User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5173
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:03 am

Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil. Their very existence is the exact reason why there hasn't been a nuclear war.

No one wants to be "that guy" to launch an ICBM in anger, although the fat guy in Pyongyang is shaping up to be the first one, although it is probably just their form of a deterrent from a conventional invasion.
"It's not getting to the land of the nonrev that's the problem, it's getting back." ~~Captain Hector Barbossa
 
Noshow
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:23 am

Looking back to cold war days with "stable" nuclear detterence I felt more safe than today.
Taking away all nukes only means the most brutal big guy in the room by population will win. And that is not the US unfortunately...
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:51 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil. Their very existence is the exact reason why there hasn't been a nuclear war.


i´d suggest you read those two sentences very slowly ..... i am pretty sure there wouldn´t be nuclear war without them.

Planeflyer wrote:
Sorry, tommy re read my post and it was not clear. Only meant to say that you seemed to be an expert on The Nazi's as opposed to a Nazi.


Ah, ok. Thank you for the compliment.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5050
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:05 am

aviationaware wrote:
UN diplomats wasting millions to make pointless decisions like this one is what's wrong with the system. Time to cut UN funding by 50%.


Agreed. Spend that money on developing a 250MT nuclear weapon, right? :duck:
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 10:52 am

No. Move it out of the system and give it back to the people who work their asses off for it every day by lowering taxes.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:20 am

aviationaware wrote:
No. Move it out of the system and give it back to the people who work their asses off for it every day by lowering taxes.


So, what are you going to do with your 30ct per month....? Oh, since you are probably not a billionaire, your share will be zero given the current US government ...

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:01 pm

aviationaware wrote:
No. Move it out of the system and give it back to the people who work their asses off for it every day by lowering taxes.


America's contribution: 1,2b / year --> $ 3,42, just over of 1 cup of coffee a year, oh right, 50% of that, so $US 1,71 a year per person or 14 cents a month.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/s ... 2-percent/

Now let's compare that to the nuclear upgrade program: 1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years. So did the math for you, $ 95,24 per year, per US citizen or $ 7,94 per month or almost 57 as much. So are you sure that money is an issue with this? :D
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:49 pm

You clearly have no appreciation of the value of money if you discard almost 2 bucks that are otherwise wasted by fraudulent bureaucrats.
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8956
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:56 pm

Dutchy wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
No. Move it out of the system and give it back to the people who work their asses off for it every day by lowering taxes.


America's contribution: 1,2b / year --> $ 3,42, just over of 1 cup of coffee a year, oh right, 50% of that, so $US 1,71 a year per person or 14 cents a month.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/s ... 2-percent/

Now let's compare that to the nuclear upgrade program: 1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years. So did the math for you, $ 95,24 per year, per US citizen or $ 7,94 per month or almost 57 as much. So are you sure that money is an issue with this? :D


And a cup of coffee literally has infinitely more value than many of the nonsense motions pursued by the U.N., such as this one.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:58 pm

Can you prove they are fraudulent? And why not go all the way and remove all funding for the UN. In your view, you are still wasting almost 2 dollars.
No opinion to the almost 8 bucks a month you will waste the next 30 years?

And what has to be cut, if America is going to cut their 1,2bn? International Court of Justice? Economic and Social Council? Or one of the 17 more specialized agencies:
1 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
2 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO)
3 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
4 International Labour Organization (ILO)
5 International Maritime Organization (IMO)
6 International Monetary Fund (IMF)
7 International Telecommunication Union (ITU)
8 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
9 United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)
10 Universal Postal Union (UPU)
11 World Bank Group (WBG)
11.1 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD)
11.2 International Finance Corporation (IFC)
11.3 International Development Association (IDA)
12 World Health Organization (WHO)
13 World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
14 World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
15 World Tourism Organization (UNWTO)
16 Former specialized agencies
17 Related organizations
17.1 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission
17.2 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
17.3 International Organization for Migration (IOM)
17.4 Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
17.5 World Trade Organization (WTO)

Or perhaps UNICEF more to your liking to kill it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... ed_Nations
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:05 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
No. Move it out of the system and give it back to the people who work their asses off for it every day by lowering taxes.


