Fact: Nuclear Weapons Stop Wars. Why? People are scared to use them...

Famed academic Kenneth Waltz for years has argued that more nukes around the world create peace.
Why?
Because the more nukes are around, the more people are afraid to start a war with a nuclear armed state. Peace seems assured with a gun to the world's head.

In a recent interview, he argues that Iran gaining nuclear weapons would be a good thing.

He points out that "President Obama and a number of others have advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons and many have accepted this as both a desirable and a realistic goal. Even entertaining the goal and contemplating the end seems rather strange. On one hand the world has known war since time immemorial, right through August 1945. Since then, there have been no wars among the major states of the world. War has been relegated to peripheral states (and, of course, wars within them). Nuclear weapons are the only peacekeeping weapons that the world has ever known. It would be strange for me to advocate for their abolition, as they have made wars all but impossible.""

Sad world.

thediplomat.com...

They only stop nuclear war. Also I believe Russia and America have a policy to not strike first with a nuclear weapon. What do you do if Iran invades Saudi Arabia and threatens nuclear retaliation if there is a counter strike?

Originally posted by Cassius666
They only stop nuclear war. Also I believe Russia and America have a policy to not strike first with a nuclear weapon. What do you do if Iran invades Saudi Arabia and threatens nuclear retaliation if there is a counter strike?

edit on 6-7-2012 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

That would be very interesting. I do not believe the U.S. would use nuclear weapons unless they were used first by Iran. If the U.S. contemplated using nuclear weapons I am sure they would consult with our allies.

The truth is the USA has been waging covert nuclear war in the form of depleted uranium weapons for more than a decade. DU weaponry aerosolizes upon impact, spreading radioactive particles far and wide contaminating the air, water and soil. Birth deformities and miscarriages in Iraq have skyrocketed since the US invasion.

Yeah...
Go ask a "hiroshimite" or "nagasakite"...
Peaceful my behind...

reply to post by travis911


The only downside is when they are used we are all toast.

CJ

Famed academic Kenneth Waltz for years has argued that more nukes around the world create peace. Why?

I think Kenneth Waltz has a very short sighted view of the world.

This way of thinking only works with nations and people who are afraid of or don't want to die. But as we know there are many groups of people in the World who are not afraid to die . In fact they think that if they kill themselves in the process of attacking what they consider to be their enemy they are guaranteed to go to heaven and live for all eternity.

Famed academic Kenneth Waltz for years has argued that more nukes around the world create peace.

A world living in fear is not a world living in peace.

Originally posted by travis911
Famed academic Kenneth Waltz for years has argued that more nukes around the world create peace.
Why?
Because the more nukes are around, the more people are afraid to start a war with a nuclear armed state. Peace seems assured with a gun to the world's head.

In a recent interview, he argues that Iran gaining nuclear weapons would be a good thing.

He points out that "President Obama and a number of others have advocated the abolition of nuclear weapons and many have accepted this as both a desirable and a realistic goal. Even entertaining the goal and contemplating the end seems rather strange. On one hand the world has known war since time immemorial, right through August 1945. Since then, there have been no wars among the major states of the world. War has been relegated to peripheral states (and, of course, wars within them). Nuclear weapons are the only peacekeeping weapons that the world has ever known. It would be strange for me to advocate for their abolition, as they have made wars all but impossible.""

Sad world.

thediplomat.com...

It's sad alright, sad that you think everyone having nuclear weapons is the a good thing and would stop wars.

You want peace, stop hating everyone you are told to hate. The world needs to unite as one and not be divided into small groups of afraid people in order to start to get peace.

Nuclear weapons is not the solution but just an even bigger problem.

reply to post by travis911


Didn't Einstein say he didn't know who would fight WW3, but he did know WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones?

I don't see any real peace.

Since we've had them, there's been the Korean War, Vietnam War, multiple acts of terrorism, 911, war on terror, the Iraq war, Afghanistan war, and the Middle East conflict, just to name a few.

So I don't see any real peace.

Real peace comes when people stop shooting each other over petty and religious differences, and because they want to stop shooting at each other.

Nukes don't make people stop.

If Saddam would've had nukes he would've used them. He had no qualms about using biochemical warfare, so what makes you think he wouldn't have used nukes?

You seem to be unaware that this was the basis of the cold war MAD Mutually Assured. I have lived with this concept for over 60 years and it was around before then.

Behold the Wiki
en.wikipedia.org...

Even WOPPER figured that out in War Games -- The only winning move is not to play.

This only works if these are state actors who see benefit in not blowing themselves off the face of the planet. The problem now is that there are ideologues; loose cannons who do not factor in their own destruction as part of the equation, North Korea, various terrorist groups etc.

Also there are a lot of people who believe that a nuclear weapon could be used strategically. We bombed the hell out of the Nevada with nuclear bombs, in the hundreds of bombs actually.

Thanks to nuclear weapons all it takes is one maniac and the entire planet is gone.

The scariest aspect of nuclear war "used" to be Mutually Assured Destruction - M.A.D.

This is very soon a thing of yesteryear as the West ramps up its missile shield, places Sattellites with lasers in position so that M.A.D is neagted.

It will become Assured Destruction. So the west can launch a first strike against Russia and China, protect against a retaliation and launch a second strike to wipe out remaining targets.

Missile shield is due to come on line within the next few years, 2016 I beleive, so the smaller dominos (Syria and Iran) must be taken care off before they target the big ones.

The only way this makes ANY sense is if EVERY nation is nuclear armed, which we wont allow to happen.

And, as Cassius already said, nuclear weapons only prevent nuclear war.

reply to post by travis911


Nuclear weapons DO stop wars. Just like bleach kills AIDS. So, why don't we just inject all AIDS patients with bleach, right?

Maybe that is why politicians and military leaders make poor physicians.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
Thanks to nuclear weapons all it takes is one maniac and the entire planet is gone.

Unfortunately I think it takes a lot more than one and there's a staggering amount of them out there, they're called armies.

And the earth cannot be destroyed by us. We would go before that happened.

Originally posted by nerbot

Originally posted by SpaceMonkeys
Thanks to nuclear weapons all it takes is one maniac and the entire planet is gone.

Unfortunately I think it takes a lot more than one and there's a staggering amount of them out there, they're called armies.

And the earth cannot be destroyed by us. We would go before that happened.

When you say "destroyed" you need to be a little more detailed. Do you mean blown to bit or just turned into a radioactive waste land where nothing can live for the next 10,000 years? You do not have to blow up the planet to kill life on Earth. Just how many time has the Earth survived a mass extinction? The only difference is this time it would be man made. 99% of the human race could be wiped out and the human race would still go on.


I have to wonder who would be better off, the 99% that dies or the 1% that lives. Now think about that for a while..

I like the theory behind it, although i would much prefer to have a world with no nuclear weapons or weapons technology at all. Can't help but think how much good could come from all that money and technology and put it into curing disease or the world food shortage.

Thing is though, we have had wars since nuclear weaponry has been invented. We have had plenty. Hell theres even some going on right now, so perhaps so far the devasting effect it will have on the world hasn't quite sunk into the heads of state and military yet.

There will never be a weapon that is made, and that is not used. Especially, a weapon(s) that are extremely expensive, require hundreds of millions in research and construction, and are supremely destructive. There are many a powerful men with a hard-on just thinking about pulling the trigger...sad but true.