Nuclear weapons: bane or boon?

[PizzaSHARK]

I didnt realise MMO-Champion users came here to try and fix the worlds politics. As far as I was aware, this was a thread on opinions, as nearly all threads here are. If I post how to fix the world, do I get a salary?

I didn't realize people felt the need to unnecessarily be asshats because someone questioned the validity of their opinion and they, lacking the ability to answer the question with an actual rebuttal, decided to just be an ass about the whole thing.

But hey, the more you know.

---------- Post added 2012-02-22 at 08:28 AM ----------

Well it depends on the governments, Putin and Medvedev have shown themselves eager to ingratiate with the UN a few times and even wanted to join NATO, but whether they ever mean to abandon them is another matter. Perhaps they've become more distrustful since the Arab spring. My point was that the cause of disarmament is worthy, and trusting in the sanity and restraint of those who have the power to use them is unwise, even if some view them simply as a deterrent for their own country (as opposed to allies or global dominance).

I agree with you there, and if there's any way to convince people to do it, it'd be with trade allowances and things like that. My real concern would be, how would you prevent them from just making more? Finding and destroying all blueprints and summarily executing every nuclear engineer and/or scientist on the planet?

[Xanjori]

I didn't realize people felt the need to unnecessarily be asshats because someone questioned the validity of their opinion and they, lacking the ability to answer the question with an actual rebuttal, decided to just be an ass about the whole thing.

This coming from a guy that wrote "Who cares about what happens in X years." I think the reason you read Beavis posts in the Beavis voice, is because its quite fitting for your IQ level.

I mean did the OP even ask "Do you think we should take nukes away." The thread was about do you think nukes are good or bad, would you prefer to live in a world with or without them. If people would prefer to live without them, thats what their opinion is, its got absolutely nothing to do with how they feel you should convince people to get rid of their nukes or to try stop developing them.

[Primernova]

And whoever throws away their weapons immediately becomes a victim to everyone who hasn't thrown away their weapons. Any organization with the power to coerce or outright force others to abandon their weapons would become a larger problem in and of itself.

The only real solution is to allow anyone and everyone to obtain and own them. Pandora already opened her box, there's no stuffing it back in. Just gotta deal with it now.

Very shortsighted view, world governments saw with the attack on Japan, that these weapons were brutal beyond words. Once the arms race began, the simple math gave us M.A.D. this made nukes completely obsolete, yet faggot dictatorships want them and "free" established and relativly peaceful countries, cling to them like a security blanket.

A world leader would be slitting their own throat by "pressing the button" and the lives of nearly 7 BILLION people.

They will never pull the trigger but the tension is still there. The threat needs to be removed, only awful things could ever come from such pointless weapons and their development.

[Niku]

Uhm. They have. Do you think that the USSR and USA wouldn't have started a third world war if the threat of mutual destruction wasn't basically guaranteed?

Nuking Japan forced them to surrender, saving millions of lives by removing the need for the US to force a mainland assault.

And while certain batshit insane people possessing nukes is a little worrisome (basically any country in the Middle East - including Israel - and North Korea), in many cases there are certain "controls" in place that will likely ever prevent their use. Middle Eastern states are dependent on oil sales for much of their survival, Israel is largely dependent on the good will of NATO and/or the UN, and North Korea will be turned into a parking lot if they piss off China. And attacking the US (or South Korea, with whom we're buddies) will absolutely piss off China.

The presence of these weapons are a threat to us all. Do you mean that by possessing the ability to destroy ourselves, we also possess the ability to ensure peace?

[PizzaSHARK]

This coming from a guy that wrote "Who cares about what happens in X years." I think the reason you read Beavis posts in the Beavis voice, is because its quite fitting for your IQ level.

No, because it's funny. And really, why does it matter what happens two hundred years from now? You'll be dead, so why even bother thinking about it? Do you believe that we have some kind of responsibility for later generations? Also, insert snide comment about your intellectual level somewhere in there.

I mean did the OP even ask "Do you think we should take nukes away." The thread was about do you think nukes are good or bad, would you prefer to live in a world with or without them. If people would prefer to live without them, thats what their opinion is, its got absolutely nothing to do with how they feel you should convince people to get rid of their nukes or to try stop developing them.

But what's the point of having an opinion if you can't give a rational reason for having it? The natural progression of saying "OMG I LUV NOOKS EVURRYWUN SHULD HAVE WUN" or "Dude... like, nukes are bad and stuff..." is to explain how you reached that conclusion, and if you're suggesting that everyone should have nukes, or no one should have nukes, how you'd suggest everyone go about getting to that point. There's no real point in stating you're against people possessing nukes, and that everyone should disarm, without really having any thoughts on whether or not that's really doable in -- know what, you won't listen so I'll just stop here. Whatever.

