. Maybe even quite a lot of them.
Ol Paint Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 6 hours ago, RETAC21 said: Stop trying to move the goalpost, you specified that NATO members do not meet their obligations, and now quote 9/11 in which NATO members went out of their way to meet their obligations and supported the US in a war outside of NATO treaty limits, so much for not meeting obligations... An you keep on harping about the 2%, which is not an obligation at all, but an agreement. What I want is the list of countries that the US is defending while they are not spending on their defense, and to help you out, I will point out those for which the US doesn't provide forces to defend: Belgium, Canada, Croatia, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovenia, and Spain. Yet, these freeboters still provide forces to defend other NATO countries. So this crap you keep on repeating about the US defending other is just BS, because, by your metric, US forces are deployed in countries that meet the 2% and therefore would be complying with the treaty requirements that afford them this protection. Learn to read and comprehend. I'm done with your idiocy. Doug
Mighty_Zuk Posted November 10, 2024 Author Posted November 10, 2024 8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: You gave military aid to post revolution Iran too you know... Big difference between testing the waters to see if a post-revolution Iran could be practically non-hostile, vs aiding it after decades of hostilities.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 3 hours ago, Mighty_Zuk said: Big difference between testing the waters to see if a post-revolution Iran could be practically non-hostile, vs aiding it after decades of hostilities. That wasnt it. You were helping them fight against Iraq by supplying superanuated Sidewinders and Sparrows.
seahawk Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 11 hours ago, urbanoid said: Ok, opportunity that actually could come to realisation. It's out, it's never going back to the closet. Maybe it's actually a good thing. It would change nothing, as by 1986 both sides had biological and chemical WMDs at their disposal. And China and India were unlikely to agree.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 China was an ally of the US, and had numerical inferiority in nuclear weapons to the USSR. I think they probably would agree. As for india, it already has a huge manpower reserve, and surrounded by people with nuclear weapons, and in a trade relationship with the USSR. There are suddenly very few reasons to hold out. The hard ones would be the French. Today, of course, everything is different. But it may occur again, probably after nuclear release and people suddenly wake up to how destructive and frankly useless the bloody things are. If anything they have got in the way of deterring Russia, not enhancing it. And its at that point to think about about their utility.
seahawk Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 India had the technology since the 1970's but did not built weapons until the Pakistani program got closer to success. Pakistan started in the 1970's. So by 1986 India would not be inclined to drop their program, unless Pakistan would. Which is unlikely as Pakistan knows that India has the technology and could build weapons quickly.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 In the end, Pakistan would have the US pressuring them over conventional weapons supply, and will with the USSR within reach via Afghanistan. I hardly think they would have been in a place to have disagreed. Like I say, it was a historic opportunity, and both sides blew it. The Americans for thinking SDI was going to work, the Soviets for thinking firstly they would still be around for it to matter, and for believing the American propaganda. Russia today would not be invading Ukraine, because the relative military strength of NATO would be stronger. We wouldnt be procuring nuclear weapons, and Russia wouldnt have the ability to threaten them. Basically, the world would now be more secure without nuclear weapons, if we had taken the risk. But we didnt. And we will go on taking the risk of retaining them till someone uses them. We can only hope it will be small scale, but if so, it will be sufficient to make the point.
RETAC21 Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 9 hours ago, Ol Paint said: Learn to read and comprehend. I'm done with your idiocy. Doug A hissy fit? quelle surprise
Mighty_Zuk Posted November 10, 2024 Author Posted November 10, 2024 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: That wasnt it. You were helping them fight against Iraq by supplying superanuated Sidewinders and Sparrows. Despite religious fruitcakes taking power, it wasn't yet clear to Israel in 1979 that the Ayatollahs would be hostile to Israel, let alone to that extent seen today.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 No, this was later, in the mid 80's, when it was perfectly clear ot everyone the Ayatollah loathed Israels guts. Im not judging I might add. Im just saying, one shouldnt judge Ukraine for doing exactly what Israel did, is all. After all, israel supplied Dagger fighters to Argentina, that used them on the British fleet. Did we hold that against you? Of course not.
TrustMe Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 It was in the interest of Western powers to keep Iran and Iraq fighting each other for as long as possible. Israeli provided HAWK spare parts and missiles, also F4 spare parts for Iran's US built aircraft fleet.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 Absolutely. I just find it somewhat unfair to criticise Ukraine for arming Iran, when looking at a list, everyone has done it in their time. Yes, including the USA.
Mighty_Zuk Posted November 10, 2024 Author Posted November 10, 2024 1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said: No, this was later, in the mid 80's, when it was perfectly clear ot everyone the Ayatollah loathed Israels guts. Im not judging I might add. Im just saying, one shouldnt judge Ukraine for doing exactly what Israel did, is all. After all, israel supplied Dagger fighters to Argentina, that used them on the British fleet. Did we hold that against you? Of course not. In exchange for immigration of Persian Jews out of Iran, and assistance vs Iraq's nuclear program. That's exactly the transactionalism Israel can work with, when tyrannical regimes do the political equivalent of "unretard for a sec".
Mighty_Zuk Posted November 10, 2024 Author Posted November 10, 2024 1 minute ago, Stuart Galbraith said: Absolutely. I just find it somewhat unfair to criticise Ukraine for arming Iran, when looking at a list, everyone has done it in their time. Yes, including the USA. It was Glenn criticizing Ukraine for it, so why did you reply directly to me instead?
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 I dont dispute it, I just dispute the one sidedness that you wont work with Ukraine because reasons, but so has everyone else. If you restrict yourself because of that rule, you will be working with nobody.
Stuart Galbraith Posted November 10, 2024 Posted November 10, 2024 1 minute ago, Mighty_Zuk said: It was Glenn criticizing Ukraine for it, so why did you reply directly to me instead? Im easily confused?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now