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.

 

Should the Entire World have NuKes?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
Ok, so many here keep saying "so what" to the issue of Iran or N Korea having nukes.

I would like to see the ratio here and justification.

Should every single country on the planet have Nukes? And Why?




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Nope only Australia because i don't think any other country can be trusted with them


Just jokes, i wouldn't want to see N. Korea and Iran get them because i honestly don't know what they plan to do with them once they get them and i sure don't want to find out by the way of a mushroom cloud.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
No, nuclear weapons and other types of mass destruction weapons should be banned from the face of our earth. I bet, even if we haven't launched many of them yet, there will come a day when some country, which has access to weapons of mass destruction, will do it. But, as of today, they play a big political role, and have done so in the past.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
Probably everyone in the Northern Hemisphere will be
getting their hands on them in the near future anyways.
Terrorists buying and selling old USSR Nukes and N. Korea
making them and selling them ....

Dr. H. Instead of asking 'should' the entire world have nukes,
we should probably be taking bets on WHEN it will happen.

(unless we get the CIA kicking butt and going in and stealing
old nukes ... that will slow things down a bit! MAN ... I wish
i were in charge of that organization!!!)



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:05 AM
link   
Well, as all humans beings are equal, it therefore implies that either all have them or none have them. Now, have fun, convincing US, Russia and China.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   
Well, since Countries on this planet already have nukes, what difference does it make if more Countries have access to that technology? I hardly see any difference. The existence of Nuclear technology on this planet should already have been cause for concern anyway.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Probably everyone in the Northern Hemisphere will be
getting their hands on them in the near future anyways.
Terrorists buying and selling old USSR Nukes and N. Korea
making them and selling them ....

Dr. H. Instead of asking 'should' the entire world have nukes,
we should probably be taking bets on WHEN it will happen.


There are also a lot of countries that had nuclear programs but quit them decades ago because they decided to go with non-proliferation. Australia is one of these and considering we have some of the largest uranium deposits in the world and could build facilities that could inrich this uranium to weapons grade, if we wanted them it wouldn't take long to get nukes. The same could be said about Japan, Italy, Canada, Germany and a lot of other countries that have the tech level to build them.



[edit on 4-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:19 AM
link   
The US and UN and global powers should've never allowed this recent 'second round' of nuke develoment, not in israel and not in india or pakistan or north korea.

Perhaps it can work out that some 'regional powers' can have a very limited number of nukes. Maybe.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:20 AM
link   
The traditional nuclear powers should keep their weapons but do everything possible to stop proliferation.

Countries like Australia don't need to waste their time building nuclear weapons since the U.S. and UK would launch a retaliatory nuclear strike on their behalf if necessary.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Can any country have a copyright on natural phenomena like atomic energy? In the 21st century fusion and anti-matter will become a reality, that can both be used for energy generation or as weapons. Does this mean we will not allow certain countries to have these technologies.

Newton invented gravity



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Nuke reduction is actually going very well, as far as the traditional nuclear powers are concerned. If only Iran and N. Korea would stop trying to get them things would be safer than it's been in a long time. 20 000 is still a crazy number and probably enough to wipe out most of the earth's population but now days the crazy Osama freak with one nuke is a whole lot more dangerous than Russia ever was.

From a high of 65,000 weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world in 2002.

en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Trent]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
Can any country have a copyright on natural phenomena like atomic energy?


You do understand that it takes a little more than the 'natural phenomenon' to get nukes right?


Does this mean we will not allow certain countries to have these technologies.

Of course.


Newton invented gravity

Thats pretty silly, einstein might've discovered the equation that relates energy to mass, but he didn't invent any of the stuff that actually goes into a nuclear bomb.

But it has nothing to do with copyright anyway. The countries that built nukes, that invented the technology, hell that discovered the physics involved to even make it conceivable, all agreed to work together to spread nuclear technology, to give it to other countries, so long as they were willing to use it peacefully. So there's no 'copyright' issue here. Its a 'power' issue. Nuclear weapons are power. The people that have them have absolutely no reason to allow other people to get power, and have every reason to actively prevent them from getting it.


trent
From a high of 65,000 weapons in 1985, there were about 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world in 2002.

