• 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

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
24,476
Reaction score
7,808
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.
 
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.
 
OK then, how do you make the other nuclear powers, disarm? Or even down-size?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
(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.....
 
The military may well be the largest polluter on earth .........

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

That's not an answer.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
(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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom