sure, they're destructive, but so are cars, guns, whatever. the biggest selling point of nuclear arms are the psychological ramifications of your enemy having one. if you were to disarm all countries, what's going to stop a rogue nation from building one from scratch? it's not that hard. are YOU going to go over there and tell them, "hey mister, could you PLEASE not build that?" same thing with banning firearms. all that does is keep firearms out of the hands of good people. do you suppose a gun ban will keep a criminal from getting one? if he's a criminal planning on using a gun, he wouldn't mind breaking the law to obtain a gun, especially if it were to give him a LOT of leverage since he would KNOW that the victims would be without any firearms to use in defense. a frying pan or a stun gun or a baseball bat doesn't have the same effect as waving a shotgun in the air. edit: i agree that they are destructive... far more power than any human needs, but that's not the question i'm asking.
It's hard to prevent criminals from obtaining guns because in this country, there is often a legitimate need for a gun. There is no reason why any nation should need nukes, except for deterrance. The reason, as I see it, from not allowing every nation to have nukes (and therefore prevent anyone from using any, otherwise that country would be a crater in hours flat), is if someone finds a way to cheat the system. If a nuke were to blow up in New York harbor (it has one?) and no one knew who did it. Nukes are small enough for their firepower to smuggle into an area and still have significant economic/political impact; it's much harder to do that with conventional weapons.
Basically, it comes down to no matter what you do there will always be some kind of nuke in this world. Even if you ban or dismantle all of them somebody somewhere is going to make one. And if there are no nukes, there will be some other just as devasting weapon to be hurled at someone. With the way countries are today everyone is all about having the bigger *dick*, so someone is always going to have a nuke or much more devasting bomb to wave around in the face of someone else. It really is a sad thought, but something like a world without nukes is just, in my opinion, beyond or grasp at this time.
The only real reason a nation would have to use deterance in this day and age is to deter other nations from using nuclear weapons. Doesn't anybody see the horrible bloody writing on the wall??? Haven't any of you seen Dr. Strangelove? There is no reason for any nation to have nuclear weapons. Especially the amount of nuclear missiles the USA has, which is well over 2000 ICBMs. The bomb is simply too powerful and destructive. It is a science and politics gone wrong, and there is no reason to ever return to the arms race of the fifties and sixties. ZERO MASS
Why even present such arguments? There will always be injustices which someone resents. There will always be a menace, a villain ready to stick it to you. There is never going to be a true world-wide dimantlement of the nuclear arsenal.
Then we might as well push the big red button right now if that is the truth. Pessimism in nuclear disarmament leads to the death of humanity. ZERO MASS
The death of humanity is inevitable regardless of our sentiments and aspirations, Zero Mass. Admittedly, there is no reason to hasten it, but surely you realize that the multitude will never forsake a weapon which is the only defense against itself. If a nation were to disarm itself of these phenomenal peacemakers, it would leave itself vulnerable nuclear assault by terrorists or vengeful political pariahs.
I alwayse wondered why the NRA wasnt up in arms about the invasion of Iraq. The more nations that have WMD's the safer the world should be right? Just like if everyone has a gun no one will shoot eachother... or if everyone has a car no one will crash into anything.
If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes! I think that the NRA reply would be that nukes should be banned for outlaws, and that *by definition*, and outlaw is anyone the USA says is an outlaw Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So it is smart for America to have 2000 nukes? What the hell are we going to destroy, the Sun? If you think that the US having enough nuclear missiles to blow up a large planet is deterrent for other crazy atomic club members to keep theirs under cover, then my friend you are an idiot. If people with the bomb really wanted to use it that bad, then they would have already. Nations that are waiting to use it during a military conflict or are developing WMD to use for similar purposes are doing so because they know it is the only bargaining chip they have with a super power like the US who has enough stock piled bomb to destroy the entire planet Earth 200 times over. ZERO MASS
Lol the funny thing is dude, they are not banned! There is abundance of nuke's in the world to destroy earth many times over and over and over again! Sure they tell u they are banning all sorts of stuff, but the REALITY is that they are building more and more deadly weapons than nukes. Anti matter weapons, microwave, etc...Mostly, governments in every single country in the world lies, except for the countries without governments, u know the tribes and stuff. So why should nukes be banned? They are "banned" to let the public know that they will be constructed 'under the table'
I'm relatively certain that the U.S.A. has quite a bit more than two thousand nukes, Zero Mass. Perhaps two-thousand is the number of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles only?
This isn't about hell-bent, genocidal maniacs with no regard for their own well-being, Zero Mass. This is about people who would utilize weaponry of that catastrophic magnitude not to obliterate assets, but to appropriate them. Do you think that persons with bloodthirsty urges for power are going to vanish if nuclear weapons are banned? They'll still be there, and the knowledge of the bomb will too. Only difference is that that there'll be no forseeable deluge of atomic fire to daunt them, to stifle their ambition.
I don't know for a fact how many different types of nukes the nation has, but lie I stated earlier in the thread (I think) the number is at LEAST 2000. So I think that referring to it as 2k would suffice, giving the US the benefit of the doubt I don't think that deterrence works at all though, it only works to create more weapons and more tension. Look at what is going on in North Korea. It is not in America's best interest to keep nuclear weapons, but rather to destroy them. If we but half the money into covert operations to sabotage enemy nuclear weapons programs, or even dismantle foreign nuclear arsenals through diplomatic media, instead of putting that money into enhancing our own military stockpile of doomsday devices, then the world will be twice as safe as it was before. I'm going to be a prick and answer a question with a question. Do you think that the US holding a nuclear apocalypse over the heads of every single nation in the entire world helps to make more terrorists/bloodthirsty persons or to destroy their ambitions to create nuclear bombs? ZERO MASS
Do you think that in the scheme of things, terrorism really has that large an impact? The people attacked always end up magnifying the effect.
