• 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!

My second question triggered by Ukraine

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
36,643
Reaction score
17,372
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Isn't it past time we actually try to eliminate nuclear weapons, and the risk of nuclear annihilation, from the world?

To respond to the obvious question, as I understand it we have the technology to monitor anyone developing nuclear weapons; and so assume that the suggestion to remove all of them is subject to confirmation that they can in fact be reliably prevented from being created.

No one is really talking about a large threat of nuclear war coming from the Ukraine conflict. But the very fact of how it shows our inability to have any political system and process peacefully resolve conflicts shows the danger that we can have conflicts escalate.

The threat of nuclear war might not feel likely over this, but the threat still is the elephant in the room, with a strong role - we had better be careful to say we're not going to get involved directly, lest there by any conflict that might escalate to nuclear war.

Of course it's not just to Ukraine. It overshadows things like how conflict over Taiwan is handled - don't want that to escalate to nuclear war.

We seem to be complacent in assuming it will always be avoided, not appreciating the danger - but if Putin or his successor or any other of many scenarios happened and there was nuclear war, then a few people not killed could say 'boy, we missed that danger'. We haven't solved the danger, and should try to remove it.

I know it's a complicated issues and there are new dangers. Does conventional war become easier and more likely? Is the US more vulnerable without a nuclear deterrent?

But how much safety is there really, given the threat of something leading to actual nuclear war, which seems to be more and more likely as we count on every single leader with nuclear weapons forever not using them. That seems like a formula for historic disaster, and it's too late to fix when the danger grows.

There might be an analogy to having a bomb under your neighborhood that could blow it up, that any of your neighbors can set off, and saying 'oh, that bomb helps keep us all from arguing too much, we don't want anyone getting angry enough to set it off'. But how safe is it to keep it sitting there until someone does?
 

jnug

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
32,710
Reaction score
16,538
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well it might be about time. However to the best of my knowledge there are no remaining ICBM or Missle Defense agreements between Russia and the US and it does not appear to be much interest in creating new ones. As for the rest of the world, whenever somebody gives up their nukes they get the shit kicked out of them or fall prey in some fashion. That is a tough dialog to beat.
 

WillyPete

The sound of one chao mooing.
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Sep 17, 2013
Messages
6,278
Reaction score
3,642
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Isn't it past time we actually try to eliminate nuclear weapons, and the risk of nuclear annihilation, from the world?

It's not worth the effort it would take to untangle, and it's less of a threat than it may appear.

As terrifying as it seems, MAD doctrine works.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
36,643
Reaction score
17,372
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
As terrifying as it seems, MAD doctrine works.

That's a clueless, simplistic statement. It works for some systems, with some people, in some situations. It's a lie pretending there isn't risk of when it doesn't work. A risk the human race can't afford.
 

Craig234

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 22, 2019
Messages
36,643
Reaction score
17,372
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Top Bottom