Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

[molten_dragon]

I saw a little blurb on CNN the other day that President Obama visited Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?) Japan as part of his hope to create 'a world without nuclear arms'

Assume for a moment that it would be possible to convince every country in the world to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. Is it a good idea? Why or why not?

 

[Wake]

Is it true that people can be blinded by their belief that humanity is inherently good? That nations will just disarm themselves?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Is it true that people can be so blinded by their religion-induced belief that humanity is inherently bad that they cannot read a simple question? Assuming for a moment that it were possible, of course it is better.

 

[Wake]

Is it true that people can be so blinded by their religion-induced belief that humanity is inherently bad that they cannot read a simple question? Assuming for a moment that it were possible, of course it is better.

Do you believe you don't ever need to defend yourself... that everyone can be trusted and that people are not capable of doing wicked things?

 

[jamesrage]

I saw a little blurb on CNN the other day that President Obama visited Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?) Japan as part of his hope to create 'a world without nuclear arms'

Assume for a moment that it would be possible to convince every country in the world to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. Is it a good idea? Why or why not?

Assuming if every nation would actually went along with nuclear disarmament yeah it would be a good idea if these weapons were destroyed and any nation trying to develop or make nukes got their asses handed to them. These are weapons that no country should have. These weapons are for maximum destruction including civilians and nothing else. In a day and age of precision weapons the only reason to have nukes is to hold another country's civilian population hostage. Yeah nukes do make a great deterrent,but surely the US could come up with something that is just as destructive but not as long lasting effects.


That said I wouldn't trust Russia,China or anyone else to actually give up their nuclear weapons. So we should not get rid of ours. Nor do I think the US should apologize for dropping atomic bombs on Japan.Better their civilians getting killed than our troops.

 

[LizardofOz]

Assuming if every nation would actually went along with nuclear disarmament yeah it would be a good idea if these weapons were destroyed and any nation trying to develop or make nukes got their asses handed to them. These are weapons that no country should have. These weapons are for maximum destruction including civilians and nothing else. In a day and age of precision weapons the only reason to have nukes is to hold another country's civilian population hostage. Yeah nukes do make a great deterrent,but surely the US could come up with something that is just as destructive but not as long lasting effects.


That said I wouldn't trust Russia,China or anyone else to actually give up their nuclear weapons. So we should not get rid of ours. Nor do I think the US should apologize for dropping atomic bombs on Japan.Better their civilians getting killed than our troops.

I got to lol at the whole better their civilians getting killed than our troops when Japan had the terms of surrender drawn out and even the boys dropping the bombs didn't know what the hell they were going to do, they were just told to drop them. I think when they are bringing jobs to America, ones that the Chinese take we should at least be incredibly corteous to them.

Anyways no but it is a good idea to reduce for money saving reasons. I would never trust Iran, NK, China, Pakistan, Russia......Iceland?

 

[Redbeard]

What manner would these weapons be destroyed?

 

[digsbe]

We should disarm our enemies but keep a massive stockpile for ourselves.

 

[ptif219]

So if Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Iran say they will destroy them we should believe them?

 

[earthworm]

Is it true that people can be blinded by their belief that humanity is inherently good? That nations will just disarm themselves?

One for the ages - a world-wide debate of epic proportions.
Is man inherently "good"?.?
Go to Switzerland and then go to Somalia for the answer.
As to the teacher-student debate, was this held in the 18th century or the 22nd century ??
Where are we headed?

 

[Whovian]

you can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

 

[soccerboy22]

you can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

You can however, hug radioactive children with nuclear arms.

 

[ecofarm]

you can't hug your children with nuclear arms.

Nor with bear arms.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Nuclear deterrence is thought to prevent conventional war. Disarmament isn't a very good option IMO, reducing stockpiles is good though.

 

[Orion]

For complete global disarmament to be viable, war would have to be a thing of the past.

As it stands, nations with nuclear weapons are still engaging in conventional warfare anyway, like India and Pakistan did. Nukes are more about ensuring payback if faced with absolute annihilation from one's enemy, but no one wants to be completely obliterated. War has always been about gaining strategic power or natural resources. Nukes are purely an end game scenario.

Nations are going to keep wanting to develop nukes, even the most crazy ones. We are not ultimately going to be able to stop them. The key to our progression as a race is learning to live with our most dangerous knowledge, that everyone has access to, and not self-destructing. If we can't do that then there is no point in continuing. So far we seem to be doing fine. The powers that matter all have nukes and we haven't blown ourselves up yet.

 

[gmeyers1944]

The genie is out of the bottle. There is no putting him back. If we dispose of all our nukes, then some tin horn dictator can take over the world with one nuke.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Not Really, theyd only get one shot.

 

[Paschendale]

There is really no benefit in having the ability to destroy the world. I can't say for sure if we should get rid of all nuclear weapons, but there's no reason not to get rid of most of them.

 

[ecofarm]

get rid of most of them

1. We need to be able to strike quickly (from multiple close locations).
2. We need to be able to strike in return, with some or many launch sites disabled.

Without the redundancy, the deterrent does not exist. We could get rid of a few. It's not about being able to destroy the world, it's about being able to strike x with y quickly and with z if y is gone.

 

[Goobieman]

Its a great idea - until some nutjob gets one and you're left w/o a deterrent.

 

[Morality Games]

Nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from developing into World War III. Mutually assured destruction is a proven deterrent.

 

[Orion]

Nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from developing into World War III. Mutually assured destruction is a proven deterrent.

No... diplomacy and good luck prevented that from happening.

 

[Goobieman]

No... diplomacy and good luck prevented that from happening.

Do you think the USSR would or would not have taken direct control of all of Europe if not for the US nuclear deterrent?
Do you think the USSR would or would not have used its nuclear weapon on the US, if not for the US nuclear deterrent?
Why?

 

[Morality Games]

No... diplomacy and good luck prevented that from happening.

Nuclear weapons forced diplomacy.

I can understand wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons, but you can't look at the Cold War and say the threat of nuclear annihilation didn't motivate political and military actions.

 

[Orion]

Do you think the USSR would or would not have taken direct control of all of Europe if not for the US nuclear deterrent?
Do you think the USSR would or would not have used its nuclear weapon on the US, if not for the US nuclear deterrent?
Why?

I was mostly referring to the Cuban missle crisis. Nuclear weapons got us to that point, and it was level headed leadership that prevented the pot from boiling over.