It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should we get rid of our nukes? (America)

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:38 AM
Okay I have been doing alot of thinking about the middle east crisis with lebannon and Iran etc.. The UN is having a very difficult time coming to a resolution in regards to the nuclear crisis with Iran. My question is, how can the United States as well as Isreal preach to Iran when they knowingly posess nuclear weapons?

If we were to get rid of our bombs and then allow the UN inspectors to come and verify that we are dearmed then we could begin REASONABLE negotiations with other countries. If the rest of the world saw that we were taking steps to set an example to the rest of the world then it would be much easier for the UN to target rogue countries who are developing these weapons.

Lets say we dearmed and then we found out later that Iran was developing a nuclear bomb. Do you really think the UN would let them get away with it then? how would the world feel if we got attacked by a nuke knowing that we threw ours away? I guess what im trying to say is that if we really want support from the rest of the world we need to take certain steps to ensure that. One vital step would be the disarming of nuclear weapons and relying solely on our military might.

Noone should hide behind behind threats of nuclear weapons. I wish these bombs never even existed. I think the only way to achieve common ground with the rest of the world is to show them that we understand that having ANY nukes is wrong, and it will only cause future destruction.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:56 AM
This is a noble idea, but whether it would work is another matter.
First things first, in my opinion no country or countries should have the right to tell another soveriegn nation what it can and cannot do. This includes the UN.
However, things being what they are, I believe we have hurt our international reputation too much for complete nuclear disarmament to be of any real repair. We have made enemies, many of whom would love to hurt us one way or another, and might take advantage of us deactivating a major deterrant.

If we were to disarm, and got attacked on a major level afterwards, can you really say it would be worth it? Would our example, or the the other nations feeling sorry for us, do any good to the citizens we lost?

Even if there were no attack, and after we disarmed every nation on the globe popped up with nukes, the UN wouldn't do anything about it. They exist only to perpetuate themselves and make as much money as possible in the meantime.

This was a good post, it's just too late. We've all heard the expression "You fell in a hole, and you're trying to dig your way out". Well, when nukes were invented we dug a deep hole and put the whole world in with us, and there's no way out.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:04 AM
You dont think it would be possible to create a committee designed to enforce and passively disarm nuclear capabilities throughout the world? Wouldnt the world be in favor of exterminating these bombs?

Nukes are a threat to everyone, not just us. Someone must stand up and say no more.

If this committee (with the support of the world) made a very clear message to any countries attempting to develop nukes that there would be immediate military actions, do you really think countries would even bother? We could get back to beefing up our normal military instead of worrying about who has a nuke and when they might use it.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:32 AM
Consider this,

Why would countries such as North Korea and Iran build nukes?

A bargaining chip perhaps?
To say to the world, "We're now a threat" ?
These two countries are just now having the capability to build a nuke.
Yet, hasn't America had this technology since the 1940's?
I believe all countries should do away with such destructible capabilities.
Although numerous countries either:
(A) Claim to have nukes or
(B) have the capability in which do so,

Have greatly underestimated the cause and effect of what it would do to themselves, directly. Not just the retaliation from other countries, but the effects on the actual environment. Besides, once all the bombs are dropped and everyone that they intended to kill is dead, who then will they aim their sights at?

Although I've gone a bit off topic, I think nukes...are a great intimidation tool until the next weapon of mass destruction is invented and or revealed to the public.


posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:39 AM
Very nice points guys.

Your posts reminded me that of something I forgot to mention....

Do you really think Iran and North Korea would even be trying so hard to develop nukes if the US or Isreal didnt have them in the first place? i dont think so.

Also, How would that sit with the rest of the world if Iran or NK were the only countries developing nukes ? With an orginisation designed to disarm nuclear threats we could show countries that the WORLD will not tolerate nuclear bombs of any kind. If one is used, then extreme military action would be returned with the support of all other peace loving nations..

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:48 AM
No, the world needs nuclear weapons for peace.
Lets no forget, we are dealing with human beings here.
not robots.

sustainable loss, resulting from expected risks isnt a big issue if a madman is at the healm of a country whos industry base is strong enough to produce military arms.

I belive the nuclear club SHOULD be a distinguised club.

You do not allow a country to obtain nuclear weapons, when they have a publically known Hatred and desire to remove another country from existence.
If you want to talk about stupidity, debating that a country who WANTS to kill another country should be allowed nuclear weapons is insane.

Lower the level here.

If a human being walked into a gun shop, told the owner that pesky business men outside wouldnt give him a dollar, so he wants to kill him.
Would you give him a gun, simply because its his right to bare arms? even tho he has already told you his desired actions?

Of course you wouldnt.
You'd scream yell and chuck as big a tantrum as you COULD to ensure that man doesnt get that gun, simply because he wants to kill that poor bystander.

The problem with nuclear weapons, especially in TODAYS world is that technology has grown so fast, and spread to every corner of the globe that a country can obtain the nessecary materials themselves, through friends or allies.
So you cant RESTRICT people having nuclear wepaons any more, you have to STOP Them from obtaining them.

Unfortunately, the only way to stop them is to physically deny them the ability to produce the material.

The doctrine set in place all those years ago, never accounted for a strong country to desire nuclear energy.

nuclear weapons are such horrific things, that the greatest lengths must be adhered to to ENSURE any possible chanec of an 'accidental' or a delibrate attack be removed, before it eventuates.

In the famous words of Robert D.

If theres any doubt... theres no doubt!

It needs to be decided wether a country is a threat, or has the chance of becoming a threat in the immediate future.

and they must stand united in definace, or acceptance.
the world cannot handle a divided world when it comes to nuclear arms.

The big problem with this thinking, is what happens when the ruler, becomes the threat, and throws his weight around a bit to much.

I think there's higher chances that the USA Will use nuclear weapons in the near future, than any other country.

Humans made there bed.
Its time for civilisation to sleep in it.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 03:54 AM
Agit. What an external organisation such as the UN controlled the the nuclear weapons instead of the US or Isreal holding them above everyones heads? my whole point is that until we stop looking like hippocrites in the eyes of the world, countries like Iran will never lose their motivation to build.

To say that any country could easily build a nuke regardless seems like rash thinking. Iran is still in the early stages of nuclear energy and we are breathing down their neck!
IF the UN controlled the nukes and told the rest of the world that they will protect against any extremist strikes, could that be a solution?

We must find a compromise. If we dont get rid of the nukes, atleast let an orginisation comprised of peace loving nations vote on the use of their nukes as a whole.

We have to stop looking like we are the ones in charge all the time. Dont you see that all it does is escalate our problems?

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 04:32 AM
It's a novel idea but probably wouldn't work for a variety of reasons. Firstly the UN is a reasonably powerless organisation. It's cumbersome, slow and beauracratic. I think the whole nuclear issue is massively exagerrated. In the whole history of nuclear weapons only twice were they used against targets. There have been times in the past when we were brought to the brink of destruction during the Cuban missile crisis of the Cold War and yet...we survived. If America gave up it's nuclear arsenal tomorrow it would be very dangerous. There are countries out their who view America with envious eyes and this would be like ringing the metaphorical dinner bell. Most leaders want power as the old saying goes "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" Strategically and militarily the United States is a global player, if they were to have their nuclear deterrant taken out of comission what's to say China, Russia or India wouldn't step into their place and mould the world in their favour? The United Nations relies on these super power countries to lend it's power to wield upon smaller countries and what makes these countries powerful are their vast nuclear arsenals. It's a catch twenty two situation. You take away the nukes, you take away the power and effectiveness of the UN. What I think a lot of these smaller countries like Iran and North Korea are doing is attempting to gain international respect and stature by having these weapons. I think these countries see the U.S. rewarding India for having nuclear weapons for quite a while and choosing NOT to use them against Pakistan by supplying them with nuclear material and aid. They probably want the same respect and treatment from their international counterparts. Bear in the nuclear situation is a lot better compared to the days of the Cold War when the stockpiles could destroy the world many times over and ICBM were pointed at most major cities across the globe, with those gone it does limit the strike capabilities of the major players. I believe China are the only country left with ICBMs.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 05:36 AM
Yes the USA should destroy all nuclear weapons. Right after Russia and other countries destroy theirs and can be verified by the United States, not before.
NWO will have played out it's cloaked infiltration by then, and the USA will hold most of the cards within it.


posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 07:36 AM
Dallas. You lost me right after the first sentence. NWO playing what chips? This was a serious discussion about nuclear politics. Dont make references to shadow orginsations that noone can prove exist k thx.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 12:32 PM
The entire world should get rid of nuclear weapons. There is nothing wrong
with nuclear power itself, its how you use it what makes it right or wrong.
Unfortunately most people will use both of it :S

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 01:34 PM
The US and Russia have gotten off to a good start. There has been a reduction in nukes over the past 15 years with over half of both nations nuke supply to be eliminated within 5 more years.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 02:15 PM
1st point.
Nuclear weapons exist. There is no denying this fact, there is no way to get rid of nuclear weapons. Once you move up the level in more powerful weaponry, you can't go back down.

2nd point.
No nation should relinquish control of their nuclear stock-piles to an organization. Where would the weapons be held, in what nation? Who would have the power to launch these weapons? The idea is inherently flawed, I am not going to give up my nations means of defense just so everyone can feel better about themselves.

3rd point.
To solve the problem you must STOP the spread of nuclear weapons and REDUCE the number of existing weapons. To completely disarm yourself is to make you a target for attack.

other questions:
What would one do if a nation refused to give up their weapons. If the US said, no we have responsibly held nuclear weapons for years now, we will not give them up. Would you then call for military action against the United States?

No worries though, the next breakthrough in destructive weapons will probably be a device that kills people on a large scale, but leaves the infrastructure of the target intact.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:27 PM
I agree with Astygia noble idea; but won’t add up (in part because the world is becoming a more dangerous place).
The idea does work though, if you change it so that the United Nations is able to have its own stockpile of nuclear weapons. There would be a pre-agreement that whoever uses nuclear weapons first will be nuked back (ether at the will of their adversary or the international community). This effectively solves the deterrent argument; by getting the same deterrent effect from a smaller global stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Why It Doesn’t Add Up…
Taking Iran as a perfect example
1. Iran’s main concern is being wiped of the map; this is why it feels the need to have nuclear weapons.

Unless Iran…
A. Agrees Israel has a right to exist
B. Stops funding terrorist groups hostile to Israel (something every terrorist group Iran funds has in common)
C. Agrees not to exercise any military forces outside its own borders in any shape or form (apart from the hypothetical event it supports the West).

Then Iran will be wiped of the map. Not now (obviously); we still need to get our troops out of Iraq, design a few more weapons, and save up lots of money. But if Iran does not agree to the above “preferences” then it will only be a matter of time until it is doomed.
So looking at the world from their point of view it’s easy to see why they need
Nuclear weapons (though I still think they should have temporarily suspended uranium enrichment just to take advantage of all the free perks the international community has been offering).

Furthermore the international sanctions Dubya is trying to get imposed offer only to strengthen Iran’s regime (we saw that under Saddam, and history is littered with other such examples; in fact the only big exception was the racist apartheid democracy of South Africa).
Of course Iran isn’t really a democracy; it elected the Iranian President not the Ayatollah (who in reality runs the whole political show). Basically regime wise Iran is actually in a win, win situation.

The only way Iran would not need nukes is if we were happy to let it continuing to resist Israel; and if Israel’s power had limits (like the way the U.S’s support for Israel should have limits but didn’t in the case of that little “rescue operation” in Lebanon).

Did You Know…
Nobody in their right mind thinks “It’s really unfair that America and the West have loads of nuclear weapons; and because it’s so unfair I'm going to have my own, even though this will be a drain on my economy, and may not even get anywhere as there could be literally hell to pay”.
However if it was all only jealously over weapons, then of course you would be right that the whole world could solve the need for them by getting rid of them (whilst saving a few for an international organisation like the U.N).
Ultimately America can get rid of its nuclear weapons, and so too can Israel; but at the end of the day we can still beat Iran. This sounds like a very bad deal for all of the worlds so called “rogue nations”.
I’m joking because perhaps we could get round that if we split our defence spending with them?

The Good Things About Iran Having Nuclear Weapons
Personally I am quite happy for Iran to have nukes because the way I see it, it puts a limit on Israel’s power. I believe that without Iran there will be little stopping the emergence of an expansionist Israel.
I reckon this is almost bound to happen because the Israeli publics direct experience of terrorism, national service, news censorship, along with an apartheid society has given them the right psychology.
Furthermore through organisations like Friends of Israel; Israel has the right political support in not just America but across almost all the western media.

However although an expansionist Israel would be useful in our war against Islamic fundamentalism I don’t want one because I don’t want a single major Middle Eastern power to be able to side with China. Israel already sells weapons (we sell to them) to China; even though we would never sell the same weapons directly.

For the Future
Furthermore if Iran does wipe Israel of the map then we have just lost a fundamentalists dictatorship; as well as Israel which (through its lobbying) interferes with our own politics out of all proportion to ether its size, or even the entire global Jewish population (some 15 million) (not that there aren’t many good Jews who don’t support Israel).
If I didn’t know better I would say such a nuclear holocaust is almost a good thing (although I would feel sorry for all the Iranian people, particularly as the land they are on has always belonged to them). So let’s hope that doesn’t happen? Let’s just hope that Iran has a bomb and Israel has a bomb but neither side uses them? Because this is the best way; and believe me it is the way of the future.
Anyway apart from stupid sanctions we can do nothing because Iran already has biological weapons. This means it can already deliver Israel much devastation; whilst a weakened command and control system would guarantee it; if nothing else by delivering WMD’s directly into the hands of terrorists.
Iran can cut the oil supply off from the middle any time it likes and attacking its nuclear programme won’t do much else.

After all we have taught the whole world the lessons of toppling Saddam Hussein; and one them was you don’t get rid of your WMD weapons unless you want to end up in a court room. Don’t kid yourself if he hadn’t co-operated with the U.N he would live in luxury whilst saving his people the current anarchy (despite their U.N enforced poverty). This lesson might be committed in the past but its ramifications lie in firmly “the great future” that our leaders (ways of sin) have inevitably landed us in.

Anyhow; America can get rid of its WMD’s anytime it wants; but if it does (and especially in the future with even more nuclear powers) it won’t be long till it will be using that proposed U.N nuclear self defence system. Hence I would strongly advice against it; and in any case it’s not jealously over weapons that’s the issue, but a clash of Mid-East policy is.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 09:34 PM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
No, the world needs nuclear weapons for peace.

He's right. It is our nuclear weapons and other country's nuclear weapons that keep the world at peace, otherwise you'd have countries taking advantage of that. I don't fully agree with the U.S. having a super arsenal but enough.

Talk softly, carry a big, stick, full of nukes.

posted on Sep, 5 2006 @ 11:46 PM

Originally posted by nephyx
Noone should hide behind behind threats of nuclear weapons. I wish these bombs never even existed. I think the only way to achieve common ground with the rest of the world is to show them that we understand that having ANY nukes is wrong, and it will only cause future destruction.

You might as well click the heels of your ruby slippers three times and wish that there was no such thing as murder. Yeah, I agree that it would indeed be a wonderous place, but unfortunately that is not the planet that we live on.

Nuclear weapons are like any other weapon, created to kill people. Mankind created weapons as an easy way to kill. Period. Killing is what man does best. Even in civilized countries where there is no open warfare, there is plenty of killing. Who does the killing? Bloodthirsty men who have been brainwashed into thinking that killing is okay for whatever reason is cool this week. If you lose your ability to protect yourself from bloodthirsty men, you become what is fondly referred to as a sheep.

If you don't mind being a sheep and wish to seek your great reward early and without a fight, you are more than welcome to do so. I think it should be your right. Sadly, there are men who would kill you for the money in your pocket, or less. Imagine what they would do for the resources in your country. Just like any other bully on the block, they ask themselves what can I get from those poeple over there and what kind of risk must I take to get it?

If the risk is greater than the gain, they usually think twice and move on to easier pickings. Some countries are like big bullies. If there are easier pickings elsewhere, they move on.

In my humble opinion, nukes are needed to keep the bullies at bay. Even though there are those who say that nukes are no longer in style, I beg to differ. Nukes are the ultimate penis measuring contest. Having a nuke today is the equivilent of building a pyramid. It says that you are now a superpower (have a big penis) and worth negotiating with.

If you are a country without one, other countries are more likely to invade, loot, pilage, etc.

I also doubt that the UN is incapable of anything but tying up traffic in Manhattan. They can sometimes shoot the wrong people and give away troop positions via internet to bloodthirsty bullies.

As far as keeping stockpiles of nukes safe, the UN would fail and they would fall into the hands of VERY scary people.

Although it is a nice dream, removing nukes is impossible.

Maybe you should try for something better: Stop war, murder, killing, or death in general. Save the whales, the seals, the dolphins and maybe at the end of the day save man from himself. If you can do that, maybe you can do the nukes, too. Until then, I remain very skeptical.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:05 AM
While alot would love to see the USA disarm its nuke arsenal, In my opinion they should not get rtid of them. At all until allt he other coutnries get rid of theirs first.

Nope America should keep it with the rise in tensions with N.Korea and Iran I think it would be daft if amaerica was tot urn round and say oks. We are going to get rid of ours if you get rid of yours. Would never happen.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:10 AM

Originally posted by nephyx
If we were to get rid of our bombs and then allow the UN inspectors to come ....

Oh sure .. disarm and allow anti-american foreign entities to come in and take over.

nephyx .. the ONLY reason America is in existence today is because we are a nuclear country. It's the main deterant to China, and others, coming here and taking over.

No to disarming. No to the corrupt and anti-american UN doing anything here.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by nephyx
Do you really think Iran and North Korea would even be trying so hard to develop nukes if the US or Isreal didnt have them in the first place? i

YES. There are meglomaniacs all over this planet. They run countries; want to run countries; run large corrupt organizations; run terrorist networks; etc etc

YES definately. Even if America and/or Israel didn't have nukes there would be MANY wanting to take over the world. Think about Hitler .... no nukes and yet he tried. There have been many throughout history. There will be many more.

posted on Sep, 6 2006 @ 11:33 AM
Would anybody in favor of America unilaterally disarming put a sign in front of their homes saying: "This is gun a free home"?

I didn't thinks so either.

[edit on 6-9-2006 by Number23]

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in