Indeed, disarmament of massive nuclear arsenals represents a change in thinking about nuclear warfare. Hence the impulse to test and create new weapons, not the sort to be made in massive numbers, for more 'precise' military purposes. In a sense its an exchange of massive numbers of world destroying nukes for much smaller numbers of much less destructive nukes.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   

But it has nothing to do with copyright anyway. The countries that built nukes, that invented the technology, hell that discovered the physics involved to even make it conceivable, all agreed to work together to spread nuclear technology, to give it to other countries, so long as they were willing to use it peacefully. So there's no 'copyright' issue here. Its a 'power' issue. Nuclear weapons are power. The people that have them have absolutely no reason to allow other people to get power, and have every reason to actively prevent them from getting it.


No, actually there is a copyright issue here. As you are claiming those who build it have the right to dictate those who can and cannot.

Yet, as atomic energy is a natural phenomena, another country can independently discover it. Now, we cannot copyright nature. Every man has a right to nature as much as any other do.

Now, by labelling it as a "power issue" and I am not entirely convinced you know what you are saying, it does not negate the fundamental rights a man has to nature. A sovereign country has the solemn right to scientific research, economical development and security. If it wants to use atomic energy, it has the right too.

However, if this is to be forbidden, then it would only be right, it is forbidden for all. Otherwise you promote inequality, and that IS silly.

[edit on 4-2-2005 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:26 AM
link   
no, you got it wrong!

the entire world should have NO nukes!!!






posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I Agree Soulja; nukes should be dismantled the world over
UNLESS, there is an alien race intent on invading earth and destroying humanity; than we need to keep our nukes and use them agianst the aliens

on another note;
Soulja
your thing says "Freedom Fighter"
well i have a great George Carlin Quote for ya on that

"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? "



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
The "no-nuke" world may sound theoretically good, but in fact they have kept the world's major powers from getting into direct conflicts with each other since WWII, so nuclear weapons have actually helped make a more peaceful world. The problem facing us is when minor ideologically driven states such as Iran have access to nuclear weapons and use them to wage jihad.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
I Agree Souljah; nukes should be dismantled the world over
UNLESS, there is an alien race intent on invading earth and destroying humanity; than we need to keep our nukes and use them agianst the aliens

on another note;
Souljah
your thing says "Freedom Fighter"
well i have a great George Carlin Quote for ya on that

"Well, if crime fighters fight crime and fire fighters fight fire, what do freedom fighters fight? They never mention that part to us, do they? "


ok
first,
i agree, we should better aim nukes up, into unknown universe, and that
NASA should be the ONLY nuke possessing agency!
they should have ALREADY build a nuclear system in the orbit,
against any incoming ASTEROIDS that can wipe out the entire planet.
but NO,
selfishness of the MAN always points the nukes towards each other.
which is basicly a complete, and utter suicide.


second,
your quote confuses me.
if you want freedom quotes,
all i can do,
is leave you with words of your fellow american,
mister Malcolm X:

Nobody can give you freedom. Nobody can give you equality or justice or anything. If you're a man, you take it.

You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.



posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
No, actually there is a copyright issue here.

Wow. You actually don't understand what copyright means. This is amazing.


As you are claiming those who build it have the right to dictate those who can and cannot.

Thats not copyright, thats a matter of power and coercion.


Yet, as atomic energy is a natural phenomena, another country can independently discover it.

If the copyright issue is forced, then there is a copyright on the actual technology used for making hte bomb. However, that is not how nuclear non-proliferation efforts proceede. They don't argue that a patent has been violated.


Now, we cannot copyright nature.

The technology required to split an atom and create a nuclear bomb is not 'nature'.



Now, by labelling it as a "power issue" and I am not entirely convinced you know what you are saying, it does not negate the fundamental rights a man has to nature.

It has nothing to do with 'negating a fundamental right'. Its about overpowering and forcing someone to not exercise that right and convincing them not too. I have a right to free speech, for example. If you walk up to me with a gun and say 'shut de 'f up' you have not negated my right to speech, but you have convinced me to shut up.


A sovereign country has the solemn right to scientific research, economical development and security. If it wants to use atomic energy, it has the right too.

