Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: Nuclear Weapons
Thread: Nuclear Weapons This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted May 06, 2005 07:33 AM
Edited By: Consis on 6 May 2005

Svarog,

Yes I agree completely.

The danger is when a smaller country gains access to nuclear weapons such as North Korea. Everyone believes this is merely to gain more international respect. But we can't afford to not consider their small nuclear arsenal more than a global status icon. Their nuclear weapons are also capable of drawing in a nation that would otherwise be uninterested in visiting that region of the world. If anyone decided to invade North Korea, the obvious presumption would be that the agressor would be the recipient of their nuclear arsenal. Another calculation(among wise geo-political strategical analysts) might consider the agressor not being the target, but instead a greater adversary to the invader. I am of course, talking about China and the U.S. China has historically proven that they are very much interested in not having an American-occupied North Korea and Vietnam. Because of this I would highly suspect the possibility of China being a target as well. If the U.S. invaded North Korea(which I believe our troop re-deployment points to the contrary--4,000 personnel were drawn back from the border and removed to help with the Iraqi rotation) it is possible that North Korea could nuke a Chinese target that would force its people to force its government into becoming involved. The enemy of my enemy is a friend. I think China is seen as lesser evil among the North Koreans. Both countries donot like the U.S.

My entire point is that a nuclear weapon is so much more than simply a weapon that can be used for self defense. It could also conceivably be used as a catalyst to start the next world war. And it doesn't have to be from a global power country. This is the danger of terrorism and the nuclear age combined. A nuclear 9/11 would have resulted in a much different response by the American people. Or in retrospect, what if a nuclear device was used for assassination such as that of the ArchDuke Ferdinand. Ask yourself which world leader of today(Bush, Blair, Putin, the Shaw of Iran, President of India, etc...)after having been assassinated might draw the world into the next great global war?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
terje_the_ma...
terje_the_mad_wizard


Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
posted May 07, 2005 01:35 AM

I still don't get what you think North Korea would accomplish by using the nuke as an aggressor.

I mean, if they'd nuked China, they'd be in much deeper troubles than if they'd nuked the US (possibly), imo, as the Chinese have demonstrated that they are capable and willing to use their armed forces (and if they'd been nuked, I wouldn't place much money on them not retaliating in the same manner).
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Svarog
Svarog


Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
posted May 07, 2005 03:41 AM

Quote:
Or in retrospect, what if a nuclear device was used for assassination such as that of the ArchDuke Ferdinand. Ask yourself which world leader of today(Bush, Blair, Putin, the Shaw of Iran, President of India, etc...)after having been assassinated might draw the world into the next great global war?

First, who is this "Shaw" guy? *giggles*
Second, its highly unlikely that a nuclear terrorist attack would cause a nuclear war, under the present political and millitary constelation. WHen war is about to errupt (especially world war) you can easily smell it in the air; it doesnt happen due to the will of a handful crazy-minded.
I also do not agree with quite a bit of the points you raised, but not gonna go into them. I could recommend that you stopped applying your model of millitary /invasionist thinking to modern-day politics. Its been almost a century.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Consis
Consis


Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
posted May 07, 2005 05:29 PM

Yeah Svarog...

I spelled it wrong. It is the "Shah" yes? I apologize. I also have nothing better to do than to use my imagination and conjure up scenario possibilities. It is in my interest to do so because I have 3 small children. The future of the world will be their modern days and the end of mine. I do not want them to be drafted and so I keep a close watch on the possbility for the outbreak of war involving my country. I want them to take control as best they can. When they are old enough I wish for them to choose the job they would prefer in the military rather than be forcefully placed into the role of frontline soldier. That is my lot, not theirs; and I recognize this. And so I will continue to sit and think about what may come.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
Defreni
Defreni


Promising
Famous Hero
posted May 08, 2005 10:58 PM

Just a little information.
The Shah of Iran, or rather Persia was dethroned in 1979. The religious leader of Iran is called Ayatollah, but Iran also have a President, which is supposed to run the country politically. Offcourse there is strict condition on what he may or may not do, so the de facto leader is the Ayatollah.
(As a sidenote, I might ad that the iranian president is an elected official. Even females have voting rights)

Regards

Defreni

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 2 pages long: 1 2 · «PREV
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0236 seconds