Who do YOU trust to have nukes?

[caddmannq]

In another thread, one of our Distinguished Members pointed out that he believed that the Muslims hate us because we support the Jews, and because we're not Muslims.

Frankly, I don't think that this attitude is at all limited to the proclivities of Muslims. There are other cultures that hate us for the same kind of reasons; and these reasons are almost always seem to be promoted by their radical and despotic leaders.

And, like the most powerful of the Muslim nations, a lot of them stand to become nuclear powers within the next few years or decades.

IMHO, there is no way we can allow this to happen. Call me xenophobic if you will, but I just can't find it within myself to trust groups like the Iranians, Saudis, Iraqis, Pakistanis, or North Koreans (and others) to have nukes. The chance that their cultures, often guided by seemingly radical/militant type leaders, could keep their hands off the Red Button seems mighty slim.

I don't see much concern about this eventuality being bandied about, except in the USA, and perhaps the UK, and it concerns me a lot. I think we have to prevent these nations from having nukes and WMDs by any means necessary, and I don't think we should wait for conclusive proof that they seek them, any UN resolutions for action (that'll be the day ) or anything like that.

I think that the security of the whole planet is at stake, and if it comes down to that security being in their hands or ours I want it to be ours. I may not trust our leaders 100%, but that's about 99% more than I trust theirs.

So who do YOU trust?

While I agree with the gist of this post, I wonder how can you prevent rogue regimes from developing nukes (or bio/chem)weapons without colonizing them.

Perhaps Distingished Member Epidemic will think, in his infinite wisdom, of a way to implement such an agenda.

[Epidemic]

I trust governments with checks and balances way before dictatorships. Being at the whim of their psychosis seems foolish.

to answer shahani's question.

The UN should be doing this on a regular basis. If evidence of a nuke program comes to light we nuke em.

[caddmannq]

Originally posted by shahani
...how can you prevent rogue regimes from developing nukes (or bio/chem)weapons without colonizing them...

Maybe you can't. In that case, we might do so.

But what if than'ts not an option? What if we have no choice than to destroy them outright? What if that's our fate for letting the genie out of the bottle?

Should we do it to prevent worldwide disaster?

UN? I don't think it has teeth anymore.

[Epidemic]

Did the UN every have any teeth?

Or just the dentures in the form of the USA?

I can not think of a proactive thing they have ever done.

You can't kill a billion Arabs to save 5 billion non-Arabs.

Can't be done, even if FOX & Friends says it can.

What'll you do with body parts?

[caddmannq]

Would that be worse that all six billion of us dying?

I don't think it's at all impossible, and I think we should be convincing that billion Arabs that it's entirely possible.

[Epidemic]

Well, shahani, Sad but, Yes you can.

It would be much better to not do that but it is an option which must be considered if it ever came down to a them or us scenario.

I would much favor a we solution though.

We solution
colonialization
Small scale war
pre-emptive war
political pressure
exclusion
sanctions
embargo
all out nuclear war is way down on the options list but if all else failed it would be an option.

simple math would say if somehow muslims began a plan to destory all peoples of all non muslim nations then it would be a very viable option.

Honorable Member Epidemic, you are more brutal than I realize.