Proof that the USA needs to be disarmed.

Originally posted by ghostsoldier

This implies that the blame will SOLEY rest on the USA's shoulders....it assumes that the other countries would be stupid enough to perpetuate the use of nukes.

I'm saying that the blame WILL solely be put upon the person who launched the first strike. As for other countries being "stupid" enough to perpetuate the use of nukes... What do you expect them to do? Turn the other cheek let another Million people be blown away in seconds... You're crazy if you think there wouldn't be a domino effect... It may not neccercarily be the US, but they DO have the most aggressive foreign policy, so I simply put 2 and 2 together.

One nuke will send a virtual green light to all countries with a nuclear arsenal...

I admit I have not read the whole thread, but I would like to comment on this particular post (ghost soldier, I am not singling you out, yyour post simply represents a common grain of thought I would like to adress)


The whole reason nations such as the US, Russia, the UK, China and France can be trusted with nuclear weapons is the power they hold. The US would NEVER use nuclear weapons against a nation such as Iran or Syria. We don't need to. Niether does Russia or any other nuclear power.

Nuclear weapons are, IMHO, a double edged sword - that is, there IS some good that comes from them.

This good is MAD. Now, everyone know the BAD that comes from MAD - the end of any nation involved. The GOOD that comes from nuclear weapons (through MAD) is that no global power will risk using these weapons on another global power because there is simply nothing to gain and everything to lose from it.

This is also the reason NO non global power should have these weapons - they are much more likely to use them.

If the US wants to attack any nation in the middle east (rightly or wrongly) it can without using nuclear weapons. The same goes for the UK, France, Russia, and China.

Having a small power with nuclear weapons is THE most dangerous situation from a nuclear weapon stand point. They have MANY more reasons to use them and many fewer reasons not to. The problem is, a small country gets it's power from nuclear weapons - it is the singular source for it's power - where as a world power such as the US or Russia has nuclear weapons as THE last ditch all else fails option.

Powers like the US use their economy and conventional forces to get what they want.

A country like Iran can play on an even field as the US or Russia unless they bring nuclear exchange into the picture.

Basically (in my drunken state) I am trying to say that there ARE some nations that can handle nukes and some that can not. I believe that any nation that is deemed able to hold nukes should first be deemed to be on an equal economic, technological, and militaristic level as the rest of the nuclear powers.

In this way, it is insured that each country would have little to gain from their use.

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Having a small power with nuclear weapons is THE most dangerous situation from a nuclear weapon stand point. They have MANY more reasons to use them and many fewer reasons not to. The problem is, a small country gets it's power from nuclear weapons - it is the singular source for it's power - where as a world power such as the US or Russia has nuclear weapons as THE last ditch all else fails option.

I agree with this completely... Nukes are all about scare tactics, but you best beleive they could and would be used if "needed"... If it came down to a super-power vs. super-power, it'd be all she wrote, I would stake my life on it that nukes would be used... Nuclear devices destroyed the worlds political relationships and has probably granted us all a place in hell where will all suffer from radioactive burns for eternity.

EDIT:
.....

[edit on 10-3-2005 by ghostsoldier]