Very shortsighted view, world governments saw with the attack on Japan, that these weapons were brutal beyond words. Once the arms race began, the simple math gave us M.A.D. this made nukes completely obsolete, yet faggot dictatorships want them and "free" established and relativly peaceful countries, cling to them like a security blanket.

A world leader would be slitting their own throat by "pressing the button" and the lives of nearly 7 BILLION people.

They will never pull the trigger but the tension is still there. The threat needs to be removed, only awful things could ever come from such pointless weapons and their development.

I agree, I don't think anyone is likely to be stupid enough to pull the trigger, but at the same point, if someone DOES go insane, you definitely want to be able to at least fire back and make them hurt.

I do think it's possible to convince everyone to just disarm, but I'm not sure what you could use to coerce them, especially for the superpowers who may not need the trade agreements or whatever you might use as enticement.

---------- Post added 2012-02-22 at 09:00 AM ----------

The presence of these weapons are a threat to us all. Do you mean that by possessing the ability to destroy ourselves, we also possess the ability to ensure peace?

Something like that, yeah. Like Primernova said, anyone that pops off a nuke is essentially signing his country's death warrant, whether that's by nuclear retaliation or the UN and basically every other nation and organization on the planet jumping on your economy with their stompin' boots on.

[Deleted]

no country should be allowed to have them. to ensure that the power is at the right place, only allow the UN to have a very few of them. just in case.

[ptwonline]

Definitely a bane. It's like having a vicious dog in the house with a young child. Hey, the dog is protecting the child from attackers! The dog hasn't harmed the child! All well and good until the day the dog rips the child's face off...

Would people still be saying that nuclear weapons were preventing more war or keeping countries in check if several American and Russian cities had been turned into nuclear wastelands because one sub captain got pushed too far during the Cuban Missile Crisis?

But the genie is out of the bottle now. The best you can do is to limit proliferation so that you don't continually create regional arms races with unstable/unpredictable regimes and making all sorts of nuclear material potentially available to fanatics who are happy to use them.

[Larynx]

Nuclear technology, yes.
Nuclear weapons, no.

Sadly the two can probably only co-exist.

[Jaxi]

The presence of these weapons are a threat to us all. Do you mean that by possessing the ability to destroy ourselves, we also possess the ability to ensure peace?

Yes. That is what the theory of deterrence implies. Mutually assured destruction is given most if not all the credit for preventing a real war with the Russians. You see, Dwight D. Eisenhower really pushed American policy of "massive retaliation" if the Russians were to invade Europe. This included (but was not limited to) Nuclear strikes against Russian cities and armies, but how were we going to deliver these weapons of mass death? The B-52, which was designed and built by boeing for the sole purpose of carrying nuclear weapons on "deterrence missions." Basically, we flew them towards Russia, and turned around at a certain point unless they got orders to continue further. Ironically enough, it was the Nuclear weapons which kept us from blowing each other up, that also almost lit off the cold war. Keep in mind that secretary of defense Robert McNamara and the joint chiefs all concluded during the Cuban Missile crisis that a full scale invasion of Cuba was the only route, and that Nuclear war with Russia would mean a handful of Russian nukes landing in Florida and western Europe, as opposed to thousands of nuclear warheads landing in Russia. They believed we would win, thankfully our president was not in favor of the destruction a nuclear war would cause. So again, the very weapons that seemed to bring us to the brink, also brought us away from it.

It is a foolish notion to believe that Nuclear Weapons did not grant a form of deterrence that was crucial to a stupidly twisted sense of peace for the decades of the cold war. I also believe that this purpose of mutually assured destruction has run its course (with the exception of Israel's position), and that a much more effective strategy to ensure world peace is to intertwine our economies like we have been. Many people theorize a war between the USA and China, but under current economic conditions I just don't see it feasible.

---------- Post added 2012-02-22 at 05:04 PM ----------

Sadly the two can probably only co-exist.

As a radiation protection engineer, I can guarantee you that is not true.

[ptwonline]

Yes. That is what the theory of deterrence implies. Mutually assured destruction is given most if not all the credit for preventing a real war with the Russians. You see, Dwight D. Eisenhower really pushed American policy of "massive retaliation" if the Russians were to invade Europe. This included (but was not limited to) Nuclear strikes against Russian cities and armies, but how were we going to deliver these weapons of mass death? The B-52, which was designed and built by boeing for the sole purpose of carrying nuclear weapons on "deterrence missions." Basically, we flew them towards Russia, and turned around at a certain point unless they got orders to continue further. Ironically enough, it was the Nuclear weapons which kept us from blowing each other up, that also almost lit off the cold war. Keep in mind that secretary of defense Robert McNamara and the joint chiefs all concluded during the Cuban Missile crisis that a full scale invasion of Cuba was the only route, and that Nuclear war with Russia would mean a handful of Russian nukes landing in Florida and western Europe, as opposed to thousands of nuclear warheads landing in Russia. They believed we would win, thankfully our president was not in favor of the destruction a nuclear war would cause. So again, the very weapons that seemed to bring us to the brink, also brought us away from it.

