Are you against nuclear disarmament?

I am totally in support of eliminating nuclear weapons altogether but nuclear disarmament is a horrible idea. There will always be a nation that doesn't want to disarm and will dominate over disarmed nations.


It's like dropping your gun in the middle of a gang confrontation.

The USA invented the nuclear arsenal, and ours is pretty awesome. Neverminding the thousands of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles — each carrying about ten nuclear warheads — our submarine fleet carries enough pre-targeted nuclear missiles to destroy the entire planet 400 times over.

That's just the submarine fleet.

Now, in this age of international terrorism and fanatical jihad, it's imperative that we NOT disarm and dismantle our arsenal.

Doing so will make us a sitting duck for any rogue nation or terrorist organization, and they aren't going to follow nor be intimidated by any UN disarmament resolutions, trust me. They'll laugh in the UN's face, as did Saddam Hussein for nearly 20 years. May he rot in hell.

Rather, I'd like to see our nuclear arsenal upgraded and repurposed.

As it is, our nuclear missile arsenal is of a suborbital nature. Meaning, we can fire a missile into a long, suborbital trajectory, but it doesn't actually go into space — it reaches it's apex on the fringe of microgravity, and then releases its payload of ten or so nuclear warheads, each of which fall back on a predetermined target several thousand miles away.

Point being, our nuclear weapons aren't designed to GO INTO SPACE. They're designed to go up, come down, go boom.

What we NEED are maneuverable long range missiles that can REACH OUT a good long distance into space and target rogue, Earth-threatening asteroids, comets and the like.

We don't have that right now. We might not have it for another century.

So, NO, we shouldn't dismantle our nuclear arsenals; but, YES, we should upgrade and repurpose them.

— Doc Velocity

Totally in support of global multilateral disarmament.
1: I'd love to buy one of those bunkers when more become surplus.
2: Countries could get on and threaten each other the old-fashioned way; face to face.
3: Nuclear weapons are pretty boring compared to almost any other weapons systems.

reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


I am ageist nuclear disarmament but only because we cannot un-invent nuclear weapons. They are a necessary evil when it comes to defending the state. I do support attempts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

If nukes are outlawed only outlaws will have nukes?

I'm for it, but what does my opinion matter? It'll never happen. No country is ever going to trust that another country will keep its word and get rid of all its nukes.

And some, like Israel never, ever, ever will. They're special and need them for protection in their special case. But that's a moot point anyway, isn't it? Officially, Israel doesn't have nukes.

And others, like the U.S,, Russia, and China might make a show of eliminating nukes...once they have a more powerful, more destructive weapon in their arsenal. Weapons which are probably already in place in space is my guess.

I guess, logically, I have to go the stance of the neutralization factor, like I do with guns. Nukes for everyone or nukes for no one.



[edit on 7/16/2010 by ~Lucidity]

While the notion of nuclear disarmament is obviously an attractive one, I feel that its proponents should be aware of the lessons of history.

Study should be made of the European situation in the 1930's. There were no nuclear weapons, but in all other respects the situation is exactly the same.

In 1930 Great Britain was roughly equal to what the USA is today in world standing. The British government was also the worlds greatest supporters of a general disarmament policy. This meant limiting the size of Battleships and bombers and limiting numbers of ships and aircraft in general with an eventual aim of total disarmament.

It was a very laudable aim, and Britain was even prepared to 'set an example' by crippling its own military so that others may follow.

Not very much research is actually required to see how this, plus Britains influence over France and America's general disinterest in what anyone else was doing (how times change!) played its part, by a series of extremely avoidable events, in leading to another a world war.

The sad truth is that any sign of 'weakness', however noble the intention, will always inspire someone else to take advantage of it. It is just human nature and quite stupid to pretend otherwise.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes



I, like almost everyone else, is for nuclear disarmament. I think I'd sleep a lot better at night knowing the world isn't going to be nuked. Needless to say, this is just a pipe dream.

I think that some countries shouldn't be allowed to have nukes. I'm thinking of the middle eastern nations specifically. Having nukes is relatively safe due to the threat of "mutually assured destruction". It's suicide for your country to launch nukes against another. However, as we have seen, death is not a deterrent for some of the religious zealots in the middle east. Other countries have them, of course, but seem to actually try to keep them in check.