America's contribution: 1,2b / year --> $ 3,42, just over of 1 cup of coffee a year, oh right, 50% of that, so $US 1,71 a year per person or 14 cents a month.

http://www.politifact.com/global-news/s ... 2-percent/

Now let's compare that to the nuclear upgrade program: 1 trillion dollars over the next 30 years. So did the math for you, $ 95,24 per year, per US citizen or $ 7,94 per month or almost 57 as much. So are you sure that money is an issue with this? :D


And a cup of coffee literally has infinitely more value than many of the nonsense motions pursued by the U.N., such as this one.


You might have an answer to the above question, I'm looking forward to your answer because you want 1/2 a cup of coffee a year.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:15 pm

Nobody needs the IMF and the World Bank, so there's your start.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:22 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Nobody needs the IMF and the World Bank, so there's your start.


Do you see some value in the UN?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
aviationaware
Posts: 1633
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 12:02 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:35 am

Sure, but very limited. However, in its current form it's basically incapacitated, so it either needs major reform, including the security council, which is never going to happen due to the veto powers clinging on to their positions, OR it needs a huge scaleback. That's also not going to happen, of course, because it would touch too many peoples' interest in keeping their slush funds liquid. But it's still way more likely than real reform.

All in all, the UN nowadays is no more than a talking shop. It's starting to show the same flaws that caused the League of Nations to fail; the only "problem", if you will, is that there isn't going to be a worldwide shock event like WWII anytime soon so there is no incentive to start over.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:10 am

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-n ... or-reform/

The link details some serious issues. I understand that we can all disagree about spending priorities but is there any doubt that more accountability, a lot more is needed? And since everything else has been tried to accomplish this it’s time to pull the credit card.

Cut it back to peacekeeping and crisis resolution and we'd have a much more effective organization.

And for those who say the $28 billion is small beer it’s this type of thinking that creates the types of budget deficits that are such a drag on Western economies.

Can you imagine the money spent by Western governments on all the various bureaucracies?

If we cut just 10% we could use the 10’s of billions saved to beef up the one organization that has done tons more to ensure peace than the UN ever will; NATO.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:38 am

Planeflyer wrote:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/united-nations-corruption-and-the-need-for-reform/

The link details some serious issues. I understand that we can all disagree about spending priorities but is there any doubt that more accountability, a lot more is needed? And since everything else has been tried to accomplish this it’s time to pull the credit card.

Cut it back to peacekeeping and crisis resolution and we'd have a much more effective organization.

And for those who say the $28 billion is small beer it’s this type of thinking that creates the types of budget deficits that are such a drag on Western economies.

Can you imagine the money spent by Western governments on all the various bureaucracies?

If we cut just 10% we could use the 10’s of billions saved to beef up the one organization that has done tons more to ensure peace than the UN ever will; NATO.


You can criticize the UN for a lot of things, sure, you will find me by your side, but this is the only organization of its kind in the world, so what would be the alternative? Lots of things need to be discussed and hopefully agreed up on. The 22% of the budget paid by the US, has been agreed up on, it is not just a random number.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:54 am

Dutchy wrote:
so what would be the alternative?


a new one without veto powers ...

aviationaware wrote:
You clearly have no appreciation of the value of money if you discard almost 2 bucks that are otherwise wasted by fraudulent bureaucrats.


You mean 200 bucks for each of the top 1%, because in time of Trump they are the only ones getting that...
Nah, also not true, you also have to subtract the GDP contribution of having the UN sitting in NYC from that.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5173
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:29 am

tommy1808 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil. Their very existence is the exact reason why there hasn't been a nuclear war.


i´d suggest you read those two sentences very slowly ..... i am pretty sure there wouldn´t be nuclear war without them

best regards
Thomas

Of course there wouldnt, but the US and USSR would've already done WW3 if the nukes weren't around. But since they are, they haven't been used because everyone know the retaliation (against anyone except maybe NK) will be game over for mankind.

