NationStates Jolt Archive

Good morning Nation States!

I open this thread on behalf of a friend of mine who is a new NSer, but cannot open a new thread due to technical problems.
This is especially for the British NSers, but please feel free to post your opinion, also if you are from any other country on this wonderful planet.

I know, I know, we’ve had threads like this a billion times, so please refrain from mentioning that, thanks! ;)

His question is:

Should a country be allowed to fight another country by reason of weapons of mass destruction?

Espicially the UK and USA, started the Iraq war, by virtue of suspicion, that in Iraq should be mass destruction weapons...


What do you think about this?

Thanks, meights.


I’d really appreciate if you could make richly use of this poll … WHICH HE DOES NOT NEED FOR HOMEWORK, by the way :) (I told him that he won’t find a better place than Nation States)

Oh, and please feel free to add a short statement if you want (which may include a friendly welcome to our new user “Meights” who is frustrated that he’s not able to post, currently)

Many thanks, H.I.


Poll coming ...

It's a moral dilemma.
On the one hand, preemptive strikes are a good defense against an aggressor. Knocking out an enemies capability to do harm significantly reduces the amount of lives that can be potentially lost.
On the other hand, anyone can just go and claim that someone wanted to do them harm, as we've seen in the case of Iraq.

I would invade any nation that isn't a democracy.

It's a moral dilemma.
On the one hand, preemptive strikes are a good defense against an aggressor. Knocking out an enemies capability to do harm significantly reduces the amount of lives that can be potentially lost.
On the other hand, anyone can just go and claim that someone wanted to do them harm, as we've seen in the case of Iraq.

Morality aside, it's ok to do a preemptive strike if you can get away with it.

If you end up with your foot in a bear trap, or have another nation come kick your ass afterwards, it was a bad idea.

Yes, it's a moral dilemma.
The problem is, in my opinion, that war has nothing to do with truth.
I mean, what was the point. USA/UK said, there ARE WMD's and Saddam of course disagreed.
Granted that Iraq would have had WMD's and the Western World would have believed that ... well I don't want to imagine what all COULD have happened.

On the other hand ... would it make sense to strengthen domestic armed forces, settle back and wait until some moron brings the war into your country?

Hey im 100% of people, i think i have the MAjority

Well it depends upon the Situation of the WMD Nation For example if Iran develops nukes British and American submarines will proberly fire Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at the WMD factory and Iranian misslie sites.

A First Strike such as this I would support as Iran has the Ability to fire Missiles very far from its own boarders.

Well it depends upon the Situation of the WMD Nation For example if Iran develops nukes British and American submarines will proberly fire Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at the WMD factory and Iranian misslie sites.

A First Strike such as this I would support as Iran has the Ability to fire Missiles as far as the coast of Greece.

Well, what about the American WMD's? They also could annihilate at least half of the world. Or France. They have nuclear weapons as well.
If availability of those weapons is a reason for intervening, no one should complain if Iran will send their WMD's(if available) e.g. to France ("Well ... We felt threatened ...")

It really is hard stuff to discuss ...

I mean I agree with you wholeheartedly ... but this is our subjective (European) point of view ... if I'd be an Irani I'd kick your ass for such an blatant barbarian attitude :gundge:
But don't worry ... I'm not ;)

Surely pre-emptive would imply the other guy was going to do something but until something happens it hasn't happened and so that makes 'you' the aggressor.

Do i think they can be used? Yes.
Do i think they are ok? No.

Quit Pussy footing about and admit 'you' want to kick someones but don't say only did it because they were going to do it to me.
Bullshit it hadn't happened.

Especially when the Weapons didn't exist and even then if they did it doesn't mean 'you' were to suffer their wrath.
Then who are 'you' to judge when you have them yourself?

Not quite Bush-"Iraq has weapons of Mass destruction"
-Sicko Liberla Journalist-"But you have them too correct?
Not Quite Bush Lacky- "IRAQ has Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Well, what about the American WMD's? They also could annihilate at least half of the world. Or France. They have nuclear weapons as well.
If availability of those weapons is a reason for intervening, no one should complain if Iran will send their WMD's(if available) e.g. to France ("Well ... We felt threatened ...")

It really is hard stuff to discuss ...

I mean I agree with you wholeheartedly ... but this is our subjective (European) point of view ... if I'd be an Irani I'd kick your ass for such an blatant barbarian attitude :gundge:
But don't worry ... I'm not ;)

European Attitude well every nation east of Germany (Until you get to Russia) think that Talking is the solution of everything and would proberly want all Nuclear armed Nations to Disarm but if we did that what is to stop countries like North Korea from Developing WMD and killing the Majority of People in the ROK and then Invading. Most people in Europe don't seem to understand that Nuclear weapons were developed as a deterant and still are used the same way today.

Sure. It acts as a deterrant firstly.
But shouldn't have every nation the right to have deterrend potential?
We seem to know that we, the western culture, act responsible, and they, the non-western-compatible nations would use their weapons conscienceless.
Evidence to be supplied ... or better not.

And after I'm a Westerner my very first concern is to cover my own/resp. my nation's and my culture's ass. Appeasement is no option for me! It only wastes time.

It's almost the same like the "Legalise drugs" stuff:
- If you are allowed to drink alcohol, I wanna smoke my pot - Legalise it.
- We have enough insalubrious products and don't need more ...

this would depend entirely on what they were honestly and actualy preempting! as a general ruel; NO! unless you're talking about labour actions on the part of unions, then all bets are off.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, what about the American WMD's? They also could annihilate at least half of the world. Or France.
This is what I read at first - didn't think France was that big anymore... :p

This is what I read at first - didn't think France was that big anymore... :p

:) Made my day, Gravlen!:p

A good example of distorting phrases due to lack of correct interpunctuation ...
*writes boatloads of question marks*

Pooey... there isn't an "other" choice, well, that just sucks.

"Pre-emptive" strikes because of WMD? No, I don't think that could ever be enough of a reason to go to war.

But "liberation" via "regime-change"? Well, I haven't given up on that. I don't think any single nation can do it, particularly not the US which simply has too many interests/relationships/history in too many places to ever be able to pull something like that off effectively and efficiently.

But I would like to hope that international cooperatives, be it the UN or NATO or something like that could do something to help people like those trapped inside North Korea or Uzbekistan.

Pooey... there isn't an "other" choice, well, that just sucks.

:( Yeah, should have done that ... sorry ...
But feel free to express yourself without only clicking a button :)

Well it depends upon the Situation of the WMD Nation For example if Iran develops nukes British and American submarines will proberly fire Tomahawk Cruise Missiles at the WMD factory and Iranian misslie sites.

A First Strike such as this I would support as Iran has the Ability to fire Missiles very far from its own boarders.
If nukes are that bad, why is the US / UK not bombing the nuke facility of Israel? Israel has the ability to fire missiles very far from it's boarders, so you would support it, no?

But I would like to hope that international cooperatives, be it the UN or NATO or something like that could do something to help people like those trapped inside North Korea or Uzbekistan.After seeing the destruction that the coalition has wrought in Afghanistan and Iraq I would never support an invasion of Uzbekistan that was organised by the West. Uzbekistan has a lot of infrastructure in place already, and is generally quite stable. If a regime change were to happen it would have to develop internally and then, and only then, offered assistance by the West. I'd also like to see generous aid budgets for reconstruction of any infrastructure that was distroyed.

There is a lot wrong with Uzbekistan, but not enough that it makes living there a living hell. I would prefer to see more projects that operate in Uzbekistan that improve the standard of living so much so that the wrongs of the government move higher up the public's list of priorities. And I hope that this would pressure some in the state party to take up the banner of democracy, garnering support from all corners of Uzbek society and eventually pushing Karimov out of power, or creating a true democracy when he dies. A peaceful revolution as it were. Though this could be a problem as quite a lot of NGOs have stopped operating in Uzbekistan since the incident that happened in Andijon. I know the Peace Corps pulled out in the summer 2005.

Problem is now that pre emption has been used as an excuse it gives carte blanche for others to do the same- North Korea, China and Taiwan etc etc.

If China trumps up some half assed excuse of pre emption to take over Taiwan, and points to past examples of pre emption to legitimise its actions, who's going to stop it?

America?
Russia?

Problem is now that pre emption has been used as an excuse it gives carte blanche for others to do the same- North Korea, China and Taiwan etc etc.

If China trumps up some half assed excuse of pre emption to take over Taiwan, and points to past examples of pre emption to legitimise its actions, who's going to stop it?

America?
Russia?

Exactly. It's become The Uncle Jimbo Doctrine: Any violent action can be justified by publically declaring it self-defense at the last second.

Problem is now that pre emption has been used as an excuse it gives carte blanche for others to do the same- North Korea, China and Taiwan etc etc.

If China trumps up some half assed excuse of pre emption to take over Taiwan, and points to past examples of pre emption to legitimise its actions, who's going to stop it?

America?
Russia?
You got a point! Actually it's not about if someone may or may not wage a pre-emptive war but who's strong enough to do so without being afraid of any (serious) counterstrike.

The person who strikes first (personally or nationally) is admitting they are not smart enough to think of other options.

The person who strikes first (personally or nationally) is admitting they are not smart enough to think of other options.

Which directly leads to my question from post #5
On the other hand ... would it make sense to strengthen domestic armed forces, settle back and wait until some moron brings the war into your country?

And better being dumb but being dead!