• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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!

Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built...we spend more than $50 billion each year to maintain the nuclear arsenal.....

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built. Yet, nuclear policy decisions are limited to exclusive spaces that permit only the most privileged to have a seat at the table.

The United States spends more than $50 billion each year to maintain its nuclear arsenal in the name of "security." That spending does nothing to solve issues that threaten real human security every day, including racial injustice, economic insecurity, gun violence, police violence, the ongoing threat of pandemics, the global climate crisis, and so much more.
 

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I would rather have my tax dollars spent on something more useful such as single payer health insurance so none of us need to be concerned about how to pay for health care.
 

Spirit of The Millennium

Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
OK then, how do you make the other nuclear powers, disarm? Or even down-size?
 

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why are we building more? Who are we building more for? I honestly believe that all the people in the world would be happy to begin eliminating nuclear weapons. I believe that all of the people in the world could live without war.

The people do not seem to be the problem. It is the government's that believe we need war not the people so why are we building nuclear weapons? Why must there be war if the majority of human beings do not want war?
 

RetiredUSN

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
28,596
Reaction score
14,757
Location
Norfolk Virginia area.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Nuclear weapons are the most deadly and destructive weapons ever built. Yet, nuclear policy decisions are limited to exclusive spaces that permit only the most privileged to have a seat at the table.

The United States spends more than $50 billion each year to maintain its nuclear arsenal in the name of "security." That spending does nothing to solve issues that threaten real human security every day, including racial injustice, economic insecurity, gun violence, police violence, the ongoing threat of pandemics, the global climate crisis, and so much more.

We've thrown trillions at the problems you stated already and nothing has changed.

Is there some sort of " magical special money" that can do all this?
 

BlueTex

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2019
Messages
25,067
Reaction score
16,270
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Why are we building more? Who are we building more for? I honestly believe that all the people in the world would be happy to begin eliminating nuclear weapons. I believe that all of the people in the world could live without war.

The people do not seem to be the problem. It is the government's that believe we need war not the people so why are we building nuclear weapons? Why must there be war if the majority of human beings do not want war?

We build more to replace those that have reached their end of life... Weapons of any kind have a lifespan... They become unsafe beyond their lifespan... I hate living in a world with nuclear weapons but NOT having nuclear weapons while other countries have them makes our country less safe.
 

Gatsby

Neoliberal Globalist Shill
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
792
Location
San Francisco, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
We don't necessarily have to get rid of them all. But do we really need thousands of them? Is there any scenario where destroying 100 cities isn't enough, and the world would be a better place if only we had more nukes than that?
 

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
 

phoenix2020

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
3,911
Reaction score
3,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
I think we should reduce the arsenal maybe 70% and focus the saved monies on (a) better delivery systems and (b) space-based nuclear reactor development.
 

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Some years ago while honeymooning my wife and I encountered many foreign visitors. Politics was a subject brought forward by the visitors and their dislike of our military activity throughout the world. I was somewhat stunned at what they knew yet felt I should be cautious in any response.

The USA war machine is not a welcome monster in too many countries. These visitors did not seem to dislike Americans generally speaking it was the government that troubled them. In fact some indicated
that their countries would be very happy to have the USA military presence removed. Then again our government is difficult to remove because our government does want to leave no matter what.

I have to say we found our visitors quite friendly and fun.
 

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I say the USA taxpayers should demand a major reduction in war spending and review what are needs are then divert the money to more valuable assets. A 70% reduction is a decent starting point. War should not be a mainstay of our economy. Too many innocent people die for no real reason which includes our soldiers
not to mention fathers, mothers, children and grandparents elsewhere in the world.
 

Spirit of The Millennium

Dawn Sky Miner
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2021
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
453
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think we should reduce the arsenal maybe 70% and focus the saved monies on (a) better delivery systems and (b) space-based nuclear reactor development.

(a) Yeah, OK.
(b) What exactly do we need power in space for?
 

Razoo

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
10,931
Reaction score
2,654
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
(a) Yeah, OK.
(b) What exactly do we need power in space for?
The military may well be the largest polluter on earth .........

The enemies seem to be the governments not the people.....
 

bluesmoke

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
17,881
Reaction score
5,863
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Russia has 6,400 nuclear warheads, a bit ahead of the US. We perpetuate assured mutual destruction. In 1986, Russia had 14,000 warheads. We have mutually reduced nuclear arsenal before and signed other WMD agreements, violating a biological weapons agreement while destroying all chemical weapons. As long as we keep open dialogue, we can make progress, however little and long it takes and temporary it may be. Not much choice.
 

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
24,268
Reaction score
17,879
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
We don't necessarily have to get rid of them all. But do we really need thousands of them? Is there any scenario where destroying 100 cities isn't enough, and the world would be a better place if only we had more nukes than that?
Why blow up a hundred cities when you can nuke tens of thousands of them? Life's better that way...
 

PirateMk1

Resident Martian ;)
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Messages
17,549
Reaction score
8,352
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
We don't necessarily have to get rid of them all. But do we really need thousands of them? Is there any scenario where destroying 100 cities isn't enough, and the world would be a better place if only we had more nukes than that?
Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.
 

Peter

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 6, 2020
Messages
3,364
Reaction score
1,755
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
OK then, how do you make the other nuclear powers, disarm? Or even down-size?

For starters, the US has way, way more nukes than anyone else and more than you need.
Then there's the idea that someone needs to start the process of reduction and that's normally the side with the most so in this case it would be the US.

Lastly, even if you cut US nuke numbers by 50% you'd still have more than enough to completely destroy many countries and make any nuclear threat to the US completely pointless unless you enjoy living in a blasted nuclear wasteland.
The UK for example has a tiny stockpile of nukes compared to the US but we still have enough to deter any country as a retaliatory strike by just 1 of our nuclear subs would be utterly devastating.
The US has overkill to a silly level at the moment with regards to its nuclear stockpile.
 

Gatsby

Neoliberal Globalist Shill
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
1,031
Reaction score
792
Location
San Francisco, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.
Ok, let's say a 50% loss rate. So 200 nukes will still let us destroy 100 cities. Yay?
 

phoenix2020

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
3,911
Reaction score
3,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
(a) Yeah, OK.
(b) What exactly do we need power in space for?
On (b) I’m happy to go into more depth but first need to respond rhetorically. Do you believe there is value - scientific, economic or existential - in Earth orbit and beyond? Or, are you of the opinion that we should not go into space until we fix <tbd> problems with <tbd> certainty on Earth? If the former we can talk about the role nuclear power could play. If the latter, we’ll just agree to disagree and move on.
 

phoenix2020

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
3,911
Reaction score
3,661
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Many will be lost to anti missile defences which need numbers to saturate and overwhelm them. The more we have the more successful any reprisal we initiate will be.
Hence the need to invest in better delivery systems, rather than a very large pool of weapons.
 
Top Bottom