Are you against nuclear disarmament?

Originally posted by Daedalus3
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.

MAD doctrine is a one time deal and really only takes one person to engage. It does not matter what anyone thinks about it except for the person with their hand on the button.

As a global society, we've created a self-destruct initiative and MAD is the result. MAD would only truly be employed if society as we know it needed to be stopped. MAD was always a concern during the cold war because society was ripped apart by two major ideals (peace for everyone or freedom for everyone, YOU CANNOT HAVE BOTH), but in modern times there is no general ideal lifestyle anymore and in reality the class war has ended, leaving the rich in full control (and out of control) with the lesser classes completely blinded by TV screens.

What I'm trying to say is that the world's WMD stockpiles are no longer in the hands of the people, but in the hands of a few who think they can change the world in the way they see fit. In my opinion, it has never been so dangerous to let weapons of mass destruction fall into the hands of capitalists, but it has happened.

Originally posted by Sator
Everybody should get rid of all nuclear weapons. No exception.

Is there anybody that trusts that everybody will/would get rid of them?

If someone wanted to take over the would with as little resistance as possible. They would use their resources to campaign for world disarmament.

Then after the world was disarmed they would pull out the bombs they'd lied about, and either threaten or actually hit a few major target superpower cities.

Just plain stupid - at this point in time as we don't have the ability to verify that everyone in the world is complying or when they will cease to comply.

Originally posted by Daedalus3



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.

Why do do we have to run to the idea of tactical nuclear exchange? The logic doesn't follow.

The idea (knowledge) that if country x looses off a nuclear weapon then we ALL go up in smoke is what has prevented a major war since 1945.

Its not pretty but it works.

If you then have crackpots working out how a country might get away with 'one or two' nukes being let off we are all the more likely to see it actually happen.

Personally I am a supporter of limited nuclear disarmament tending to total once security and technology has improved. Elaborating on what I mean.

The USA has no need for thousands of warheads and should reduce its capacity to similar levels as the UK and France. Doing so will leave Russia morally incapable of maintaining such high levels of warheads. Retain several hundred to use as a deterrent is perfectly fine in my opinion as long as the countries are stable and adhere to international law. Once we have technology to defend against ICBM by 100% through interceptors laser weapons etc we should have total disarmament of nuclear warheads and force countries that refuse to give theirs up. I believe the UN should maintain a limited stock of warheads after disarmament if any need arises for them. I.e. external threats such as asteroids or comets.


[edit on 23/7/10 by Jon Quinn]

Once we have technology to defend against ICBM by 100% through interceptors laser weapons etc.....

Which, you must realise, means never. Nothing is 100%, certainly not the means to shoot down aircraft, never mind missiles.

reply to post by Jon Quinn


There are a number of problems with your proposal. Firstly i don’t think Russia really cares all that much about moral justification if America was to reduce its talk piles there is not idea Russia would feel morally obliged to do the same. The idea once you have the ability to intercept ICBM’s there will be no need to have a nuclear capacity also does not stand up. What happens when somebody introduces ICBM’s that cannot be stopped by these intercept weapons, doing that you also lose the tactical nuclear option and as somebody else already said you can never be 100%. As for the idea that the UN should control nuclear weapons..... lets just say that’s a really bad idea.

Yes i am against..
Because it will serve as a deterent ..
It has prevented full scale wars in the past[Eg-kargil war]
And even in the future it will prevent wars..

Originally posted by Phlynx
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.

Most? I think that would wipe out the world. That is just too many!


Personally I don't like nukes, they scare the ever living crap out of me. I saw the movie "The Day After" and didn't sleep right for a week. I don't like them and I don't think anyone should have anything so destructive. There are plenty of other weapons..but I do agree with what would we do with all those nukes? Where could they possible be stored or put where it doesn't endanger the environment or people in the area. In the end I don't think we will ever get rid of them.


On another note I think if we did get rid of them we would be vulnerable and I don't like that. Sadly I don't anyone ever getting rid of nukes.