I say NK because even if they do go nuclear, I don't think the USs retaliation would be nuclear. A few tomahawks could do serious damage to the NK war machine. Any other nuclear power that used them in anger would need meet a nuclear strike as retaliation in order to render the ineffective in a war.
"It's not getting to the land of the nonrev that's the problem, it's getting back." ~~Captain Hector Barbossa
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 5:47 am

TWA772LR wrote:
Of course there wouldnt, but the US and USSR would've already done WW3 if the nukes weren't around.


That is just an assumption.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:04 am

tommy1808 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Of course there wouldnt, but the US and USSR would've already done WW3 if the nukes weren't around.


That is just an assumption.

best regards
Thomas


Indeed, would the USSR and NATO have a hot war if there were no nukes around? I don't think so, with conventional bombs you can still conflict massive amounts of damage.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:46 am

Dutchy wrote:
Indeed, would the USSR and NATO have a hot war if there were no nukes around? I don't think so, with conventional bombs you can still conflict massive amounts of damage.


And you can do equivalent damage to life with Chemical weapons, and no one really wanted that again after WWI.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:49 am

Phosphorus wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...

Well, we (Ukrainians) got rid of our nuclear weapons, and are now paying the price for that.


And if you had gone nuclear after Russia took Crimea back that would have been the end of pretty much everything living in Ukraine and a large part of Eastern Europe. With the idiots running your country giving them up was probably the best idea anyone in the early 90's ever had.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 11:39 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...

Well, we (Ukrainians) got rid of our nuclear weapons, and are now paying the price for that.


And if you had gone nuclear after Russia took Crimea back that would have been the end of pretty much everything living in Ukraine and a large part of Eastern Europe. .


and anyone in Russia. Prevailing winds are not exactly an invitation to strike west....

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 21, 2017 9:02 pm

Tommy, I'll bet dimes to $ you are lot more careful w your money than you are w US Taxpayer$. It's just this cavalier attitude toward the US that motivated so many of us to vote for Trump.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sun Jul 23, 2017 11:38 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...

Well, we (Ukrainians) got rid of our nuclear weapons, and are now paying the price for that.


And if you had gone nuclear after Russia took Crimea back that would have been the end of pretty much everything living in Ukraine and a large part of Eastern Europe. With the idiots running your country giving them up was probably the best idea anyone in the early 90's ever had.


uh-oh. On the other hand, what else to expect from Russia's shill like your kind self.

Now, where do we start.
1) no, it wouldn't have gone nuclear. Kremlin rats wouldn't dare to attack a nuclear-armed nation.
2) Russia did not take Crimea back, it invaded. Taking Crimea back is indeed yet to happen -- return home, to Ukraine
3) Russia is the last country to be interested in an even nuclear confrontation. it's dying out population is overconcentrated in fewer and fewer population centers, and despite its huge territory, more than half live in a couple of dozen cities.
On the other hand, Russia maintains very low threshold for its nuclear arsenal against conventional threats, having written into the doctrine its right to a nuclear attack against a non-nuclear adversary in basically any confrontation. For a target of invasion (like us) it makes it basically irresponsible to resist -- as striking back might trigger that Russian doctrinal threat level, where nuclear attack is permissible. Basically, that's the fundamental reason why Russia shouldn't exist. Moscovia esse delendam.

With posture like this, I find it absolutely ludicrous that peaceful non-aggressive Ukraine was forced to give up its nukes, while berserk crazy Russia was allowed to keep them.
An-24, An-140, Let-410, Tu-134, Tu-154, Il-62, Il-86, Il-96, F50, F70, F100, 146, ARJ, AT7, DH8, L-1011, CRJ, ERJ, E190, DC-9, MD-8X, YK4, YK2, SF34, SB20, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 346, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 74M, 757, 767, 777
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:36 pm

Get a grip you pillock, Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine and it will never go back to being part of Ukraine again, there's about as much chance of that happening as Hawaii regaining it's independance.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sun Jul 23, 2017 6:59 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Get a grip you pillock, Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine and it will never go back to being part of Ukraine again, there's about as much chance of that happening as Hawaii regaining it's independance.


If Crimea never wanted to be part of the Ukraine isn't true, 1992 they choose Ukraine at that moment in time. And if it wanted to rejoin the Russia, we will never know.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:33 pm

No they did not at any point choose Ukraine, this has been gone over many many times on this site. Crimeans when they did have the choice voted three times for greater autonomy, the ability to retain dual citizenship and to finally leave. Considering the ethnic makeup of Crimea has been majority ethnic Russian for over 100 years why would you ever believe they would want to be Ukrainian?
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Mon Jul 24, 2017 6:28 am

They did choose to leave the USSR with the Ukraine, so in that sense they did chose for the Ukraine. One thing they never did choose is to leave the Ukraine. And with a referendum at gunpoint, they never have had a free referendum to choose to be annexed by Russia.

In January 1991, a referendum was held in the Crimean Oblast, and voters approved restoring the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. However, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union less than a year later, the Autonomous Republic of Crimea was formed as a constituent entity of independent Ukraine,[34][35] with a slight majority of Crimean voters approving Ukrainian independence in a December referendum.[36] On 5 May 1992, the Crimean legislature declared conditional independence,[37] but a referendum to confirm the decision was never held amid opposition from Kiev.[35][38] The Verkhovna Rada voted to grant Crimea "extensive home rule" during the dispute.[36][37]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimea#Au ... .932014.29

As for the majority being ethnic Russians, well, the Crimea has been annexed by Russia 3 times to date. And they have been purposely sending ethnic Russians to this area. Not unlike Tibet for instance.

But the main point is, what Russia did with annexing the area was and is against international law. So it is not recognized by almost everyone. In a practical sense, it will not be returned no, but it will not be part of Russia, not unlike the Western Sahara or the western Jordan. Or what Russia has been doing in Georgia. Russia has been an aggressor in this, don't know if you recognize that or that you believe in the Russian lies?
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Mon Jul 24, 2017 7:24 am

Kiwirob wrote:
and to finally leave.


which required having a vote at gunpoint, hance the result is about as relevant as elections in Iraq under Saddam have been.....

At some point Russia is going to trade Crimea back for shipments of corn, since Russia, as usual, can´t feed its own citizens...

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Mon Jul 24, 2017 11:58 pm

What bollocks are you rabbiting on about now tommy? I can't find any relevant up to date 2017 articles about food shortages in Russia. The supermarkets are as well stocked as any in continental Europe and better than what's on offer in Norway from my recent experience. None of my Russian colleagues are complying in about food shortages.

As I said Crimea will never be returned to Ukraine, it's just not going to happen, it's about as likely as the US returning Hawaii to the native Hawians.
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 10790
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:17 am

Dutchy wrote:
But the main point is, what Russia did with annexing the area was and is against international law. So it is not recognized by almost everyone. In a practical sense, it will not be returned no, but it will not be part of Russia, not unlike the Western Sahara or the western Jordan. Or what Russia has been doing in Georgia. Russia has been an aggressor in this, don't know if you recognize that or that you believe in the Russian lies?


Russia doesn't care about international, the Russian govt consider Crimea as an integral part of Russia, if you have a visa for Russia this also includes Crimea, flights to Crimea from anywhere in Russia are domestic flights, so whilst you might not consider it part of Russia they do, its not at all like Western Sahara or Western Jordan, these territories have populations hostile to there occupiers, which is not the case with Crimea.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:00 am

Phosphorus wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...

Well, we (Ukrainians) got rid of our nuclear weapons, and are now paying the price for that.


This is the point. Why countries want the nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons make an invasion by a more advanced\powerful military painful. Iran doesn't want a nuclear weapon to use in an offensive manner. They want it to deter the United States from invading. The US wont do anything to NK because Seoul will go up in a flash.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:02 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Phosphorus wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...

Well, we (Ukrainians) got rid of our nuclear weapons, and are now paying the price for that.


And if you had gone nuclear after Russia took Crimea back that would have been the end of pretty much everything living in Ukraine and a large part of Eastern Europe. With the idiots running your country giving them up was probably the best idea anyone in the early 90's ever had.


It may have also been the end of Moscow among other cities. That is a painful cost for Russia to take Crimea.
 
