• 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!

Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons

bhkad

bhkad

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2007
Messages
10,742
Reaction score
1,754
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons

As bad as they are, nukes have been instrumental in reversing the long, seemingly inexorable trend in modernity toward deadlier and deadlier conflicts. If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb.
Click to expand...

Why the Nobel Peace Prize Should Go to Nuclear Weapons - Yahoo! News

A great argument for the role of nuclear weapons as peacemaker.

I agree.
 
I don't agree. While the nuclear weapon has detered wars between superpowers for the last 60 years, they will not keep them at bay forever, and the moment two nuclear powers go to war, you can kiss your ass good-bye.

It only takes one serious nuclear exchange to end the world. This is why I never liked MAD. While it may be a good temporary deterent, sooner or later someone is going to press that button, and boom, we all die. We almost nuked Russia during Chernobyl, we almost got into a nuclear exchange with them over the Cuba Missile Crisis, and a simple misunderstanding or mistake when it comes to nuclear weapons could kill us all.
 
ScottD said:
I don't agree. While the nuclear weapon has detered wars between superpowers for the last 60 years, they will not keep them at bay forever, and the moment two nuclear powers go to war, you can kiss your ass good-bye.

It only takes one serious nuclear exchange to end the world. This is why I never liked MAD. While it may be a good temporary deterent, sooner or later someone is going to press that button, and boom, we all die. We almost nuked Russia during Chernobyl, we almost got into a nuclear exchange with them over the Cuba Missile Crisis, and a simple misunderstanding or mistake when it comes to nuclear weapons could kill us all.
Click to expand...

Nothing, not even peaceful diplomacy, is perfect indefinitely at keeping the peace.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda is irrelevant here.

MAD has worked for 60 years...so far.
 
winston53660 said:
That is 20th century thinking. It worked then it will not now. Likely morons like Iran or Pakistan will use them just to prove a childish point.
Click to expand...

As bad as they are, nukes have been instrumental in reversing the long, seemingly inexorable trend in modernity toward deadlier and deadlier conflicts. If the Nobel committee wants someday to honor the force that has done the most over the past 60 years to end industrial-scale war, they will award a peace prize to the bomb.
 
It's not cut and dry, of course. There are pros and cons.

The fear of mutual destruction stopping major all out war is one benefit; but then again, most countries with nukes have just reverted to conventional warfare, so conventional weapons are advancing more and more.

One big con is in policy making. The UN security council is comprised of nuclear powers only and I think this is a fatal example to set for the rest of the world. It teaches, by example, that if you want a more powerful voice in international policy, then you should become a nation with nuclear arms.

The other con is that the fate of the species now relies upon human restraint alone, and we all know how well that usually works out. I'm one of those glass is half full kind of people so I have faith that people will at least maintain some base line level of cool and won't start a holocaust, but I do see that the potential is there for someone to crack... especially with the rise of conservative militarization around the Western world.
 
Perhaps I would grant that nuclear policy theorists have done that work rather than the weapons themselves.
 
I have been saying for quite some time that nukes are the great equalizer. If every country had nukes, then no one would use them. However that is somewhat of a naive statement since it does not include the giving of nukes to third parties (terrorists) to do their evil bidding. But if the country is found to have been involved, then the ramification of blockades to turning their capitals and cities to glass would be a deterrent in itself.

The trick is to to keep a close monitor on nukes in each country. Which must be done by an individual agency so if a country were to funnel a nuke or two to a terrorist group that would be quickly discovered.

It is not foolproof, but it beats the hell out of spending a trillion dollars in our insane quest for WMD's in Iraq that resulted in war where those weapons had long ago been destroyed.

.
 
Just Plain Jim said:
I have been saying for quite some time that nukes are the great equalizer. If every country had nukes, then no one would use them. However that is somewhat of a naive statement since it does not include the giving of nukes to third parties (terrorists) to do their evil bidding. But if the country is found to have been involved, then the ramification of blockades to turning their capitals and cities to glass would be a deterrent in itself.

The trick is to to keep a close monitor on nukes in each country. Which must be done by an individual agency so if a country were to funnel a nuke or two to a terrorist group that would be quickly discovered.

It is not foolproof, but it beats the hell out of spending a trillion dollars in our insane quest for WMD's in Iraq that resulted in war where those weapons had long ago been destroyed.

.
Click to expand...

Or if you give every nation that option, you could have states feel less threatened by their use-as it becomes far too acceptable a reality to use them, or merely that it would be far more likely that someone will use them-as you have so many of them spread so widely. Or, if you give every state that option, politically it is less threatening, because you have taken away their diplomatic bargaining chip-so their desire to acquire the weapons may be tamed, or perhaps that is not so until you achieve a purchase, which will give them a sense of buyer's remorse.

The rogue element of nuclear policy has been tricky since the 1990s, there is no doubt about that. However, I do not think that it is limited to just that.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
Or if you give every nation that option, you could have states feel less threatened by their use-as it becomes far too acceptable a reality to use them, or merely that it would be far more likely that someone will use them-as you have so many of them spread so widely. Or, if you give every state that option, politically it is less threatening, because you have taken away their diplomatic bargaining chip-so their desire to acquire the weapons may be tamed, or perhaps that is not so until you achieve a purchase, which will give them a sense of buyer's remorse.

The rogue element of nuclear policy has been tricky since the 1990s, there is no doubt about that. However, I do not think that it is limited to just that.
Click to expand...

It's one of those issues, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Remember the book, The Mouse That Roared, where a little nothing nation that 99% of the people couldn't find on a map stumbled into a WMD that would annihilate the world. The USA was in possession of it and was going to use it as their big bargaining chip, pretty much telling the world, you do it our way or poof, we'll just blow up the works. Their intent, before they came into possession of the weapon was to start a war with the USA, get defeated and the USA then come to their rescue rebuilding their crumbling nation. That nothing nation took it with them and in the end, every country knew who they were and were scared to death of them. The little nation was happy they were getting so much attention and was lavished with praise and a lot of butt licking. But the weapon never worked and they were smart enough to keep up the ruse because they got something far bigger, something they really wanted and everyone else wanted, world wide peace.

I believe, if it were not for nukes we would have had WWIII with the USSR and their block going at it with our country leading our block. Could you imagine the outcome of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom