Portal   Forum   Members   Market   Gallery   Events

Recent terrorist acts

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Wulf, Sep 11, 2001.

  1. Grizzly

    Grizzly Peasant

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2001
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Yes, but if you were Russia and you promised to destroy billions of dollars of nuclear warheads and research in exchange for a treaty, then twenty years later the country who you signed the treaty with all of the sudden decides to change its mind and say obscene things to you, wouldn't you get mad?

    Sure, the treay doesn't apply in a world with rogue nuclear threats, but that still doesn't justify breaking the treaty. Russia is probably going to ask for the technology before they agree to let the US continue, and there is no way in hell the US is going to give that up.
     
  2. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Have you read this treaty? What clause states that you are not to defend yourself from nuclear threats (excluding nuclear threats of your own as a counter)?

    --Haite
     
  3. Jakeman

    Jakeman MSC Founder and Donator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2000
    Messages:
    25,761
    Likes Received:
    27
    Market Rating:
    16
    *me reaches for my cream pies*
     
  4. Elbereth

    Elbereth MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    14
    Market Rating:
    0
  5. Haite

    Haite Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2001
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    34
    Market Rating:
    0
    Oh my God, that's outrageous. I would have signed a treaty limiting my offensive capabilities, but never defense!

    --Haite
     
  6. Elbereth

    Elbereth MSC Commander and Donator

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2000
    Messages:
    3,356
    Likes Received:
    14
    Market Rating:
    0
    To maintain the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction, that was necessary. In today's world, I don't know how relevant it is.
     
  7. coolstream

    coolstream Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    they are all truble makes bomb the who ****ing country
     
  8. Grizzly

    Grizzly Peasant

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2001
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    The United States never though that kind of defensive capability was possible, and it assumed (correctly) that they would only need to sign the treaty in the short term to halt a nuclear war.

    To their dismay, it comes back and...bites them in the ass :D

    Yeah, if that treaty didn't have a clause about defensive shields, then Russia would have absolutely no say and the US could return with as many obscene remarks as they wanted.
     
  9. Grizzly

    Grizzly Peasant

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2001
    Messages:
    558
    Likes Received:
    0
    Market Rating:
    0
    Article XV, section 2

    Ambiguity at its finest.

    Heck, the US could declare a national cheese emergency and could withdraw that treaty since it jeopardizes the production of cheese (heaven forbid, if my theoretical situation were true!)
     

Hitometer: 54,597,675 since 1995