• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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 nuclear disarmament a good idea?

Is complete nuclear disarmament a good idea?


  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,114
Reaction score
4,744
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,437
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Is it true that people can be blinded by their belief that humanity is inherently good? That nations will just disarm themselves?
 

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
32,220
Reaction score
21,121
Location
Southern England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
18,536
Reaction score
2,437
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,340
Reaction score
16,230
Location
A place where common sense exists
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:

JohnWOlin

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
3,594
Reaction score
1,257
Location
Kentucky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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

Active member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
394
Reaction score
176
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What manner would these weapons be destroyed?
 

digsbe

Truth will set you free
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2009
Messages
20,224
Reaction score
14,220
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
We should disarm our enemies but keep a massive stockpile for ourselves.
 

ptif219

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
So if Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Iran say they will destroy them we should believe them?
 

earthworm

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2005
Messages
5,728
Reaction score
904
Location
Goldsboro,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
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?
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,238
Reaction score
32,588
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
you can't hug your children with nuclear arms.
Nor with bear arms.
 

MKULTRABOY

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
10,621
Reaction score
2,104
Location
In your dreams...
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Nuclear deterrence is thought to prevent conventional war. Disarmament isn't a very good option IMO, reducing stockpiles is good though.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
570
Reaction score
135
Location
Westfield,NY (on Lake Erie)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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.
 
Last edited:

Paschendale

Uncanny
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2010
Messages
12,510
Reaction score
12,604
Location
New York City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
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

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
115,238
Reaction score
32,588
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Last edited:

Goobieman

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Its a great idea - until some nutjob gets one and you're left w/o a deterrent.
 

Morality Games

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from developing into World War III. Mutually assured destruction is a proven deterrent.
 

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 2, 2006
Messages
17,343
Reaction score
2,876
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
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

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,156
Location
Iowa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
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.
 
Last edited:

Orion

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2008
Messages
8,083
Reaction score
3,918
Location
Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom