Can we really get angry that North Korea & Iran want nukes? Who are we (the UN, UK, USA, the west etc) to say that they can't have them? Should we just allow them to develop the weapons? Would being more lenient actually bring them to the bargaining table?

One of the problems I see though is that countries like North Korea are not necesarily nations seeking peace. The problems with dictatorships is that the decision is in one persons hand so to speak, so if that one person is a homicidal maniac then a very frightening thought to think that person has Nuclear capabilities.

tis a subject i think could really lead to problems in the world......

on the one hand, we as the developed world (not just the west but include russia in this too) surely have a responsability to try to use our knowledge to further the cause of world peace.

USA is the last re-maining super power so i guess they can impose thier will around the world as they see fit.......but oh hang on a minute........didn't another super power in 1936 think it could impose its views on the world unopposed, and we all know what that lead to.

I see no reason why we feel we have the right to dictate to any other country what they do with their technology, while we maintain the same level of weaponry we are trying to supress.

Iran, N.Korea, Pakistan etc should i feel be allowed to develop these weapons while ever we have no intention of getting rid of ours.

my main concern however is have these countries developed enough to be able to handle the responsibility that comes with this technology?

No they are weirdos who need to be nuked I say. Sorry, on the wrong thread again

Leeds 2 Palace 1.....I think

wi don't mean to be smart here but who exactly is responsible enough?? Defintiely a country that is going to cut back on their health speding so they can spend more on 2 wars outside of their own borders that they started in the first place.

couldn't agree more mate......but nobody is at this stage gonna make us get rid of ours.

and that'd be why i would say that people who have them do not hold the right to determine who should and shouldn't be able to develop the technology to produce weapons of their own which they might feel they need to protect themselves in the advent of a crisis.

and as i stated above, i agree with this point of view to a degree, but countries like these tend to be governed (as stated by cuppy) by a one man band.......can we really allow a single man in any country of the world have the power to launch nuclear missiles on A.N.Other country?

Fair enough I do see your point, i just happen to disagree with it.

They might well say the same thing about the US and UK. They don't feel we want peace and don't think we have the World best interest at heart. Why is it any different than us having nukes? Its not like many people think Bush cares about the World.

Yeah the difference is we are democracys....bush or blair do not have the power alone to make a decision to use such force.

True, but people in Iran are probably sitting there thinking the whole UK government don't care. Blair at the height of his power could do pretty much what he wanted.

I don't actually disagree with you. I think countries should be democratic and places like Iran and N Korea should have nukes. I just think its a tough call, why should we get to dictate to the rest of the World.

oh I know what you are saying millie, why should we dictate what countries are allowed this or that. Its just my concern is I know that Tony Blair would get absolutely zero backing to use a nuclea weapon, and generally don't even believe he would want too. I just can't say the same for Iran and even more so N Korea. Its a tough one really.

he doesn't need the bakcing of the people though you have already backed him to use his discretion on war matters and look where that has got ye.

The Prime Minister CANNOT make such a decision on his own. Its HAS to be passed through, my point is, in a dictatorship one person can make the decision. Ping Pong in North Korea needs to seek authority from no one. Blair does! He needs the backing of the officials the people put in power

Did you just call Kim Jong il - Ping Pong?

Jade would have been proud.

i kinda let that one slide for a bit well noticed millie.

I did indeed, and you can call me racist if you like, but you'd be wrong!

I generally agre with most that no one country should be able to dictate to others weather they should have nukes or not. But what I would say is that, if a country feels they do not want to assistst a particular country in development of Nukes then that is fine and they can also ensure they do not sell any critical components.

But at the same time if the said country does thier own research on the matter then no one can deny them at all. Otherwise they will be dictated on what you can research on what you cannot.

We have one of those already with Nukes, I think his name is George. I find it fascinating that the only country in history to have used nukes against another nation is basically dictating to the rest of the world who can, and who can't have them. Bit like the French telling people not to pollute the Indian Ocean.......

Against a nation that was hostile though! Not saying I agree with the decision to use a nuclea bomb at all, but Japan were the hostile country here. Had Germany continued their invasion and overpowered Great Britain, you'd defend yourself to the end. You have no choice.

Doesn't change the facts. Still the only country in history to have used a nuke against another country. Claimed not to know the effects of it either, so effectively used the Japanese as guinea pigs as well. Einstein told the US about his theory to get them working on the A-bomb, as he mistakenly believed the Germans were on the verge of discovering it themselves. I have no sympathy for the Japanese Govt in this either, but I do for the 250,000 killed imediately, the people who drank radioactive rain in the aftermath, as well as the generations mutilated afterwards

Agreed. And I would have had sympathy for the god knows how many thousands would have been killed had Japan been allowed to continue..

I don't think anyone should have nuclear weapons but seeing as they do I find it hard to justify telling a country they aren't allowed. I know North Korea is a time bomb but maybe it's because they fear the US that they feel they need to have one. I mean the US have been known to attack other countries for their own reasons.

Have always found that a very weak argument. It was WW2 when they used the nukes. Was it right? Well it ended the war. There certainly would have been a lot of deaths if the US invaded. I can't see why it is better to carpet bomb a city like Dresden or Hamburg. It would be hard to put ourselves in the mindset at the time too. It had been a War on a scale never seen before, the Japanese thought their Emperor was part god, thy would have done anything for him. Lets not forget what they had been doing to the Chinese as well.

You see, thats where your argument is weak. You cant see the difference between Carpet bombing with conventional weapons versus nuking two cities? They would have had the alternative of using land bases to bomb Japanese cities safely from the air, but they were just itching to find out how good the A-bomb was.

