Several news outlets are reporting that 2 million plus people have been driven from their homes in the tribal regions in Pakistan. With the continued support from America and the new aggression from the Pakistan military many majors concerns have come to my attention during these last few weeks. Pakistan is on the verge of an all out civil war while continuing to be a nuclear state. If the nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands it would be a major threat to global security. Most of the current attention has been given to the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons while Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and is on the verge of being a failed state. It is debatable how close Pakistan is to becoming a failed state, but the reality of what could happen is more than enough to be alarmed. How much of a threat do you think the current situation merits?
Justin Ford
POS2001
M-F 9:00AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Unfortunately I feel like this is an extreme threat to global security. Even if the people who end up in control of the nuclear weapons didn't use them on the rest of the world but instead used them to simply hold power in their area their would always be a threat to the rest of the world. Any nuclear warfare would affect everyone. The planet can't take any more ecological damage and a nuclear attack would certainly fall under the category of an ecological attack. We need to keep a close eye on where the weapons are going but try and remain out of the way in that we don't want to draw their attention to us anymore than it already is.
James Cameron McCoy
Pos 2001
M-F 9:00AM
The U.S. possesses nuclear weapons and, in fact, is the only country to ever use them against another country. Are we a threat to the rest of the world?
Yes, America is a threat to the rest of the world. We are in major conflict every 10-15 years. Not only are we the only country to use nuclear weapon, we used a second nuclear weapon right after we saw the effects of the first one. We have always gone to war with countries to protect our interest no matter the consequences. America has always used its military to retain power, economic wealth, and influence throughout the world.
Justin Ford
POS2001
M-F 9:00AM
So, Justin, you actually think that the U.S. is going to use nuclear weapons again? The first use was during the world's imperialistic stage where something like that was much more acceptable, especially against an enemy that attacked first. And it was in the context of the Cold War, where it was believed that the Communists would be willing to destroy the world if they couldn't dominate it. Our use of nuclear weapons had little to do with Japan and everything to do with attempting to scare the Soviets.
I never stated that America would use or is willing to use nuclear weapons on any country. Israel has been attacked first and did not use nuclear weapons on their enemies. The only thing I was trying to portray was that America has never strayed away from using force to achieve their objectives. We have attacked other countries first more than once in our history. We not only spend more money on our military than any other country, but we also use our military force more than most countries. If I was a country that opposes the United States of America I would not go without considering the U.S. a threat.
Justin Ford
POS2001
M-F 9:00AM
When has war or th prospect of war not been a polictical tool. In an era where the world could be destroyed a thousand over by nuclear weapon the use if nuclear armaments is unlikely. The U.S. has greater GDP per capita and spends 47 percent of that on our armed forces. From that piont because have a disportioniate amount of global political influence those that makes us the bad guy. The trend of the global community is now an integration of cultures, societies, and peoples driven by gobal communication technology. We need to protect our interests. To say or imply that the U.S. is wrong for engaging the global community resulting in conflict-I feel is utterly wrong. War can be catorigized as the ultimate unintended consequence, but does that mean we should shirk and isolate ourselves from the world
Okino Leiba
POS2001 12 p.m.
May 7, 2009
But, Justin, the context of your comments can't be ignored. If person A says that country 1 is a threat because it has nuclear weapons, then person B says that country 2 also has weapons and asks if they are a threat and person C (you) says yes country 2 is a threat, then you are saying, without stating, that you think country 2 will use those weapons.
Anytime there is a monkey in the room with a gun there is a major problem(Please dont take that racial). We have to make sure we understand what is really going on in Pakistan. We have to make sure their leaders are in fact not monkeys. We can't always play the bully. We cant take their weapons or anything so we have to hope and pray their responsible enough to have them.
Terrell Jones
POS2001 M-F
12-1:15 p.m.
I'm sure this is a huge threat to global security, but we can't really afford to worry about another country right now. We have so much money and time invested into Iraq we should really just hold off and see how this situation goes.
Leigh Anne Thompson
POS 2001
9:00 a.m. m-f
Post a Comment