User avatar
Dutchy
Topic Author
Posts: 3402
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 1:25 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:54 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
But the main point is, what Russia did with annexing the area was and is against international law. So it is not recognized by almost everyone. In a practical sense, it will not be returned no, but it will not be part of Russia, not unlike the Western Sahara or the western Jordan. Or what Russia has been doing in Georgia. Russia has been an aggressor in this, don't know if you recognize that or that you believe in the Russian lies?


Russia doesn't care about international, the Russian govt consider Crimea as an integral part of Russia, if you have a visa for Russia this also includes Crimea, flights to Crimea from anywhere in Russia are domestic flights, so whilst you might not consider it part of Russia they do, its not at all like Western Sahara or Western Jordan, these territories have populations hostile to there occupiers, which is not the case with Crimea.


Russia doesn't care about international law indeed. But that doesn't mean you and I don't. Ask the indigenous people what they think about the Russian occupation, the Crimean Tatars. It is a frozen conflict, just like the Western Sahara or Tibet.
Many happy landings, greetings from The Netherlands!
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Tue Jul 25, 2017 12:49 pm

Russia may not care about International Law but nukes are another story. I would imagine the Ukraine and Poland are now developing nuclear capabilities.

On the downside, nukes give NK the freedom to run a concentration camp country.
 
Noshow
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 26, 2017 9:28 am

China gives NK that freedom. Since the Korean War.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:04 pm

Noshow wrote:
China gives NK that freedom. Since the Korean War.


technically, aside of an error in form NK has made, the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty gives them that freedom. The name is misleading, only no one seems to read the damn thing.....

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
Noshow
Posts: 288
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:20 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:27 pm

There are several security council resolutions against NK getting nuke technology. Those have been violated.

http://www.armscontrol.org/print/5653
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Wed Jul 26, 2017 5:57 pm

Noshow wrote:
There are several security council resolutions against NK getting nuke technology. Those have been violated.

http://www.armscontrol.org/print/5653


That is a consequence of the error in form north Korea comitted that I've mentioned.

The NNPT actually reaffirms each sovereign nations right (!) to obtain nuclear weapons, if that nation deems it necessary for its national security. If North Korea had send notice of it leaving the NNPT in time and to all signatory nations instead of just the UN, they would have the right to have nukes. No matter what necro-theocratic sh*thole of a dictatorship NK is, national security concerns are a reasonable thing to have for its government.

Since the international community consideres NK still a treat state due to that error in form, there is legal standing for those resolutions. With the proper Form there would not only no such standing exist, but actually any country trying to prevent NK from obtaining nuclear weapons, that is signatory to the NNPT, would be in violation of international law in doing so.

Here is another twist, as a treaty state they, if in compliance at that time, would actually have the right to simply buy nuclear weapons at cost prices from.the USA, as long as they intend a civilian use under international supervision.

The NNPT treaties name is highly misleading, as it is very much a proliferation treaty for the civilian use of nuclear energy. Hence not selling uranium or nuclear power plants to treaty nations in compliance is in violation of international law.

This is also my only criticism of the ban of those weapons, as signing that is a violation of the NNPT, since a right, to nuclear arms in this case, can not legally be banned. And I hope that one day the rule of law will prevail between nations as well, and that means such infractions, no matter how well meant, should not be allowed as well.

Best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
iamlucky13
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:54 am

cpd wrote:
aviationaware wrote:
UN diplomats wasting millions to make pointless decisions like this one is what's wrong with the system. Time to cut UN funding by 50%.


Agreed. Spend that money on developing a 250MT nuclear weapon, right? :duck:


Not that anyone would have any interest in developing a 250 MT nuclear weapon. The largest warhead we ever tested yielded 15 MT (albeit, accidentally - it was supposed to be lower). It killed one Japanese fisherman, sickened several others, and left several islands intended to be only temporarily evacuated uninhabitable for years.

That was back when delivery accuracy was a lot worse, and high yield was being chased to make up for it.

They didn't want that much yield though, so it was modified to reduce the yield to 4 MT. Current warheads mostly have about 1/10th that much yield.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Thu Jul 27, 2017 4:49 am

iamlucky13 wrote:
Not that anyone would have any interest in developing a 250 MT nuclear weapon. The largest warhead we ever tested yielded 15 MT.


you are a bit off, ~50 MT, 100 MT design yield, stage 3 removed to reduce fallout.

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 5050
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:03 am

tommy1808 wrote:
iamlucky13 wrote:
Not that anyone would have any interest in developing a 250 MT nuclear weapon. The largest warhead we ever tested yielded 15 MT.


you are a bit off, ~50 MT, 100 MT design yield, stage 3 removed to reduce fallout.

best regards
Thomas


I think his get out of prison card is the "we ever tested" meaning what the west developed and tested.

You are thinking of Tsar bomba, which I think was something just above 50MT. An example of the worst of what humankind can do.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 6391
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Thu Jul 27, 2017 5:13 am

cpd wrote:
An example of the worst of what humankind can do.


Well... it was a rather clean design for its yield.....

best regards
Thomas
Times are changing: 70 years ago the USA went to war to defeat the Nazis, now they elect them to run their country.
 
User avatar
Phosphorus
Posts: 48
Joined: Tue May 16, 2017 11:38 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:22 pm

Kiwirob wrote:
Get a grip you pillock, Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine and it will never go back to being part of Ukraine again, there's about as much chance of that happening as Hawaii regaining it's independance.

Fully in control, thanks for a reminder from scum of the earth like your kind self.

"Crimea never wanted to be part of Ukraine..." Crimea who? it's a region, a piece of land. It has no will, it is not animate. It's a property. The property of Ukraine, currently occupied by nuclear batsh*t crazy aggressor, agonizing in revanchistic pains for a lost empire. This rabid aggressor has a hair-thin trigger in its nuclear strike doctrine, and an arsenal to destroy this planet many times over.

This deadly combination makes it a really interesting case of strategic analysis -- how to put down a rabid creature like this, without putting billions of lives in danger. Two basic responses are: 1) through non-military means (i.e. making sure no blood is shed while this abomination is dying) 2) attack by non-state actors (these days, such activities are often referred to as "terrorism").

Please correct me if this problem can be resolved otherwise.
An-24, An-140, Let-410, Tu-134, Tu-154, Il-62, Il-86, Il-96, F50, F70, F100, 146, ARJ, AT7, DH8, L-1011, CRJ, ERJ, E190, DC-9, MD-8X, YK4, YK2, SF34, SB20, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 346, 727, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 74M, 757, 767, 777
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Fri Jul 28, 2017 6:15 am

Security dynamics in Europe are always tricky as borders are not easily defended and it easy for countries to feel trapped between adversaries.

No country has suffered more from this dynamic than Poland. I'd be surprised if they were not developing nuclear weaponst in response to Russian moves to their east.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4057
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sat Jul 29, 2017 6:17 pm

Planeflyer wrote:
I'd be surprised if they were not developing nuclear weapons in response to Russian moves to their east.


That is the sole advantage associated with zealous religious crackpots of any ilk. (And the PiS poor survivor of potato heritage is exactly that.)
They lack the intellectual ompf of inventing/developing anything of value.

Poland twitches on its masters strings.
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sat Jul 29, 2017 11:58 pm

Welderling, warlike actions that stem from mindsets such as yours have led us to the reliance on nukes to keep us from ww2 like conflagrations.

Poland better hurry.
 
WIederling
Posts: 4057
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sun Jul 30, 2017 9:14 am

Planeflyer wrote:
Welderling, warlike actions that stem from mindsets such as yours have led us to the reliance on nukes to keep us from ww2 like conflagrations.


that does not parse.


Poland better hurry.


On their way down into oblivion .. again ?

Poland has both the forward looking people like the yard workers back then
and the angsty religious kind that prop up the current regime.
( rather close to the US, isn't it? )
Murphy is an optimist
 
Planeflyer
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 3:49 am

Re: Nuclear weapons prohibited

Sun Jul 30, 2017 11:30 am

W, you are certainly a reminder that it will take a lot more than the UN or the EU to keep the peace.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Tugger and 2 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos