Disarm The Nukes!!! Save The World!!!

[1029066]

The threat of nuclear holocaust is real and IS what will destroy the human race. We came close during the cold war just because the US and Soviet Union could not get over their differing ideaologies. If another big war starts, the earth will go to hell because of these malicious weapons. Nuclear bombs kill civilians, not just soldiers. It is an apocalyptic weapon and there needs to be a movement toward disarmament if we want to attain world peace. So the world governments better not say they wern't warned when millions are obliterated in the next world war.

 

[Jetboogieman]

You realise that sad thing is, without nuclear weapons alot more lives would have been lost to this day.

Nuclear weapons stopped the worlds major powers from engaging eachother in all out war.

The Soviet Union and the United States.

Had these two nations gone to war in a conventional sense with the absense of Nuclear Weapons, the death toll of the Second World War would have seemed like chump change.

 

[1029066]

You realise that sad thing is, without nuclear weapons alot more lives would have been lost to this day.

Nuclear weapons stopped the worlds major powers from engaging eachother in all out war.

The Soviet Union and the United States.

Had these two nations gone to war in a conventional sense with the absense of Nuclear Weapons, the death toll of the Second World War would have seemed like chump change.

I completely disagree. Also there was still fighting in the cold war, you realize that right? It just wasnt directly between the US and Soviets. They used puppet wars in other nations to gain influence in as much of the world as they could. Also, when the US dropped the nukes on Japan so many civilian lives were lost. The US could have just blockaded the whole island and invaded it with the military to end the war. It's not like Japan is a big country. Nukes keep us all living in fear and they are CERTAINLY a horrible thing.

 

[Jetboogieman]

I completely disagree. Also there was still fighting in the cold war, you realize that right? It just wasnt directly between the US and Soviets. They used puppet wars in other nations to gain influence in as much of the world as they could. Also, when the US dropped the nukes on Japan so many civilian lives were lost. The US could have just blockaded the whole island and invaded it with the military to end the war. It's not like Japan is a big country. Nukes keep us all living in fear and they are CERTAINLY a horrible thing.

Deary me.

Deary me.

Are you sure you've thought this through?

 

[rathi]

Total nuclear disarmament is never going to happen. The only defense against nuclear weapons is the threat of nuclear retaliation. Nobody would trust another nation like that at the risk of leaving themselves vulnerable. The best we can do is limit the total number in circulation.

 

[1029066]

Total nuclear disarmament is never going to happen. The only defense against nuclear weapons is the threat of nuclear retaliation. Nobody would trust another nation like that at the risk of leaving themselves vulnerable. The best we can do is limit the total number in circulation.

Yeah I've definitely thought about that and you have a valid point. However, if the UN began inspections and forced countries to disarm a set number of nukes by a set time period slowly but surely then this wouldnt be an issue. As long as they set it so that every country had to do it at the same time so that nobody would feel vulnerable. And if they failed and did not pass inspection, they would suffer economic sanctions. I think it could work. Our biggest mistake as humans was to create nukes in the first place.

 

[rathi]

Yeah I've definitely thought about that and you have a valid point. However, if the UN began inspections and forced countries to disarm a set number of nukes by a set time period slowly but surely then this wouldnt be an issue. As long as they set it so that every country had to do it at the same time so that nobody would feel vulnerable. And if they failed and did not pass inspection, they would suffer economic sanctions. I think it could work. Our biggest mistake as humans was to create nukes in the first place.

So if a country fails to disarm its nukes, you want to threaten them with sanctions? They will simply threaten to nuke you if you put forward the sanctions and you won't be able to do squat about it. That is an idiotic plan.

 

[Utility Man]

"I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."

I always liked the above quote from Einstein.

 

[cpgrad08]

Yeah I've definitely thought about that and you have a valid point. However, if the UN began inspections and forced countries to disarm a set number of nukes by a set time period slowly but surely then this wouldnt be an issue. As long as they set it so that every country had to do it at the same time so that nobody would feel vulnerable. And if they failed and did not pass inspection, they would suffer economic sanctions. I think it could work. Our biggest mistake as humans was to create nukes in the first place.

Too bad the U.S., Russia and China have veto power in the U.N. So that would never happen.

 

[1029066]

So if a country fails to disarm its nukes, you want to threaten them with sanctions? They will simply threaten to nuke you if you put forward the sanctions and you won't be able to do squat about it. That is an idiotic plan.

What are they gonna do, bomb the UN?!

 

[1029066]

Too bad the U.S., Russia and China have veto power in the U.N. So that would never happen.

WHich is another thing we need to change.

 

[rathi]

WHich is another thing we need to change.

Are you really that naive? Do you really think the U.N. would even exist if the powerful member nations didn' t have veto power?

 

[cpgrad08]

WHich is another thing we need to change.

Do you think if they didn't and the U.N. voted on that do you think we would comply with the U.N... not really, what would they do invade a country with Nuclear Weapons. Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

 

[cpgrad08]

What are they gonna do, bomb the UN?!

The U.S.A could take back the land were the U.N. is located.

 

[Forte_Voce]

While nukes are destructive, if the superpower countries are disarmed for the sake of "peace", there will be nothing to stand in the way of the more fanatical countries from seizing or creating their own weapons for the sake of war.

 

[Oozlefinch]

First you have to realize something major and fundamental.

Nukes are not military weapons, they are political weapons. If you ask 9 out of 10 Flag Rank officers (Generals and Admirals), they will likely tell you they want nothing to do with the damned things. They do not hing militarily, and the areas they hit are not safe for our servicemembers to even go into for a long time.

These are purely political weapons, to be used by one nation to invoke fear or terror in another nation. Their actual military value is almost none (other then the deterrence factor having them gives a nation). This is why they have not been used in over 65 years.

 

[Igmyeong]

WHich is another thing we need to change.

For one, China is a world superpower, and the only country able to stop China is the US. And even that is subject to change, as the United States owes China a lot of money. Also given its reliance on China, I simply doubt that will happen.
2 world superpowers are not likely to give up their rights. Also, that would be hypocritical. The President can veto. Why not other countries?

On the topic of ICBMs, I doubt they'll be disarmed any time soon. Agreeing with the previous statement, a bomb doesn't have the same quaking fear-inducing effect that a nuclear bomb does.

 

[American]

The threat of nuclear holocaust is real and IS what will destroy the human race. We came close during the cold war just because the US and Soviet Union could not get over their differing ideaologies. If another big war starts, the earth will go to hell because of these malicious weapons. Nuclear bombs kill civilians, not just soldiers. It is an apocalyptic weapon and there needs to be a movement toward disarmament if we want to attain world peace. So the world governments better not say they wern't warned when millions are obliterated in the next world war.

Did you have a single shred of evidence to support this allegation?

 

[Utility Man]

If my history is correct, in June of 1967 US warplanes had been readied with nukes to strike against our attackers who we presumed to be Egypt, had those nukes been used it would have been pretty dang messy to say the least especially considering Egypt did not attack us that day.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Nuclear diarmerment is just leaving us opento attack. You know during the Gulf War,the reason Sadam never used chemical or biological weapons was because he was terrifed of and American counter-strike by nuclear means? That ended up saving multiple coalition forces from a very painful death.

 

[Deuce]

Did you have a single shred of evidence to support this allegation?

Um, are you asking him if he's a time traveler?

 

[Oozlefinch]

If my history is correct, in June of 1967 US warplanes had been readied with nukes to strike against our attackers who we presumed to be Egypt, had those nukes been used it would have been pretty dang messy to say the least especially considering Egypt did not attack us that day.

Excuse me?

Now the only war I can think of in 1967 is the Six Day War. And that is a conflict between Israel and Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Kuwait, Tunisia, and Sudan. Now why on earth would the US have dropped a nuke on Egypt during that conflict?

Do you have any realistic and reasonable proof to back up that claim?

Nuclear diarmerment is just leaving us opento attack. You know during the Gulf War,the reason Sadam never used chemical or biological weapons was because he was terrifed of and American counter-strike by nuclear means? That ended up saving multiple coalition forces from a very painful death.

Saddam did use chemical weapons, but they were not very efficient in their capability or deployment. But it has been an open secret in the military for over 20 years that they were indeed used.

Just look at all the "Gulf War Syndrome" cases from 1990-1991 to see that. Notice that there are a ton of them, but almost none in the years since.

However, Saddam also knew what the US response would be if he had conducted wide-spread chemical warfare. US doctrine has always been to respond to the use of a WMD warhead with a WMD warhead of it's own.

And since the only WMD warhead the US currently uses is nuclear weapons, that would have been the response. It is not very effective in a war if you kill a few hundred soldiers, and loose several hundred thousand of your citizens.

 

[Goshin]

The threat of nuclear holocaust is real and IS what will destroy the human race. We came close during the cold war just because the US and Soviet Union could not get over their differing ideaologies. If another big war starts, the earth will go to hell because of these malicious weapons. Nuclear bombs kill civilians, not just soldiers. It is an apocalyptic weapon and there needs to be a movement toward disarmament if we want to attain world peace. So the world governments better not say they wern't warned when millions are obliterated in the next world war.

Simple nonsense. Disarmament never works, because some do not obey. Nor is there an authority than can reliably force obedience and adequately police continued compliance.

 

[jamesrage]

The threat of nuclear holocaust is real and IS what will destroy the human race. We came close during the cold war just because the US and Soviet Union could not get over their differing ideaologies. If another big war starts, the earth will go to hell because of these malicious weapons. Nuclear bombs kill civilians, not just soldiers. It is an apocalyptic weapon and there needs to be a movement toward disarmament if we want to attain world peace. So the world governments better not say they wern't warned when millions are obliterated in the next world war.

If other nations could be trusted to disarm then I would support disarming the nukes. However I trust China,Russia and other countries to get rid of their nukes as far as I can toss my best friend who is over 300pounds and I am sure everyone in those countries feel the same about the US. Nuclear weapons was let out of Pandora's box and will never be put back in. So it is a pipe dream to think we can get rid of nukes.

 

[NGNM85]

Simple nonsense. Disarmament never works, because some do not obey.

As nuclear disarmament has never been attempted, you cannot definitively say this.

Nor is there an authority than can reliably force obedience and adequately police continued compliance.

There isn't, now, but there could be.