• 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 nuclear disarmament a good idea?

Is complete nuclear disarmament a good idea?


  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
In an ideal world, nuclear stockpiles could be eliminated. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. Although there is likely room for reducing nuclear stockpiles, elimination of such stockpiles would merely create a powerful incentive/temptation for some state or states to cheat. That situation would heighten the risk of aggression rather than reduce the risk of conflict.

That may have been true in the fifties and sixties but not today. All we have to fear now is attacks by small groups of Arab terrorists with shoe, printer, and underwear bombs, definitely not nuclear threats by other nations...

Nothing since the Cuban crisis back in the early sixties.

ricksfolly
 
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?



The premise is just too implausible to give serious consideration. While we might get all the world to publically agree in principle, maybe even pledge to do it.... there would be those who would cheat. The cheaters would have a major strategic advantage.

It just won't work. There's about as much point in talking about it as there is in wishing away crime, poverty and mental illness.... things that can be reduced but never eliminated.

I see it as being very similar to the gun control argument: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns, giving them an unreasonable advantage over honest citizens.
 
That may have been true in the fifties and sixties but not today. All we have to fear now is attacks by small groups of Arab terrorists with shoe, printer, and underwear bombs, definitely not nuclear threats by other nations...

Nothing since the Cuban crisis back in the early sixties.

ricksfolly

On the contrary, I believe the need for maintaining a reasonably-sized arsenal is even more important today than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. Cheating states could use non-state entities to evade their obligations. Technically, they could point to their own compliance while, in fact, they are not in compliance.
 
Im going to say no. While I openly loathe the neoconservative foreign policy of going to war with every country we dont like in addition loathing those who support it I fully support our nuclear stockpile. The saying that nuclear armed countries don't get invaded is very true.
 
Im going to say no. While I openly loathe the neoconservative foreign policy of going to war with every country we dont like in addition loathing those who support it I fully support our nuclear stockpile. The saying that nuclear armed countries don't get invaded is very true.

While I'm a proponent of nuclear hegemony (that is to say, I'd much rather France, Britain, Russia, China, America and a few other nations have nukes, than none, or all -- the Big Five are in effect distanced from the (loosely termed) "lesser" nations of today -- and that's a good thing), I think that it's only a matter of time before a nuclear country gets invaded in a big way. There has been a fifty, sixty year period of shock at the power of these weapons, and Germany isn't going to attempt to mess with France when it's force de frappe (the most effective nuclear deterrent on earth) is active, but it's only a matter of time before Pakistan and India go to war in a big way, or the drug wars in Mexico spill over into the US.

And that'll be the true test of the intelligence of humanity. Were the United States to be invaded and conquered, would the government use its nuclear arsenal to turn the tide of the war?
 
That may have been true in the fifties and sixties but not today. All we have to fear now is attacks by small groups of Arab terrorists with shoe, printer, and underwear bombs, definitely not nuclear threats by other nations...

Nothing since the Cuban crisis back in the early sixties.

ricksfolly

:lamo yup no nutjob regimes with nkes anwhere. certainly no jihadi psycho regimes whose leadership has an iron-solid belief that Allah will protect them if they just destroy Israel and kick off WWIII in order to bring back the twelfth imam.... :roll:
 
Is it true that people can be blinded by their belief that humanity is inherently good? That nations will just disarm themselves?

Teacher: Can you see God? Class: No. Teacher: Can you touch God? Class: No. Teacher: Then there is no God! Student: Sir, can you see your mind? Teacher: No. Student: Can you touch your mind? Teacher: No. Student: Oh, OK. So you have no mind?

What do you mean that you can't touch your mind? That is ridiculous... crack your skull, shove in your finger and touch it. Brain surgery happens... horrible counter argument and completely lacking in logic.
 
:lamo yup no nutjob regimes with nkes anwhere. certainly no jihadi psycho regimes whose leadership has an iron-solid belief that Allah will protect them if they just destroy Israel and kick off WWIII in order to bring back the twelfth imam.... :roll:
If they're bringing him back...wouldn't he be the 13th imam?

And if that wasn't an indication, I know almost nothing about the religion of Islam... :mrgreen:
 
That may have been true in the fifties and sixties but not today. All we have to fear now is attacks by small groups of Arab terrorists with shoe, printer, and underwear bombs, definitely not nuclear threats by other nations...

Nothing since the Cuban crisis back in the early sixties.

ricksfolly

Probably the only thing keeping India and Pakistan from all out war are the nukes... same deal protecting Israel.
 
What do you mean that you can't touch your mind? That is ridiculous... crack your skull, shove in your finger and touch it. Brain surgery happens... horrible counter argument and completely lacking in logic.
Far better would be "can you see the back of your head without any aid".

But still...
 
Far better would be "can you see the back of your head without any aid".

But still...

I hear you, but you can bump the back of your head and know that it is there... :)
 
Were the United States to be invaded and conquered, would the government use its nuclear arsenal to turn the tide of the war?

Who could possibly have a prayer of "conquering" the United States?

That said, if national survival were on the line, then yes, we absolutely would -- and absolutely should.
 
With all the different people in the US, a foreign power conquering would be virtually impossible.
The only way it happens iis if we let it. The logistical needs alone are staggering, and no country (or economic block) on earth has the means to meet them.
 
Who could possibly have a prayer of "conquering" the United States?

That said, if national survival were on the line, then yes, we absolutely would -- and absolutely should.

Your first statement is only arrogant, and I can accept that. You don't want to even allow for the possibility of such an event, and in all fairness, it's unlikely considering world power balances today. If you want to go into some sort of complex scenario where World War III kicks off, the American army is engaged in the Middle East, and Russia and China launch a surprise invasion or something of that ridiculous nature, we could do so -- nothing is impossible. But that's not important, it's just a hypothetical.

Your second statement, however, is downright ignorant, xenophobic and hateful. You're saying that, were America to be invaded and conquered, the entire world ought to be destroyed for it? I can't believe such levels of nationalistic arrogance. What your second statement boils down to is, "Americans are the only people worth having on this Earth, and if they were to go, the entire world might as well be depopulated."

Surely you don't believe that?
 
Your first statement is only arrogant, and I can accept that. You don't want to even allow for the possibility of such an event, and in all fairness, it's unlikely considering world power balances today. If you want to go into some sort of complex scenario where World War III kicks off, the American army is engaged in the Middle East, and Russia and China launch a surprise invasion or something of that ridiculous nature, we could do so -- nothing is impossible. But that's not important, it's just a hypothetical.

Your second statement, however, is downright ignorant, xenophobic and hateful. You're saying that, were America to be invaded and conquered, the entire world ought to be destroyed for it? I can't believe such levels of nationalistic arrogance. What your second statement boils down to is, "Americans are the only people worth having on this Earth, and if they were to go, the entire world might as well be depopulated."
Surely you don't believe that?


This is a ridiculous statement exhibiting a lack of understanding of nuclear weapons. The use of a few tactical nukes... or even a few dozen... would hardly "depopulate the world."

Even the use of dozens of strategic nukes on enemy cities wouldn't do that, not by a long shot.


Read up on the subject. I suggest some technical texts rather than left-wing publications.
 
Your second statement, however, is downright ignorant, xenophobic and hateful. You're saying that, were America to be invaded and conquered, the entire world ought to be destroyed for it?

I don't believe Harshaw was arguing that the U.S. would or should use its entire nuclear arsenal against the world. I believe he was arguing in favor of a limited nuclear onslaught against the enemy state, not total nuclear warfare.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom