• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Non-Proliferation Practical?

S

Swagger Monster

New member
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
16
Reaction score
4
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I'm reading one of Jimmy Carter's books. To my surprise, he seems to have quite a few good ideas. One of the ideas he discusses is the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. According to his book, some of the treaties that espouse this idea worked fairly well in the Middle East.

If a non-proliferation treaty (one that is not written in a naive manner, of course) concerning the Middle East was crafted, treated seriously, and adhered to the U.S. and allies (apparently, Bush kind of undid some of the earlier treaties), would the threats of nuclear warfare really be reduced? If not, why?
 
Last edited:
Zero nukes is best. It just makes sense to live rather than die.
 
Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to human existence at this particular point in time, should we be proliferating them? Um...no.
 
But, would a strongly enforced pledge be the best method of controlling nukes?
 
Swagger Monster said:
But, would a strongly enforced pledge be the best method of controlling nukes?
Click to expand...
There would always be groups that wouldn't subscribe to it, requiring forceful policies to control nuclear development. The strong enforcement prohibiting individuals from enacting certain actions almost always results in revolution against the action. Instead of a pledge, I would suggest educating those who encourage nuclear deterrent strategies on the ramifications of nuclear war. The risk of eradicating what is possibly the most intelligent species in the universe should be the greatest concern of all intelligible human beings.
 
Swagger Monster said:
But, would a strongly enforced pledge be the best method of controlling nukes?
Click to expand...

Back in the 90's as I remember, the UN supervised the disarming of nukes after the fall. I think this was a good idea. I am not sure a 'pledge" would work unless it had military or severe economic sanctions.

They need to go
 
India, Pakistan and North Korea all have nuclear weapons. Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads lying around and none of these countries are likely to give them up. Unless by "Middle East" you mean Iran, I don't understand what makes you think that the middle east needs to be singled out as a particular nuclear threat to the world.
 
Yes, Yes, "Nukes are bad".
In fact, Nukes threat perhaps kept the USA and Russia from Hot War.
And arguably has kept/helped keep the Arabs from attacking Israel for 40 years.

Nukes are far better suited in fact, for a tiny country in a sea of Arab enemies who could absorb even great losses to eliminate it.
The same (the idiot's mantra "if they have em..") cannot be used as a justification for the other to have them.
Taiwan would be perhaps another example of need for MAD, tho the mere 60 year removed Chinese don't hate other Chinese as Arabs hate Jews.

Disarmament of course serves those with greater Manpower.
You want to see even bigger disarmament, or continue the logic - lets remove Air Forces - and Israelis might as well/better leave now.

Because one side has Nukes and a geo-strategic reason for them, is not justification (even without the NPT) for the other side to have them.
Yet it comes up weekly; posted by the Obtuse or anti-Israel.
 
Swagger Monster said:
But, would a strongly enforced pledge be the best method of controlling nukes?
Click to expand...

Nearly all the nations in the world are already bound by such an international treaty that they signed and ratified.
 
NPT is a good thing and it works.

Also, nukes are the greatest deterrent for war in the world. No nuclear power, which is usually a pretty powerful country, will ever engage another nuclear power. Because mutually assured destruction is a pretty big deterrent... since it is mutual.

This is why I rest easy in regards to WW3. It will never happen as long as powerful nations have nukes because no powerful nation will attack another.
 

MAD is great....until it's not. The Cold War was the closest humanity has ever come to wiping itself out, and it came terrifyingly close. That's not something anybody wants to repeat.

If MAD was so fool proof, world peace would be easy - give every nation nuclear weapons. The reason that's a stupid idea though, is that MAD is not foolproof. Mistakes are made. Governments don't always act rationally. Sometimes they miscalculate the response of rival nations. They make decisions on imperfect intelligence and knowledge. Etc, etc. If many nations wield the devastating power of nukes, a small **** up can mean total annihilation.
 

That is why I said only powerful nations should have access to nukes. Powerful nations don't become powerful if they are moronic and make too many miscalculations and mistakes.

Despite the fact that yes, the cuban missile crisis was a big ordeal, the fact remains that when the americans finally talked to the soviets, instead of relying on intimidation, a deal was struck quite quickly. remove missiles from Turkey in exchange for no missiles in Cuba. This is a sign that neither nations were willing to go to war, but rather, each was determined to not look weak in the face of the other. You can't put your missiles in my backyard because if you do, I want to put my missiles in yours... that sort of thing.
 
Rainman05 said:
That is why I said only powerful nations should have access to nukes. Powerful nations don't become powerful if they are moronic and make too many miscalculations and mistakes.
Click to expand...

And yet the two most powerful nations in the world did miscalculate and almost made the biggest mistake in the history of mankind. It's really only the super powerful nations that have the capacity for worldwide annihilation anyway. North Korea's meager nuclear ability couldn't wipe out humanity even if they tried.


A perfect example of a silly situation that can become deadly precarious. Ideally, nobody should have nukes. In reality, that's not an option. The cat is already out of the bag. Nuclear powers almost never give it up once they acquire it. All the more reason to prevent proliferation in the first place.
 
wolfman24 said:
Zero nukes is best. It just makes sense to live rather than die.
Click to expand...



The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I want my own nuclear missile. Its my 2nd amendment constitutional right to have one.
It would make a wonderful and potent home defense weapon. If some fool trys to rob my house I would blast the **** out of him.
It would also make for a wonderful fireworks display for 4th of July celebrations.
Its my 2nd amendment constitutional right to have one.


I also would like to have some nuclear bombs for my F16 I keep in my driveway.
http://images.sodahead.com/images/p...profiles_2ndFighterInDriveway-1264956458.jpeg

Eventually I will upgrade to a F22 Raptor and I will give the family fighter to my son.

I also would like to fill my B52 family Bomber with nukes. Its too big to park in my driveway but eventually I am going to buy some property big enough for the B52.
 
Last edited:

I believe it says "To estabish a well regulated militia for the security of a free state etc etc. Why do gunnies continually miss that part. Oh of course it has no relavance. So then why is it in there? FAIL
 
shlunka said:
Nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to human existence at this particular point in time, should we be proliferating them? Um...no.
Click to expand...

During the Cold War the great General 'Buck' Turgidson said

"the Russkie talks big, but frankly, he's short of know how. I mean, you just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand a machine like some of our boys. And that's not meant as an insult, I mean, you take your average Russkie, we all know how much guts he's got. Hell, lookit look at all them them Nazis killed off and they still wouldn't quit. "


The Cold War Russkie theat may have diminished but the communist threat is still out there plus those of rogue nations and jihadis.
Your Commie and Jihadi has no regard for human life, not even of his own. For this reason as the great General 'Buck' Turgidson also said back then

"we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless *distinguishable*, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed."

still holds true today.








So if it is a threat to human existence?

To guarantee the American way of life, I'm willing to take that risk. Just like the great General 'Buck' Turgidson believed.
 


The Schmectel Corporation researched this precise event sequence scenario, it was determined that the continual stockpiling and development of our nuclear arsenal was becoming self-defeating. A weapon unused is a useless weapon.
 

Yep and he was just restating what his air force buddy General Jack ripper said about them.

great post. Love that movie.
 
Yes, the cold war clearly displayed that proliferating nuclear weapons was a good idea, didn't it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…