• 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!

Other reasons why nuclear weapons suck

Hypothetical said:
well I am sure that is sarcasm and its humorous, but I'm afraid I cannot take your stance seriously if you cannot answer how we are to disarm and still be safe without forcing the Russia's and china's of the world to do so as well.
Click to expand...

Nuclear disarmament talks and treaties. You knew that.
 
Antiwar said:
If nuclear weapons are such a great deterrent, then why did 9/11 happen?
Click to expand...

What part of "global-scale wars" are you not getting?

Or are you suggesting that 9/11 and its aftermath was on the same scale as world war two?
 
Luce said:
What part of "global-scale wars" are you not getting?
Click to expand...

World war isn't the mechanism being discussed.

Luce said:
Or are you suggesting that 9/11 and its aftermath was on the same scale as world war two?
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I was suggesting ...
 
Antiwar said:
World war isn't the mechanism being discussed.



That wasn't what I was suggesting ...
Click to expand...

No, instead you were idiotically wondering why nukes didn’t deter 9/11 AS IF ANYONE IN HISTORY HAS EVER CLAIMED NUKES ARE A DETERRENT TO TERRORIST ATTACKS.
 
#55 tries too hard.
 
If only he could discuss/debate political subjects instead of making hollow proclamations and insult attempts.
 
Antiwar said:
If only he could discuss/debate political subjects instead of making hollow proclamations and insult attempts.
Click to expand...

If only you had any actual ideas beyond empty ideology.
 
Antiwar said:
You've reached the wrong conclusion.
Click to expand...
Yet you make no attempt to figure out why. Did you mean to say that I've reached an uncomfortable conclusion?
 
Antiwar said:
If nuclear weapons are such a great deterrent, then why did 9/11 happen?
Click to expand...
Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent for one thing: deterring governments from attacking you militarily, if you have enough to be a deterrent. They don't deter attacking non-nuclear powers like Ukraine, Iraq, Yemen and many others; they don't deter sanctions, unless used for nuclear blackmail which would be a crisis; they don't deter terrorist attacks. MAD is a thing like murder laws are a thing; they deter, until they don't. Murder isn't eliminated.
 
Craig234 said:
Nuclear weapons are a great deterrent for one thing: deterring governments from attacking you militarily, if you have enough to be a deterrent. They don't deter attacking non-nuclear powers like Ukraine, Iraq, Yemen and many others; they don't deter sanctions, unless used for nuclear blackmail which would be a crisis; they don't deter terrorist attacks. MAD is a thing like murder laws are a thing; they deter, until they don't. Murder isn't eliminated.
Click to expand...

It seems like you're using opposing arguments.

If people that end up attacking others were afraid of nuclear retaliation, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened because the USG could've easily used nuclear weapons in the Middle East and North Africa.

This is beside the main point, but following from the above sentence: Would any other nuclear power have launched an offense on US for doing so? I don't know, but I don't think so. Mutually assured stupidity might have prevented that.

It's a conservative notion that power and punishment are good tools to use to control unwanted behaviors: death penalty, guns, military, and such.

Mutually assured stupidity is also a case of correlation not showing causation, and the test criterion is a negative, so it's like trying to prove a negative. If nuclear weapons end up being used, then we can obviously say that mutually assured stupidity failed as a deterrent. Until then, we can't draw any valid conclusions about having nuclear arsenals (that are potentially an existential threat to humanity).
 
Antiwar said:
It seems like you're using opposing arguments.

If people that end up attacking others were afraid of nuclear retaliation, then 9/11 wouldn't have happened because the USG could've easily used nuclear weapons in the Middle East and North Africa.
Click to expand...

I'm not using opposing arguments, unless you consider saying that Russia is deterred from attacking us because of nuclear weapons while Al Queda was not to be opposing arguments. They aren't.

Antiwar said:
This is beside the main point, but following from the above sentence: Would any other nuclear power have launched an offense on US for doing so? I don't know, but I don't think so. Mutually assured stupidity might have prevented that.
Click to expand...