Nukes can also be considered a "desperation" weapon. If another country is taking yours over, you might as well take them out with you and nuke everyone. They help keep the nuclear countries safe against large scale conventional attacks as well.


reply to post by ~Lucidity


Exactly! The nuclear disarmament that we're seeing is just a PR move. They're only getting rid of some of their nukes and even if they got rid of them all I'd suspect it was only 'cause they have something better.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
reply to post by SUICIDEHK45

 

I am ageist nuclear disarmament but only because we cannot un-invent nuclear weapons. They are a necessary evil when it comes to defending the state. I do support attempts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Nukes are the only weapons Evil will use in a war
thats why they need to be
WIPED OUT FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH BEFORE THEY WIPE OUT US

reply to post by -W1LL


Use the example of Chicago or DC when they put in gun bans. The murder rate went thru the roof. You see, the bad guys (rogue states) didn't comply to the gun ban. Therefore, they were free to create mahem, with no risk of encountering an armed citizen. In fact, the bad guys didn't need a gun for the same reason.
The day we get rid of the last nuke will be America's last day. By the way, the Chinese can raise an army of 200 million. Only one way to counter that.

reply to post by Ben81


Yes i would like to see them whipped form the face of the earth however the problem is you cannot un-invent nuclear weapons or trust your enemy to get abolish their stalk piles and not build any more nuclear weapons. For that reason i see them as a necessary evil.

reply to post by waynos


A very interesting parallel drawn here.

Though similar, nuclear weapons possess that lingering sting of self inflicted extinction, and thus the impetus to at least reduce stockpiles to a level that maintains minimal credible deterrence while negating the possibility of global nuclear holocaust.

Total nuclear disarmament? I doubt it will ever happen. Everyone reducing stockpiles to under 100 warheads? Possible.

There's only two ways of seeing it, either the entire world disarms or arm, there is no middle line here. Nukes are more symbolic than they are weaponry, and the only thing keeping them from bombing people is human compassion.

It doesn't really matter what you do with them now, the technology is global and too many people know how the make them. Until some really cold bastard decides to cross the line and use them again in hostility, they will remain as one of the world's top war deterrents.

Face it, if your country has a nuclear bomb then not many countries will mess with you... though if you use a nuke on another country then you're going to be psychologically safe from invasion for a long time. Why do you think the US bombed Japan? They know what the atom bomb would do to a city and they still followed through, not just to end their war but to obtain its status as a superpower after the war.

Originally posted by waynos
Study should be made of the European situation in the 1930's. There were no nuclear weapons, but in all other respects the situation is exactly the same.

EXACTLY the same........Except there was no European union, tensions between European countries were higher, Britain still had an empire and a proper navy etc etc.

So the situation was precisely identical except for the little details, like what countries were called, their borders, the political alliances and economic states, or in fact the existence of some countries. But apart from that, the only major difference between the world then and now is nukes.

Right.

reply to post by aegis80


I believe you may have completely misunderstood the point I was making.

Or, I have misunderstood yours.


When a 'superpower' wilfully removes its chief means of power projection (the aforementioned battleships and bombers then, nukes now) it makes itself look weak, not noble. This is ALWAYS the same. The colours of the flags is irrelevant.

It matters not what particular political entities hold sway, where the borders are or what organisations exist. Where someone sees an opportunity for self aggrandisement that is made easy, they will take the opportunity one day for sure. Nationality and political inclination do not override our basic animal instinct. No matter how much we kid ourselves that we are all better than that these days.

Indeed I have a few editorials from 1938 (post-Munich) that point out quite forcibly how stupid we all were to think that we would go to war in our modern civilised age where everyone now had so much more to lose than in the past.

Even as German forces marched into the Sudetenland strong political opinion held that disarmament and agreement paved the road to lasting peace. It was then, as it is now, totally naive.

Fast forward one year and..........oops.

Fast forward five decades and look at the mayhem wreaked in all parts of the world by power mad despots.

Its a sad indictment of us as a species but, as you cannot put the genie back in the bottle, total nuclear disarmament by the major powers will guarantee that one day we will all regret it.

If you do not disarm totally, then you are just playing at it and there is no point. The idea of 'limited' nuclear exchange is a dangerous myth.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by waynos]

if we were to truely get rid of nukes it would be for one of the following reasons

1.we invent something scarier more dangerous and far more devastating

2.we invent some kinda uber star trek like technology that disables nuclear fission fusion etc which at this stage of the game i dont see happening

3.some one spiritual dieaty or aliens come down show them selves and say NO more NUKES for you im not religious but i do belive in life in the galaxy but seeing jeebus or other religious figure pop up in reality and where it can be proven and set forth some new commandment would prob lay be kinda hard to argue with same with the aliens saying no nukes for you......but wed prob-lay try to nuke the ET"s and i wouldnt put it past some nation whos god dosent show up from trying to nuke said god its how we work

If no one had a nuclear weapon, then the treat would be gone. But the thing is, some people will keep a few because they suspect that someone else has kept a few. So then when it is learned that someone else has some, the the others feel they need some, and the whole process just gets bigger and bigger.

It really isn't fair for one country to say "I can have this and you can't." I know the U.S says that, and I live in the U.S. But even though we say we'd never use one, well, I don't even really believe that myself.

We the people elect our government leaders, but they often decide what they think is best for us. Even though the majority of the people don't want a certain thing, they decide we must and we will have it. There are some people who think they are elite. They think they are so much more educated than the sheeple, and they must tell us what we want, because we are too dumb to know what is right.

Well, I really don't want a nuclear war, thank you very much. I'd rather try to live and let live. There is a time for war. There is a time when our enemies only want to see us die, and are not interested in talking. There is a time when our enemies talk of peace, but their version of peace includes our deaths.

Then it is the time for war. But I just don't see how we can win a nuclear war.

I consider the middle East part of the world and a part of the environment. If it were possible to bomb it into obliteration, it would be the wrong thing to do. Whatever we do to one part of the world will effect the whole world.

I also don't really think I am at war with everyone. Most people I know, even if I disagree with them on politics or religion, just want to be allowed to exist.

I want to be allowed to exist, to grow, to prosper, to believe or not believe as I decide. I believe I have this right. If I have this right, then others must have it too.

I know there are people who want me dead, who think I should not exist unless I believe as they do and follow their ways. They believe that peace can only be accomplished if I do everything their way.

I believe we will never truly have any peace on this Earth anyway. There are too many differences. We can only have a semblance of peace when people agree to live and let live.

While there will always be war, some weapon do more than destroy the enemy, some destroy the world as well. We should not have weapons like that because the Earth is not our enemy.

There seems to be some fairly bad info flying around.

First - we couldn't destroy the Earth with nuclear weapons, even if we tried. Can't be done. Sure - we could cripple pretty much every country by destroying major population and network centers, but that's hardly going to destroy populations in South America, Africa, and many rural areas.

I also like the cute idea that "If America gets rid of its nuclear weapons, we can all have world peace!"

If you haven't noticed - we haven't been using nuclear weapons lately, or, increasing our arsenal (we've actually been cutting back - allowing a number of warheads to fall out of service without replacements).

Nukes aren't what you all have to worry about. Getting rid of them won't suddenly make the rest of the world like us. If they don't like us now - they still won't like us after getting rid of our nuclear weapons - and then people will find something else to blame for the lack of love from another country.

That's just the way life is. Some countries have a lot of shared interests and philosophies, others don't. World peace is not something that can happen. What can happen, however, is to change the way in which we handle our differences and disagreements. There's no need for war in many cases, but when it is needed - it is impractical to then prepare for it.

reply to post by SUICIDEHK45


Personally i am for having nuclear weapons. The reason is that it prevents a bigger conventional war between two or more big nations. But the most important reason is: Since the weapon is already created an stoked by many different nations, its senseless to even think about a trust worthy nuclear disarmament.

I would also like to say that the US have stalked different types of nuclear devises in Europe. If these nations who let the US have these weapons in their possession, And at the same time is against Iran creating such weapons is utter nonsense. The US also Carry with them a arsenal of nuclear weapons with their fleets which are everywhere, also makes me think about the logic in their arguments. The US never go anywhere without their nukes.

EDIT to add: US, China, France and Russia also have the lowest restriction when it comes to the use of different types of nuclear devises. That also speaks against their arguments towards Iran. But who bothers to think about that when they argue against Iran?








[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by waynos
The idea of 'limited' nuclear exchange is a dangerous myth.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by waynos]

But then if total disarmament is realistically impossible due to the scenarios you put forward, and total nuclear war is unthinkable due to its consequences, well all we have to run to is this concept of tactical/limited nuclear exchange..
Or the belief that the existence of MAD in its full glory will dissuade us from ever realizing it and even prevent full scale conventional war.

Am I against nuclear disarmament?

In an ideal world no. In an ideal world no nation would stockpile nuclear weapons and multilateral nuclear disarmament to zero would be good.

However, we don't live in an ideal world.

We are not getting any more civilised. Despite its bad press MAD has probably prevented large scale conventional conflict in the latter half of the last century. Among the large powers it could continue to do so.

Since you cant un-invent the tech a global disarmament would allow any nation to think that by clandestinely re-joining the nuclear club they could pull off a first strike. Not good. That increases the threat of use instead of reducing it. The best we can hope for is a reduction in the stockpiles to minimum credible deterrent levels instead of the massive overkill both Russia and the US still possess.

Nuclear proliferation is an issue that gets dragged in to this discussion and people deploy the argument that states are seeking nuclear weapons out of fear of (insert boogeyman existing nuclear power of choice), as if the existing powers disarming would negate proliferation. Its a false argument. They are sought because they provide power. Power to deter sanction by the outside world and the power to dominate nearby non aligned non nuclear nations. It would remain an irresistible lure to tyrannical regimes regardless of what the existing nuclear powers did.

There is also the argument that 'give them to everybody then' is the best approach. This doesn't work either. It assumes that the principles of MAD apply in all cases and that all national leaderships are sane. I tend to think that personality cult regimes, theocracies and failed states cant be trusted to act in their own best interest (which is fundamental to deterrence).

Slightly off topic, i think the coming century will bring weapons far scarier than fission/fusion bombs. Think a genetically engineered plague, airborne, targeted to a particular racial type and programmed to mimic symptoms of the common cold in the initial stages of infection; become latent for a few months, then reactivate with fatal effect. That scares me and I don't think its in the realm of 'beyond all possibility' in this coming century.