Part of the problem here is that Iran is not doing its own research and creating these things. Its using technology given to it by the IAEA and also independently bought from the Russians. The Iranians could use the open source scientific literature to create an actual indiginous nuke program, but they don't. If they did, then the US would still be able to US its power and influence to prevent them from actually acheicing nuke weapons.


However, if this is to be forbidden, then it would only be right, it is forbidden for all.

Thats a nice way of thinking. Fortunately, no one is trying to be fair here.


Otherwise you promote inequality, and that IS silly.

It is a silly inequal world. What of it?


souljah
the entire world should have no nukes

I am curious as to whether or not you think this is possible? Of course, the question was a rhetorical one that started the thread, so your answer is perfect the way it is, but, outside of that, do you think this is something that can acutally happen?


djohnsto77
The "no-nuke" world may sound theoretically good, but in fact they have kept the world's major powers from getting into direct conflicts with each other since WWII

Overall I agree with this position, however, I sometimes wonder, what are the chances, over the long span of history, of 'WWII" style global thermonuclear war occuring? I'd think that given enough time its very likely, I mean, the US and Soviets barely avoided it. Can a future, say, where the new state of "Pakist-iran" coordinate the high level diplomacy required to prevent globe wreaking nuclear exchange with 'Sino-Macronesia'?
So maybe a world where nukes just can't exist (for some magical reason) would be better off, even though it has huge wars constantl, because it won't have the perhaps inevitable 'wwiii style nuke war'. Of course, its equally conceivable that two super states in this 'hypothetical no nuke world' will just build other types of massively destructive weapons, or simply engage in entirely conventional but equally destructive wars anyway. Poised nuke arsenals do seem to be more likely to be ultimately more destructive.

On the other hand, nukes exist, so what does it matter if a no nuke world would be better. Why not make nukes into good things. Every civilized country has to realize the awesome power of nuke weapons, that its entirely possible, you might even say probably, that having nuke stockpiles will ultimately, inevitably, result in massive nuke war, hell, if enough technology exists after wards, there could be inumerable nuke wars on earth throughout the future. Realizing this, the people of the world can state that they must not engage in war at all, and must, despite all 'ideological concerns', accept that the ultimate choice is between absolute global peace or infinite rounds of terrible destruction. Giving everyone in the room a machine gun makes everyone act very nice to each other, and mutually assured death can result, conceviably, in everyone biting the bullet and working as a single unit.

I mean, the US and Russia might go to war. But New York and Nevada aren't going to go to war, because they are united in a federated government. The Nuke Destruction possibility might be the catalyst to 'congeal' a global superstate, the benefits of which would infinitely outweight the terrible possibilities of nukes. If that is 'realized', then Nukes, despite their murderous potential, will have been a very very very good thing, better than any religion or humanitarian impulse or anything else ever.


souljah
they should have ALREADY build a nuclear system in the orbit,
against any incoming ASTEROIDS that can wipe out the entire planet.

And when dozens of these things come crashing down from falling out of orbit?

its the same reason no one dares to send nuclear waste into space. What the hell is going to happen when a super-shuttle, carrying tons of highly radioactive nuke waste, blows up while reaching orbit? I mean, it'd be a global catastrophe, as opposed to say something going wrong with like the french waste storage system, in which case its limited to a french catastrophe.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

souljah
the entire world should have no nukes

I am curious as to whether or not you think this is possible? Of course, the question was a rhetorical one that started the thread, so your answer is perfect the way it is, but, outside of that, do you think this is something that can acutally happen?

i think its a little bit too late for that, since nukes represent,
"national security" and is essential within all military powers.
i dont think the superpowers will ever give up their nukes!
they are "too precious" for them...


Originally posted by Nygdan
And when dozens of these things come crashing down from falling out of orbit?
its the same reason no one dares to send nuclear waste into space. What the hell is going to happen when a super-shuttle, carrying tons of highly radioactive nuke waste, blows up while reaching orbit? I mean, it'd be a global catastrophe, as opposed to say something going wrong with like the french waste storage system, in which case its limited to a french catastrophe.

i guess i never thought of that.
but, i think smart boys in space centers would come up with an idea,
how to solve that kind of problem...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join