It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rearming for the apocalypse: Nukes and Guns

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The article is about the US building up its Nuclear Arsenal however, I am adding the Gun debate as a tie-in because I think the issues relate with eery parallels.




The most sobering of these voices belongs to William Perry, who during the 1970s and ’80s directed the development of air-launched nuclear cruise missiles and later became secretary of defense. Now Perry is campaigning against Obama’s plan to develop and buy 1,000 new missiles with adjustable nuclear capacity, 100 new long-range bombers, and a new fleet of nuclear-armed submarines. He warns that if the plan becomes real, disputes among nations will be “more likely to erupt in nuclear conflict than during the Cold War.”

When Perry was directing America’s last nuclear buildup, he and others argued that it was necessary to compensate for NATO’s relatively weak conventional power in countries around the Soviet Union. That rationale evaporated when the Cold War ended, but it still shapes our defense policy.

Obama’s proposed “modernization” increases our vulnerability, not our security. The first and most obvious reason is that it will certainly lead other countries to seek equivalent arsenals of their own. It is especially upsetting to Russia, which already feels under increasing American threat as a result of our military maneuvers on its borders and the fact that many of our missiles are positioned in Germany, Turkey, and other countries near its territory. The Russian defense minister recently announced that in response to Obama’s plan, Russia will “bring five new strategic nuclear missile regiments into service.” China would surely match that escalation. If it does so, India will follow. Then Pakistan will jump into the race. It is a recipe for disaster.


It is a recipe for disaster and it's the same with guns. The more people have them, the more people will use guns to solve their problems. There will be more and more "accidental" shootings like what just recently happened. There will be an increase in gun crimes like armed robberies and such, more workplace voilence, more traffic violence, more school shootings, etc....and people will try to solve this gun problem with even more guns that are bigger and have even more firepower. The issues relate where on one side, the article says not to increase our nuclear arsenal because the rest of the world will also which increases the chances for nuclear engagement; however, on the other side of the coin there is no call(s) for personal gun dis-armament even though there are enough registered guns sold in this country to account for every man woman and child in the USA. I understand that it's a right to own a gun but do we need so many of them; especially, when one gun can kill so many people at a time? I've lost 2 family members to gun violence so I'm not just talking hot air. This is a major issue I'm bringing to ATS for discussion.

www.bostonglobe.com...




posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

You worry too much. As far as rearming goes, this is nothing compared to the cold war era.

As far as guns go? I'm more comfortable knowing the average citizen is armed rather than not....



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I'd trade my guns for nukes.

Guns are tools they don't kill people. People do. Criminals don't follow laws, hence the criminal thing.

I don't register my guns or buy them from licenced dealers because I'm a free American and my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But I'm not out committing crimes with them either.

I don't see how the gun debate and world nuclear arsenals relatable. Maybe if we start seeing Walmart, Google and Samsung stockpiling nukes, but until then the two discussions are apples and oranges.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: lostbook

I'd trade my guns for nukes.

Guns are tools they don't kill people. People do. Criminals don't follow laws, hence the criminal thing.

I don't register my guns or buy them from licenced dealers because I'm a free American and my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But I'm not out committing crimes with them either.

I don't see how the gun debate and world nuclear arsenals relatable. Maybe if we start seeing Walmart, Google and Samsung stockpiling nukes, but until then the two discussions are apples and oranges.


The principle behind the concept of more weapons = even more weapons relates guns and nukes. It's like in the old Looney Tunes cartoons where one character has a rock so the other gets a slingshot, then one gets a gun so the other gets a cannon, then one gets a tank so the other gets a missile, and on and on...Guns can't solve the issue, they'll just create more issues. We're stuck in this endless cycle of using guns to solve problems which leads to more guns to solve issues related to those problems and more guns to solve those issues, etc...

The gun lobby/NRA is more than happy to keep things this way because it means endless cashflow.



posted on Jan, 24 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Without guns, modern civilization would not exist.

I don't support taking us back to the Middle Ages.

The superior weaponry allows for people to be safer, and more secure. We've reached the point that conventional warfare is useless outside 3rd world countries. Which should be a case in point, 3rd world nations do not have the superior weaponry, and suffer at the hands of the first world.

I believe the problems you refer to is violence; which is not caused by guns. The primary cause of violence and crime is poverty, addressing this issue would minimize the problem you are referring to.

I have two examples to help reinforce my claim that poverty is the primary driver of crime and violence, which is obviously the problem you fear that you incorrectly associate with guns.

The first is, The Great Depression, which saw a spike in crime.

www.ushistory.org...

The second example is the legalization of abortion. Which is a little more difficult to understand due to the generational aspect of the decrease in crime and violence. Roughly 18 years after Roe v. Wade, gun violence saw a massive drop in the 90's. Antigun nuts, will associate the drop with the 'strict' gun laws introduced in the 90's, that is incorrect. You see, abortion is primarily targeted at the poor, millions of poor never grew up to commit crimes.

If we don't address the true cause of an issue, the problem will not be solved. Any suggestions to address something that is not the cause, either stems from ignorance of the issue, or some dangerous ulterior motive.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook
Do away with Governments and I will give up my guns...otherwise...nope..,Government kills milllions upon millions of people....an individual with a gun is just a dude with a gun.



posted on Jan, 25 2016 @ 03:07 AM
link   
a reply to: odinsway

Essentially.

I'll give up mine when the criminal types, and govt, which are not necessarily separate entities at time, do. Actually, even then I won't. 'cause I'm one of them thar gun-nutters.




top topics



 
4

log in

join