• 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!

World without nuclear weapons?

SBu

SBu

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2013
Messages
1,523
Reaction score
636
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Would a world without nuclear weapons be a safer or more dangerous place?

The first impulse to resist is 'nuclear weapons = bad, therefore no nuclear weapons = good.'

Once you get passed that, then you may find that the deterrent effect nuclear weapons provide far outweighs their destructive forces (to date anyway). It forces everyone to more or less get along.

When is the last time two major powers (however you define that) went to war since the first atomic weapons were used in WW2? (China v US in the Korean war is all I can come up with, but that was more of a proxy war with neither side totally committing).

Alternatively, before nuclear weapons existed, major powers went to war all the time with casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands to tens of millions per war all over the globe.

Suppose that some day nuclear weapons (as delivered in their current conventional form) could be rendered obsolete. Would this be a good thing or bad thing?

Note: There probably is no right or wrong answer, just well argued positions.
 
SBu said:
Would a world without nuclear weapons be a safer or more dangerous place?

The first impulse to resist is 'nuclear weapons = bad, therefore no nuclear weapons = good.'

Once you get passed that, then you may find that the deterrent effect nuclear weapons provide far outweighs their destructive forces (to date anyway). It forces everyone to more or less get along.

When is the last time two major powers (however you define that) went to war since the first atomic weapons were used in WW2? (China v US in the Korean war is all I can come up with, but that was more of a proxy war with neither side totally committing).

Alternatively, before nuclear weapons existed, major powers went to war all the time with casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands to tens of millions per war all over the globe.

Suppose that some day nuclear weapons (as delivered in their current conventional form) could be rendered obsolete. Would this be a good thing or bad thing?

Note: There probably is no right or wrong answer, just well argued positions.
Click to expand...
Wars have gone done because of Nuclear Weapons. To get ride of them we would see WW1,WW2 scale conflicts again.
 
It's too late now. Invention of nukes was the before and after moment for humanity. We can actually destroy our planet if things go wrong. Not very comforting, is that?
 
Would a nation without cocaine, heroine, meth and MDMA be a safer place? The problem is that by outlawing things then only outlaws will have them. ;)
 
SBu said:
Would a world without nuclear weapons be a safer or more dangerous place?

The first impulse to resist is 'nuclear weapons = bad, therefore no nuclear weapons = good.'

Once you get passed that, then you may find that the deterrent effect nuclear weapons provide far outweighs their destructive forces (to date anyway). It forces everyone to more or less get along.

When is the last time two major powers (however you define that) went to war since the first atomic weapons were used in WW2? (China v US in the Korean war is all I can come up with, but that was more of a proxy war with neither side totally committing).

Alternatively, before nuclear weapons existed, major powers went to war all the time with casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands to tens of millions per war all over the globe.

Suppose that some day nuclear weapons (as delivered in their current conventional form) could be rendered obsolete. Would this be a good thing or bad thing?

Note: There probably is no right or wrong answer, just well argued positions.
Click to expand...
Without MAD, conventional war would be back on the table.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Would a nation without cocaine, heroine, meth and MDMA be a safer place? The problem is that by outlawing things then only outlaws will have them. ;)
Click to expand...

It would be safer in a perfect world where prohibition works.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Would a nation without cocaine, heroine, meth and MDMA be a safer place? The problem is that by outlawing things then only outlaws will have them. ;)
Click to expand...

Could you explain further? I don't quite get how that analogy works on an equivalent level.
 
People in power who did not make a move because they fear them would rise up and seek to build their power. But on the plus side N. Korea would lose their mane string of influence in the world. This is only the case until a new super weapon is made, then these start all over again.
 
SBu said:
Could you explain further? I don't quite get how that analogy works on an equivalent level.
Click to expand...

Who exactly is going to bop into every nation, look in every conceivable place and verify that no nukes are in existence? If we can't do that for a multi-billion dollar international criminal recreational drug market then we likely can't do that for anything else either.
 
sbrettt said:
I bet it's pretty hard to get drugs to Antarctica.
Click to expand...

Either those south pole police are very efficient or you haven't been trying very hard. ;)

Then again, it may simply be the lack of demand.

Have you tried a nuclear submarine?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Who exactly is going to bop into every nation, look in every conceivable place and verify that no nukes are in existence? If we can't do that for a multi-billion dollar international criminal recreational drug market then we likely can't do that for anything else either.
Click to expand...

I agree totally, but that wasn't the question. The question in a nutshell is, "A world with or without nuclear weapons: which is preferable?"
 
SBu said:
I agree totally, but that wasn't the question. The question in a nutshell is, "A world with or without nuclear weapons: which is preferable?"
Click to expand...

I'll take no nukes, unicorns and rainbows - and no fries with that, please. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Either those south pole police are very efficient or you haven't been trying very hard. ;)

Then again, it may simply be the lack of demand.

Have you tried a nuclear submarine?
Click to expand...

I don't think that'd be cost effective. :lol: Boredom and isolation do wonders for drug demand.
 
SBu said:
I agree totally, but that wasn't the question. The question in a nutshell is, "A world with or without nuclear weapons: which is preferable?"
Click to expand...

The question comes down to -- do you prefer global-scale wars breaking out every few decades, or do you prefer living (relatively peacefully) under the threat of total annihilation?

It's worth noting that the "superior" galactic civilization in The Day the Earth Stood Still chose the latter. (Most people, perhaps ESPECIALLY its makers, don't understand how pro-nuke that movie is.)
 
Harshaw said:
The question comes down to -- do you prefer global-scale wars breaking out every few decades, or do you prefer living (relatively peacefully) under the threat of total annihilation?

It's worth noting that the "superior" galactic civilization in The Day the Earth Stood Still chose the latter. (Most people, perhaps ESPECIALLY its makers, don't understand how pro-nuke that movie is.)
Click to expand...

The follow on question, and the silver bullet, is "How likely is the threat of total annihilation?"
 
SBu said:
The follow on question, and the silver bullet, is "How likely is the threat of total annihilation?"
Click to expand...

It certainly was no joke at the height of the Cold War. Tensions have not reached those levels in decades, though.
 
Harshaw said:
It certainly was no joke at the height of the Cold War. Tensions have not reached those levels in decades, though.
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure; if these weapons get in the hands of a millenarian regime, then I think my argument goes out the window and fast.
 
SBu said:
Would a world without nuclear weapons be a safer or more dangerous place?

The first impulse to resist is 'nuclear weapons = bad, therefore no nuclear weapons = good.'

Once you get passed that, then you may find that the deterrent effect nuclear weapons provide far outweighs their destructive forces (to date anyway). It forces everyone to more or less get along.

When is the last time two major powers (however you define that) went to war since the first atomic weapons were used in WW2? (China v US in the Korean war is all I can come up with, but that was more of a proxy war with neither side totally committing).

Alternatively, before nuclear weapons existed, major powers went to war all the time with casualties numbering in the hundreds of thousands to tens of millions per war all over the globe.

Suppose that some day nuclear weapons (as delivered in their current conventional form) could be rendered obsolete. Would this be a good thing or bad thing?

Note: There probably is no right or wrong answer, just well argued positions.
Click to expand...

A world without nuclear weapons is one in which significantly more uncertainty is introduced into international affairs. However it is also one in which the United States dominates due to our enormous conventional advantage and powerful international alliances.
 
Nuclear weapons are that gun no one wants to pull the trigger to. They deter high scale conflict between powerful nations from what I know. It's for the better in terms of keeping the lions and tigers at bay, for now anyway. Nuclear disarmament doesn't interest me. I just don't want such weapons ever used again or in the hands of some backwater, third world country filled with extremists.

Besides, with or without nukes, like the above post says, America still dominates heavily in military power.
 
specklebang said:
It's too late now. Invention of nukes was the before and after moment for humanity. We can actually destroy our planet if things go wrong. Not very comforting, is that?
Click to expand...

Massively destructive devices have come and gone-and more will arrive.

I think this is a bit dramatic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom