[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Nuclear Weapons thread (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/28/2008 6:36:13 PM EDT
|
This is a hypothetical question, and I'm 99.99% sure it will never happen, but I felt like posting it anyway. What if all nations agreed to nuclearly disarm and we were able to be absolutely be sure that all other nations did and would not make new weapons, would you support completely support disarmament here? ETA:Poll added, my first one :). |
|
No The uncomfortable reality is that the nuclear weapons have kept the peace for the past 70 years. At no other point in history has the world gone that long without a large scale war between peer nations. The threat of nuclear war prevents it, period. The US and the western world in general would be much more vulnerable without the nuclear sword in our scabbard and would have to devote a much larger percentage of our GDP to defense because of the conventional military we would have to build. Of course your hypothetical is just that, in reality in a disarmed world the rewards for producing weapons and being the only nation-state left with nuclear weapons would put you in position to lay dominion over the world. |
Yes, but you have to admit that most major conflicts studied in the West and all of the ones that were truly global for the last 100 years, where nations engaged in warfare with with cultures from the other side of the globe fighting people on entirely different continents were mostly of European origin. |
| 3.1415926535 8979323846 2643383279 5028841971 6939937510 5820974944 5923078164 0628620899 8628034825 3421170679 8214808651 3282306647 0938446095 5058223172 5359408128 4811174502 8410270193 8521105559 6446229489 5493038196 4428810975 6659334461 2847564823 3786783165 2712019091 4564856692 3460348610 4543266482 1339360726 0249141273 7245870066 0631558817 4881520920 9628292540 9171536436 7892590360 0113305305 4882046652 1384146951 9415116094 3305727036 5759591953 0921861173 8193261179 3105118548 0744623799 6274956735 1885752724 8912279381 8301194912 9833673362 4406566430 8602139494 6395224737 1907021798 6094370277 0539217176 2931767523 8467481846 7669405132 0005681271 4526356082 7785771342 7577896091 7363717872 1468440901 2249534301 4654958537 1050792279 6892589235 4201995611 2129021960 8640344181 5981362977 4771309960 5187072113 4999999837 2978049951 0597317328 1609631859 5024459455 3469083026 4252230825 3344685035 2619311881 7101000313 7838752886 5875332083 8142061717 7669147303 5982534904 2875546873 1159562863 8823537875 9375195778 1857780532 1712268066 1300192787 6611195909 2164201989 |
Yes, but even if we use every conventional weapon in the world, including all guns (from small arms to heavy artillery) we still aren't in danger of exterminating our entire species
Thats why I said it would never happen  , but if we could be sure that everyone was completely disarmed and wouldn't build any new weapons, would you support it then? |
(1) We can never have a real guarantee that all nations would disarm. (2) Even if we did, what about nationless (i.e. terrorist) organizations? I'm not responding to the poll because the question is silly. |
The world outputs ~10 billion rounds of ammo a year. Plenty to kill the whole planet... |
I want a blue unicorn.  Nuclear weapons are the ultimate power. There will never be a time this side of the apocalypse where there won't be multiple nations lusting for that power. Read "The Making Of The Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes. You'll understand that the age of nuclear weapons was a by-product of mankind's increasing knowledge. It didn't matter that we built the first one -- somebody would have. It's as unstoppable as human nature. |
Ha ha, I actually agree. That's the only reason to have them for the current time, and the chances of that are probably lower than the varying chances of someone to set a nuke off. I wouldn't see so much of a problem with nukes and other doomsday type weapons if we had moved off planet earth (who knows what weapons we will develop if we ever come to that point), but right now it's one of the easiest and most likely we may end up destroying ourselves some day (and the chances of that are still very small). |
 Launch code is a GO !! 
|
Well, I would not love it, so that's just going to have to stay your fantasy world. I, personally, enjoy shooting. |
The question specified nukes only, I don't have non doomsday weapons (9mm Pistols to thermobaric weapons) in mind with the question. |
Not enough pie eh? |
|
The whole question is moot. You can't un-invent things, and there will _always_ be someone willing and able to break the rules. If you don't allow yourself to have the biggest and baddest weapons possible, you're just asking to get ass-reamed by those who don't give a fuck about "a better world" for anyone other than themselves. The Law of the Jungle. That is the nature of life on earth. These pansy ass liberals who want to make a friggin' rule for everything need to get over that fact and quit worrying so much about making the world into their version of "the way things oughtta be". - Because that shit is never gonna happen. Utopia does not exist. Except in Santa Land. 
|
|
+100... So unless the laws of physics can be changed to allow only the US of A to possess functional nuclear weapons, I'd say not just no, but HELL NO! 239 Pu FTW
|
|
rant: The idea of mutually assured destruction seems to have been an idea that has proved its merit as a deterrent. Countries that have had them appear to get this. Countries that want them don't. They build a few and swagger like they might actually use them. Then it sinks in.. there are enough to go around for everyone already. Basically, they are here to stay in one form or another & that's that. Our stewardship (cradle-to-grave) program is extensive and dovetails nicely with our nuclear assurity program which provides some guarantee that the weapons will perform in accordance with their intended use. Each country that has the technology faces a lot of engineering & security issues and it's a tremendous expense to commit to the 'game'. Maintenance is a pretty big piece of the pie. Obviously, some countries are willing to take the risk and lately it's becoming one of desperation. Looking tough in times of economic strife like NK for instance. The motivation shouldn't be oversimplified though. There is the problem with rogue organizations that do not officially represent any country. They are not the state sponsored army. They tend to attack defenseless civilian targets for psychological impact and partly out of lack of capability to effectively compromise a hardened target like a military base. These kind of terrorists are categorized by their ambition to change a state's policy through this type of violence. Fortunately, most countries won't dignify them with acknowlegement of their aims and disregard their extreme attempts to elicit a response as ruthless and coercive. Terrorism has proven itself ineffective at achieving its ideal goals worldwide. Its perpetrators only isolate themselves. We cannot turn our back on the responsibility to show understanding. We cannot flaunt the power we have nor deny it. |
You got me thinking on the remaining weapons in stock but I can't confirm nor deny it. I just threw the term out there, it makes me think of Castle Bravo and the scientists who got a big surprise in the increase in yield. |