Nuclear deterrence would probably have prevented *nuclear* attack against the US if we'd nuked Afghanistan, but the entire world would have turned on us and the US would have become a pariah largely.

Antiwar said:
It's a conservative notion that power and punishment are good tools to use to control behaviors: death penalty, guns, military, and such.
Click to expand...

I would say they often ARE 'good tools to use'; the issue is that they can be misused also, and that the problem is 'conservative notions' that misuse them. We shouldn't remove all deterrents like punishment for murder and say 'just don't do it because it isn't nice'. Some people are loathe to murder without laws; but others would murder without the laws.

Antiwar said:
Mutually assured stupidity is also a case of correlation not showing causation, and the test criterion is a negative, so it's like trying to prove a negative. If nuclear weapons end up being used, then we can obviously say that mutually assured stupidity failed as a deterrent. Until then, we can't draw any valid conclusions about having nuclear arsenals that could potentially be an existential threat to humanity.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat the analogy I said above. Nuclear weapons and punishment for murder ARE deterrents against the use of nuclear weapons and committing murder. If Russia had their nukes and we didn't, or there weren't laws against murder, things would be very different. But they aren't 'perfect' or 'total' deterrents. We can't 'remove' murder and it will continue, but we can and should remove nuclear weapons before their deterrent fails.
 
Craig234 said:
I'm not using opposing arguments, unless you consider saying that Russia is deterred from attacking us because of nuclear weapons while Al Queda was not to be opposing arguments. They aren't.

Nuclear deterrence would probably have prevented *nuclear* attack against the US if we'd nuked Afghanistan, but the entire world would have turned on us and the US would have become a pariah largely.

I would say they often ARE 'good tools to use'; the issue is that they can be misused also, and that the problem is 'conservative notions' that misuse them. We shouldn't remove all deterrents like punishment for murder and say 'just don't do it because it isn't nice'. Some people are loathe to murder without laws; but others would murder without the laws.

I'll repeat the analogy I said above. Nuclear weapons and punishment for murder ARE deterrents against the use of nuclear weapons and committing murder. If Russia had their nukes and we didn't, or there weren't laws against murder, things would be very different. But they aren't 'perfect' or 'total' deterrents. We can't 'remove' murder and it will continue, but we can and should remove nuclear weapons before their deterrent fails.
Click to expand...

I disagree with quite a bit of that, but I quickly get tired of the discussions being split into so many pieces. I couldn't agree more with the last part. And your 'they are a deterrent until they aren't' is also very agreeable.
 
Antiwar said:
Nuclear disarmament talks and treaties. You knew that.
Click to expand...
I know its possible, but highly unlikely to net in complete nuclear disarmament. It is also more likely that they will just lie about how they have disarmed while keeping their arsenal. how would we confirm that they are following the rules?

mean I don't want nukes to be so prolific either, but unfortunately they are because of the bad players that have them already.
 
Nuke weapons sound like a great idea so long as America is not attacked. However don't ever believe that
others will sit by and allow the USA war machine to promote nuke war with zero response.

Radioactivity does not magically disappear instead it drifts for miles from point of impact.

Anyone want some lukmemia, other forms of cancer, want to lose your head of air then again that kind of treatment might not available in time of war.

Poisoned water everywhere of course that cannot be seen by the naked eye and probably cannot have taste so how will we know.

Radioactive poisoning will most likely not be fun.

People on capitol hill that make a nuke war decision have special places of protection DO YOU?
 
Antiwar said:
I think the theory of mutually assured stupidity is that it has prevented another world war.
There are definitely two things happening with the popular war.
1. The USG has to be very careful about jumping in.
1a. Why? Well duh. Risks mutually assured stupidity.
1b. What's a result? The USG is very reluctant to try to stop these human rights and environmental abuses.
What's a result of #1?
2. The popular war can grow and grow. What can happen when a popular war grows and grows? World war.
So, are nuclear weapons preventing nuclear war? Hmm, it not only sounds funny when you say it that way, but you've also presented a strong chain of logic and reasoning.
Bonus material: Does violence, or the threat of violence, prevent violence? I beget to differ.
Click to expand...
1647134620142.png​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom