DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**BritneySpearsFun@@@** · 12-05-2010, 05:03 AM

if the US is serious about non proliferation they would simply state "we won't use a nuclear weapon first", why does the US spend 600billion or whatever on defense , station large numbers of troops in the gulf region with airbases, all at taxpayer expense, and always purchase the most high-tech weaponry then? I can't think of any scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be necessary.
During the cold war there was some ambiguity because the Soviet Army was so strong that the pentagon expected them to roll over NATO forces in the initial stage of a conventional war, NATO had so little confidence that they could stop a Soviet invasion that they publicly stated that they would use tactical nuclear weapons to stem the tide until they could regroup, I honestly don't think they meant it but I think they felt it was necessary to deter the massive Soviet bear. But to direct this statement at N.Korea or Iran, two countries that the US is desperately trying to convince not to go in that direction-- and two countries that have conventional arms that can be defended against conventionally- makes no sense.. I can only conclude that the US is not serious about non-proliferation and instead the just use the wmd issue as an excuse to try to ruin those countries with sanctions..and that this threat is actually for the purpose of encouraging them to obtain nuclear weapons..

In 2008 the US spent over $50 billion on nukes. They're also the only country that has ever used them in aggression, yet it's Iran and North Korea we're supposed to be worried about?? I personally hold more concern over Israel and Pakistan's nukes.

Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
The United States spent over $52 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs in fiscal year 2008, but only 10 percent of that went toward preventing a nuclear attack through slowing and reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology.

12-05-2010, 05:03 AM	#18
BritneySpearsFun@@@ Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 435 Senior Member	if the US is serious about non proliferation they would simply state "we won't use a nuclear weapon first", why does the US spend 600billion or whatever on defense , station large numbers of troops in the gulf region with airbases, all at taxpayer expense, and always purchase the most high-tech weaponry then? I can't think of any scenario in which a nuclear first strike would be necessary. During the cold war there was some ambiguity because the Soviet Army was so strong that the pentagon expected them to roll over NATO forces in the initial stage of a conventional war, NATO had so little confidence that they could stop a Soviet invasion that they publicly stated that they would use tactical nuclear weapons to stem the tide until they could regroup, I honestly don't think they meant it but I think they felt it was necessary to deter the massive Soviet bear. But to direct this statement at N.Korea or Iran, two countries that the US is desperately trying to convince not to go in that direction-- and two countries that have conventional arms that can be defended against conventionally- makes no sense.. I can only conclude that the US is not serious about non-proliferation and instead the just use the wmd issue as an excuse to try to ruin those countries with sanctions..and that this threat is actually for the purpose of encouraging them to obtain nuclear weapons.. In 2008 the US spent over $50 billion on nukes. They're also the only country that has ever used them in aggression, yet it's Iran and North Korea we're supposed to be worried about?? I personally hold more concern over Israel and Pakistan's nukes. Nuclear Security Spending: Assessing Costs, Examining Priorities - Carnegie Endowment for International Peace The United States spent over $52 billion on nuclear weapons and related programs in fiscal year 2008, but only 10 percent of that went toward preventing a nuclear attack through slowing and reversing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and technology.
	Quote