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.


Are you against nuclear disarmament?

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:30 PM
Just a simple question. Are you for the U.S. getting rid of it's nuclear arsenal ?

Why or why not?

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:35 PM
At this time I am against any action that would remove all nuclear weapons from the arsenal of the US. It does not mean I advocate the use of such, however, there is one reason that many people fail to think of.
The warhead of all nuclear weapons are weapons grade nuclear material, highly toxic and unusable for anything beyond a weapon. What do you do with such, how do you secure it to where it does not pose a threat to any one in the local area? Where could you put it so it does not damage the environment? No where, even the dust will cause fatalities. Now the day that they figure out a way to safely dispose of that level of nuclear material safely without endangering people or environment, then I would say it is time to dismantel and get rid of those weapons.
But as long as we do have those weapons and that option is on the table to retaliate with like kind of force, it is a good deteriant for any who would believe that they could do such.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:38 PM
I think we can defend our land without Nukes. so yes we should disarm.

if we are so afraid of any other country having nukes we should develop better counter measures to intercept or destroy nukes before they are even launched. as far as I know we have never been attacked on our land other than by those who are supposed be protecting us. well the british but like I said we can handle any invasion without Nukes.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:41 PM
The day that happens is the day I will celebrate with my fellow man. Look at what Gandhi and what he taught. I'm first for removing all troops for other countries.

Think about the innocent people we destroyed with our nukes before. I mean, really think about it. People on their daily grind paying the price for their dumbass government. America's tyranny continues and continues and thank god no one has had the means to nuke us regular folks for their tyranny.

I think even more insulting is America's insistence that other countries can't arm themselves. If they are just defending themselves from other countries' attacks, I see no problem with it. Nikolas Tesla could have stopped all wars, but no one wanted that.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:44 PM
well ..... YESSSS
the first country to have used that on people should be the first country to make an exemple out of it and ban them
other countries will follow

Nukes = Destroyers of worlds
they shouldnt exist ...
its pure Evil in that weapon

Nukes = not a defensive weapon

Nukes = long term radioactive wasteland .. nothing can grow after a blast

but nuclear energy is good for electricity and medical isotops

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:54 PM

Are you against nuclear disarmament? Just a simple question. Are you for the U.S. getting rid of it's nuclear arsenal ? Why or why not?

I thought when i enterd this thread there would be some great facts about the pro´s and cons with the nuclear disarment of the world. Instead i find a poll and a 1 line statement..... Great. Well i´ll go ahead and join this rat race to the top.

Against nuclear disarment,, = no
Us getting rid of there nukes = yes
Why = nukes are bad

Maybe next time toss up something to go along with your thread.
Or atleast when taking a poll, do not ask a question then state it is a simple question then ask another question then ask to state our reason. I was kinda confused.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45

There are to many nukes for there ever to be any kind of nuclear disarmament.
To much money, research and lives invested to just give it all up.

My hope is that all nations can get as many nukes as possible so that when the inevitable nuclear exchange happenes; it will be over quickly and painlessly as possible. A great cleansing if you will.

Some country, by accident or on purpose will eventually use a nuke on a perceived enemy and that will be the end of civilization as we know it and the survivors will envy the dead.

I prophesy that Israel will be the first to use a nuke to usher in Armageddon. Soon....

Have a nice day!

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 09:58 PM
Keep them all until we get something better.

There are nefarious nations in the world, and they have nukes. We have to maintain a counter to that.

Simple as that.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:04 PM
I am for. I believe we should keep a little for defense, but there is no use for over a 1,000 nukes. That would be enough to wipe out most of the world population.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:10 PM
Everybody should get rid of all nuclear weapons. No exception.

In the meanwhile, get rid of all military all-together.


posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:11 PM
Although this question is aimed towards the US viewers, I would not agree with nuclear disarmament in Britain.

There's the simple fact that you cannot un-invent nuclear warheads, so why on earth would you lose any warheads that your country has, when there is the infinite possibility that another nation could develop nuclear weapon in the future and destroy your country ?

Nuclear disarmament and unilateralism can never work, until we undo the knowledge in physics that creates these weapons... Which won't happen.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes

It's too bad that the real world doesn't just have a big EDIT button like ATS.


posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:17 PM
the reason everyone is racing to build nuclear bombs is because the united states has them. if they disarmed every country in the world would wipe the u.s. from the map and declare world peace.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by randomname]

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


What a wonderful idea.

However it is impossible.

You can ban them you can take them apart and turn them into a plough.

But it is not so easy to destroy the knowledge of how to build them.

So come the next war and it will happen, you will have a race to produce the first one.

WW2 again.

posted on Jul, 15 2010 @ 10:37 PM
There aren't enough nukes.

The sooner every country who wants them has them, the sooner we can all start treating each other like adults at the international level.

The possibility of mutually assured destruction does wonders in aiding the diplomatic process.

[edit on 15-7-2010 by Exuberant1]

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 01:30 AM


the nations of the world, collectively, spend $1 trillion a year on military/national defense.
last year, the United States spent $742 billion of that $1 trillion.
that's nearly 75%.
that's around $61 billion per month.

since the dawn of the nuclear age, at the end of WWII in 1945, the United States has spent a total of $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons.
this averages out to $98 billion a year.


as of July 2009, the population of the U.S. was 307,006,550.
9.5% is 2,916,562
as of June, 2010, the national unemployment rate was 9.5%.
the average weekly unemployment insurance check is $292.
that's $1168 a month and $14,016 a year.

$41 billion a year spent for unemployment; however, only $25 of each check was coming from the Federal Government. my neighbor is on unemployment and said that $25 has been discontinued. the rest of the check comes from state funds.

the Federal Government WAS spending $73 million a year on unemployment benefits.


yearly Federal Budget Spending, $2,650 billion total outlays:

$789 billion for Human Resources (includes Social Security, DOL, HUD, Education, and Health/Human Services)

$304 billion for General Government (includes interest on the non-military portion of the national debt which is 20%, gov't personnel, homeland security at 15%, NASA at 50%, judicial and legislative, justice, state, and treasury depts, int'l affairs)

$117 billion for Physical Resources (includes agriculture, interior, DOT, homeland security another 15%, HUD split, non-military energy, Army Corps Engineers, FCC, Environmental Protection)

that is a little less than 46%

what's left is spent on the military:

$484 billion for Past Military ( Veterans’ Benefits at $94 billion and interest on the portion of national debt (80%) created by military spending which is $390 billion)

the rest, $965 billion, goes for current military spending - this includes housing for soldier's families and other non-combat necessities incurred by a standing military force, not included under the Defense Department budget ( the expenditures of which were $742 billion in 2009).

that's nearly 55% of the yearly federal budget


the pay for an individual working for 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at minimum wage, which is $7.25/hr, comes out to $15,080 a year, before deductions.

the official poverty line in the U.S. is $21,756 for a family of four and $17,285 for a family of three—one parent with two children.
one in eight people and one in five children live below the poverty line in America

food accounts for 17% of spending for households making less than $10,000 per year compared to the 12% average.
49 million Americans, 16.7 million of which are children, live in households that struggle to put enough food on the table.

a family of four generally needs to earn twice the poverty line to provide children with basic necessities.

84 percent of low-income families have at least one working family member, and 75 percent of single mothers who head households work.

51.4 percent of Americans will live in poverty at some point before age 65.


1 billion people are hungry all over the world.
almost 16,000 children die of hunger and related causes everyday; one child every 5 seconds.
in 2008, one third of the 9 million kids, who died before they turned 5 years old, died because of not having enough to eat.

starvation is a VERY slow way to die.

the UN estimates that the cost of alleviating world hunger is $195 billion a year.

there are approximately 1.2 billion people in the world without any source of safe, potable, drinking water. in 2005, 4,700 people died from a lack of safe water, the majority of which were children under 5 years old.

there are 2.6 billion people worldwide without access to sanitation.

it would take around $25 billion to provide these human beings with drinking water and sanitation.


those are a few of my reasons for NO MORE NUKES and NO MORE WAR
(what is it good for???!?)

war (death) vs food (life)


posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 01:35 AM
No I'm not for dissarmament. If we let our "superpower"status slip even a little, we will be in the middle of a world war you could'nt even begin to imagine.

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 01:53 AM
if we quit war, we could feed everyone that's hungry.

$965 billion (annual U.S. military spending)
- $195 billion (to feed the hungry, worldwide, right now)
$770 billion left over!!!!!

$770 billion left over!!!

oh, the things we could do with that kind of money!

we could give the poor man a fish...and then we could also teach that man to catch his own fish!

we could use some of that money to establish ways to permanently alleviate hunger in developing countries, set up schools, and provide vaccinations and basic pre-natal and OB care.

there is absolutely no excuse for letting other human beings starve because we are afraid of other countries possibly attacking us.

only once has any foreign military invaded the United States - this was the Japanese who briefly occupied a few islands in the Aleutian chain in Alaska during WWII.

of all the world's nations who have military and/or national defense, according to yearly expenditures, 12 out of the 14 below the U.S. are our allies!
we out-spend Iran and North Korea by a ratio of 72 to 1.

even if all the nations with the capability ganged up on the U.S., our arsenal and troops would still dwarf them, altogether!

despite our greediness for oil and power and insensitivity to the culture and lifestyles in the countries we occupy as a military force, we are still admired by many (for what, i don't know, but that is what i've found in my research).

if we took a leap of faith in humanity, and let go of our fears, we could do some good, some true and real good, in the world and at the same time, set an example even greater than that of democracy.

it is blatant hypocrisy to spend so much on destruction, in the name of "homeland security" that is focused pretty much outside our borders, and in the name of national defense which is an unnecessary thing given the history of foreign invasion on our soil, under the auspices of spreading freedom and democracy.

what good is democracy when the voters are too weak from hunger to make it to the polls, or even care about the elections?

what good is freedom to those who don't even have any knowledge of the available opportunities due to lack of education and the inability to even write their own name?

and furthermore, who says democracy is the best form of government for every nation on earth? we can't even be sure that we do have a successful working democracy here in the U.S. at this point in time!

christianity is not the best religion for all nations, neither is buddhism, hinduism, or islam. culture and tradition is the most valuable possession of every community of the world. it is what makes the world beautiful and interesting. this variety demands diversity in all aspects of life, suited for each nation, respectively.

respect is the key word.

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 01:55 AM

Originally posted by Wolf321
Keep them all until we get something better.

There are nefarious nations in the world, and they have nukes. We have to maintain a counter to that.

Simple as that.

good point.
except that the nefarious nation is the United States.

the rest maintain a counter to us.

posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 02:08 AM

Originally posted by queenannie38
if we quit war, we could feed everyone that's hungry.

Historically, nuclear powers don't wage war against each other.

Therefore using the record of history as our guide, the arming of all those nations who want nukes with nukes will lead to less international conflict.

We cannot quit war, but we can make the cost of fighting wars so high that the nations who participate in them will be unwilling to pay that price (total annihilation).

new topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in