Sorry, I fail to see how the bombings of Dresden & Hamburg were 'better' than dropping nukes. If anything, the World saw what a nuke could do. Do you think the Cold War would have stayed so cold if both sides didn't know what could happen? The carpet-bombing destroyed two cities, killed around 100,000 people (many refugees) at the same time creating firestorms that got up to 1500 degrees.

Well I'll raise you an immediate 100,000 plus long term which they find hard to estimate due to the cancers, deformities etc. Also raise you the radioactivity of the soil in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the temperature gussed at around 6000-7000 degrees. They knew enough about the power of the bomb to explode it off the ground, as they had learned from instances such as Port Chicago disaster, which ensure even greater devastation. BTW, the world could all very soon see what nukes could do.....didn't stop them all repeatedly setting them off, did it?

yes, because it was so easy to survive in 1500 degrees. I still can't see why you seem to think the caroet bombings were more humane? They were both going for the same purpose. To kill a lot of people and crack the opposition into submission. I also can't see why it would have been better to use a land attack and have as many if not more people killed (at the same time having your own soldiers killed).

Problem here is people mention countries as though they are still run by the same leaders. You cannot hold the US today responsible for the US of WWII, so its really a poor argument to bring that into it now. Same as its not right to look at Germany today and imply its the same as Germany under Hitler.

When people debate things like this the biggest reason for never actually moving forward on an arugment is cos too many people are forever looking backwards and using same old arguments.

in that case the two countries that we should all be most scared of are Britain and the Us as they are the only 2 at the moment who have shopwed that they are willing to use deadly force in regions of the world which are of no concern the them and theirs.

Which is the biggest problem with people to do.....showing no concern. Half the problem in a lot of the troubled countries is that people turn a blind eye, not our problem why should we get involved. Sorry Mugsey but its that no concern of ours attitude that people today have that is the saddest thing of all. Just because people are in a different country to ours does not mean its okay to let them suffer under brutal regimes, not in my eyes.

Right Millie, I'll give it a go one more time : LONG TERM consequences. I never said go with a land based attack, BTW, The Allies said it was their only option.

There was no way in telling what the long-term consequences would have been though. As Cuppy said, you are holding a government from 60 years ago accountable for something they did in wartime.

I'm sorry Cuppy, but don't get started on 60 years ago and today. 50/60 years on, they are using Spent Uranium which causes as many problems to their own as it does to the enemy. Using the modern equivalent of Napalm (MK77) which is strictly forbidden by the Geneva Convention. Using White Phosphorous (Again banned) which they deny. Look at the Italian documentary Fallujah - The Hidden Massacre which the US military don't want anyone to see.

You start with one horrific weapon anjd get away with it, and keep getting away with it until there is no-one left to stop you.

And who thanks anyone for invading, sorry "liberating" their country? Sudan, Turkey, old Yugoslavia Iraq, Vietnam, Korea?
Most of these places have centuries old scores to settle i.e. The Balkans and they wait their chance for revenge. That area is still bubbling under with Serbia thinking they did nothing wrong. If there is involvement it should be done only by the UN, not by countries with vested interests.
Conspiracy Theory maybe, but the 3 countries who started trading or threatened to trade their oil in Euros? Believe it or not, The axis of terror: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
By the way when the US went in and took over the oil ministry they changed it back to the dollar at an immediate loss of 17% to the Iraqi economy. Glad to see they were so concerned for the local population.

My only problem with the UN is that they don't act strong enough. They were sending angry letters to Saddam and that was about it. He didn't care about the sanctions, he was living it up still.

I can get started on it Fitz, its a debate, I am only expressing my opinion. You say who thanks anyone for invading their country, maybe no one, but do you think you were doing the millions of people who have died over the years through brutal regimes and us turning a blind eye? Bet you they aren't thanking us for keeping away!

missed out the "me" in don't get me started. Apologies, wish I could edit.

Its exactly the policy of getting "involved" in other countries' disputes which is fuelling anger and resentment towards US, UK, France and Russia. Its not enough to say "That was years ago", invaded countries have very long memories. The victors in conquests all seem to have the same view, "yes it happened, get over it". Subjugated countries do not "get over it" easily, hence the long drawn out bloody conflicts in the Balkans, Ireland, India, Sudan, North Africa, Middle East etc.

I'll gibe you a very small example which gives you some idea of resentment against invading powers....

There is an ongoing battle in Mayo (I think) with the locals refusing to pay rent..........to the estate of LORD LUCAN, whose family was given the lands over 200 years ago when Britain decided to populate the land North and South with settlers and absentee landlords to drive out or subjugate the local population. Now multiply that kind of resentment in all the countries that the UK, US, France and the other colonial powers went in to down through the years. But that was so long ago.....
When the US and UK invaded Iraq, the first and only Ministry was given protection was the oil ministry. Health etc are all left open to looters etc, but the oil records and documents were the first secured. Did you see the programme called Iraq's missing Billions? $17 Billion dollars, on pallets discovered in Saddam's palaces, taken "care of" by the US military. 14 months later less than $7Billion handed over to Iraq. Where did the rest go? Contractors, mates, splurges everywhere but to the people who needed it. With "liberators" like that who needs enemies?

The UN is supposed to be a democratically elected body. Why are there permanent members on it ???? Why do they have a Veto ??? when ever there is a serious issue which has a bearing on one of the permanent members the veto and the who thing is finished. So what good is UN in instances like that

Millions of deaths??? I think you will find that mroe peope have died in Iraq since it's 'liberation' than under the 'tyrant dictator' saddam. I have to agree with Fitz sometimes one does need to stay out of these things and le them sort themselves out, and if the US & Britain have the right to do such things how come they have never done anything about Russia bombing Checzyna??? M<ight it be something to do with the fact the Russians are heavily armed, or maybe it has more to do with the fact that Russia sits on the wolrds greatest untapped supplies of oil and gas.