It is a foolish notion to believe that Nuclear Weapons did not grant a form of deterrence that was crucial to a stupidly twisted sense of peace for the decades of the cold war. I also believe that this purpose of mutually assured destruction has run its course (with the exception of Israel's position), and that a much more effective strategy to ensure world peace is to intertwine our economies like we have been. Many people theorize a war between the USA and China, but under current economic conditions I just don't see it feasible.

---------- Post added 2012-02-22 at 05:04 PM ----------



As a radiation protection engineer, I can guarantee you that is not true.

MAD only works if the parties involved are rational. As soon as you have a single irrational party involved, it can all go out the window.

As for economic interdependence, that is a flawed line of thinking too, and it's not the first time. Before WWI a similar line of thinking prevailed throughout Europe. Their unprecendented long and recent history of almost total peace and increasing interconnections in banking and trade made some scholars think that war was something obsolete. We see how THAT turned out.

[Stede]

Really surprised at the folks who seem to think that the #1 goal of any sovereign nation should be ignored - defense. Merely possessing nuclear weapons deters many wars.

If you think it's some new, ultra-bloody instrument of war, go read about Xerxes in context. Or maybe about Pandora's efforts to put everything back in the box. The problem with today's world is idealists.

[PizzaSHARK]

MAD only works if the parties involved are rational. As soon as you have a single irrational party involved, it can all go out the window.

As for economic interdependence, that is a flawed line of thinking too, and it's not the first time. Before WWI a similar line of thinking prevailed throughout Europe. Their unprecendented long and recent history of almost total peace and increasing interconnections in banking and trade made some scholars think that war was something obsolete. We see how THAT turned out.

But you also have to keep in mind that the majority of folks with ownership of nuclear weaponry are also generally pretty rational. Well, as rational as politicians can ever be.

As for the China versus US thing, I just don't see them having reason to get into it with us. We're their largest trading partner and the exchange works both ways - you don't just randomly decide to try and murder your biggest and most profitable trading partner and I would certainly at least hope we'd be able to see it coming if they for some reason decided to be aggressive. Or vice-versa.

As for the Daryl Dipshit countries in possession of nuclear weapons (or suspected possession), those countries are pretty much universally reliant on a bigger idealogical brother country for their continued survival. Even if they were able to launch a nuke and wipe off a city (we might lose Los Angeles or something but that'd hardly wipe out our country), they'd absolutely get butchered by retaliation. I don't think China would back North Korea if the North Koreans decided that they absolutely had to shoot a nuke at South Korea: because SK is very chummy with us Americans, and the aforementioned almost symbiotic relationship between the Chinese and American economies, I'm pretty sure the Chinese would basically disown the North Koreans, and China's nominal protection is the only reason we have a North and South Korea at all.

[Deleted]

No limit I think. But all countries should be made to invent and build them with no foreign help.

Besides, they aren't the ultimate weapon that everyone believes them to be. Radioactive weapons are easy to detect and missiles easy to destroy with lasers. I don't think even today, US and EU really have to worry about third world countries getting nukes. They'd be crappy and easy to destroy before they reach the target.. and way too large to smuggle into the countries by terrorists.

[Jaxi]

MAD only works if the parties involved are rational. As soon as you have a single irrational party involved, it can all go out the window.

As for economic interdependence, that is a flawed line of thinking too, and it's not the first time. Before WWI a similar line of thinking prevailed throughout Europe. Their unprecendented long and recent history of almost total peace and increasing interconnections in banking and trade made some scholars think that war was something obsolete. We see how THAT turned out.

And yet for 66 and a half years no Nuclear weapon has been dropped in anger against another nation despite constant threats made by legions of politicians and warmongers alike.

Comparing globalization from the early 20th century to the early 21st century is hard to do. Few nations today are as self sustaining as they were back then, nor is the technology of trade even remotely similar. Most economists including Paul Krugman agree that a globalization tactic is the best way to ensure cultural and economic bonding between nations, and remove the ability/motive for countries to wage war against each other. That said, no theory supporting peace is without its flaws, but that is only because man is inherently flawed. We do the best we can do.

[Deleted]

I agree with you there, and if there's any way to convince people to do it, it'd be with trade allowances and things like that. My real concern would be, how would you prevent them from just making more? Finding and destroying all blueprints and summarily executing every nuclear engineer and/or scientist on the planet?

That's the principle behind UN monitoring really, to restrict the distribution of Nuclear Weapons across the world. And if you thought Yuri Andropov was irrational and paranoid and in his own world, I'd hate to see what tyrannical regimes in the Middle East and Africa would do with their own independent weapons. One spark and it could all go wrong.

Like all conspiracy theories it's just wishful thinking - the idea that "geniuses" in the government would concoct that kind of solid-gold diplomatic plan is day-dreaming, surely.