Nuclear weapons: bane or boon?

[cFortyfive]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a catastrophe, it just means it wouldn't be species ending. I prefer living under the Sword of Damocles to having 50 million people die in a spasm of violence every 30 years.

Well I personally just prefer a direct solution to conflicts.

[Soisoisoi]

With no one allowed them, people will still have them. I find it hard to believe that the 'super powers' would not have them 'just in case'.

However, if no one had them then wars would be more likely to happen because they won't be risking Nuclear wars. If two major places went to war now it would probably end up in a huge chicken war seeing who will be the first to surrender under threat of Nukes. And whilst wars are very, very bad, they do generally make the world jump technologically - and I think we need that every so often.

Nukes are both good and bad, in a weird way...

[Xanjori]

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be a catastrophe, it just means it wouldn't be species ending. I prefer living under the Sword of Damocles to having 50 million people die in a spasm of violence every 30 years.

Between 1945 and 2000, an estimate of 40 million people have died due to armed conflict.

So, where are the nukes that are stopping these 50 million people dying? Because in just 15 years longer than you have stated here, very nearly the exact amount you stated HAVE died in armed conflict.

I disagree with Nuclear weapons, unless some organisation who isnt bound to a nation, or nations were to control them. Not NATO, because at the end of the day that is a group of countries, it would have to be an entirely seperate entity. Its easy to say that USA and USSR didnt go to war with each other because of nuclear weapons, but just how many countries have those two nations gone to war with since the start of the Cold War? Im pretty certain Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Laos, Dominican Republic and many others all felt that nukes were really helping to keep the peace when American, British, French, Russian troops and weapons were killing people in those countries.

The problem is that there is no situation in which a nuclear weapon can be used, so realistically, where is the "threat" they impose? They simply stop countries from using them on each other, nukes counter nukes, they dont counter anything else. Wars will continue to rage, and the "threat" of nuclear war will not stop conventional wars from on-going.

And Robert Oppenheimer knew it when he realised what he had made, "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

[Meebo]

Anything that brings us towards a Fallout-esk type future gets my 2 thumbs up.

[PizzaSHARK]

Anything that brings us towards a Fallout-esk type future gets my 2 thumbs up.

I'd dig being a ghoul.

It's just unfortunate that radiation will just fucking kill you rather than give you beneficial mutations in the real world. Also, how the fuck did radiation make us go from snapping turtles to bipedal, humanoid lakelurks? That never made sense to me, though it's not like deathclaws make any more sense.

---------- Post added 2012-02-22 at 06:59 AM ----------

Well I personally just prefer a direct solution to conflicts.

Doesn't get much more direct than turning a city of 50 million people into a parking lot.

[Beavis]

Between 1945 and 2000, an estimate of 40 million people have died due to armed conflict.

So, where are the nukes that are stopping these 50 million people dying? Because in just 15 years longer than you have stated here, very nearly the exact amount you stated HAVE died in armed conflict.

I disagree with Nuclear weapons, unless some organisation who isnt bound to a nation, or nations were to control them. Not NATO, because at the end of the day that is a group of countries, it would have to be an entirely seperate entity. Its easy to say that USA and USSR didnt go to war with each other because of nuclear weapons, but just how many countries have those two nations gone to war with since the start of the Cold War? Im pretty certain Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Laos, Dominican Republic and many others all felt that nukes were really helping to keep the peace when American, British, French, Russian troops and weapons were killing people in those countries.

The problem is that there is no situation in which a nuclear weapon can be used, so realistically, where is the "threat" they impose? They simply stop countries from using them on each other, nukes counter nukes, they dont counter anything else. Wars will continue to rage, and the "threat" of nuclear war will not stop conventional wars from on-going.

And Robert Oppenheimer knew it when he realised what he had made, "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

I'm not sure how 55 years of armed conflict is a "spasm of violence," but it doesn't really matter. Nuclear deterrence obviously only functions when both parties to a potential conflict have nuclear weapons. It won't stop non-nuclear powers from fighting. It won't stop nuclear powers from pushing around non-nuclear countries. And it certainly won't stop Hutus from massacring Tutsis with machetes. But, nobody is arguing that it will. That's your silly straw man. What it will stop is the type of major power war that killed between 60 and 130 million people between 1914 and 1945.

[AdriWar]

Bane, at the end of the day those Weapons of Mass Destruction/Nuclear Weapons will end up killing many people.

[Xanjori]

What it will stop is the type of major power war that killed between 60 and 130 million people between 1914 and 1945.

And you can irrefutably prove that nuclear weapons have done, and will always do this? I cant help but feel that people that write "strawman" in an argument, dont have an argument.

[PizzaSHARK]

Between 1945 and 2000, an estimate of 40 million people have died due to armed conflict.

So, where are the nukes that are stopping these 50 million people dying? Because in just 15 years longer than you have stated here, very nearly the exact amount you stated HAVE died in armed conflict.

I disagree with Nuclear weapons, unless some organisation who isnt bound to a nation, or nations were to control them. Not NATO, because at the end of the day that is a group of countries, it would have to be an entirely seperate entity. Its easy to say that USA and USSR didnt go to war with each other because of nuclear weapons, but just how many countries have those two nations gone to war with since the start of the Cold War? Im pretty certain Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, former Yugoslavia, Laos, Dominican Republic and many others all felt that nukes were really helping to keep the peace when American, British, French, Russian troops and weapons were killing people in those countries.

The problem is that there is no situation in which a nuclear weapon can be used, so realistically, where is the "threat" they impose? They simply stop countries from using them on each other, nukes counter nukes, they dont counter anything else. Wars will continue to rage, and the "threat" of nuclear war will not stop conventional wars from on-going.

And Robert Oppenheimer knew it when he realised what he had made, "I have become Death, the destroyer of worlds."

And how would you propose this independent, objective organization makes everyone obey? By owning all the nuclear weapons? Sure, they can have the existing ones, but it's not like they can take the knowledge away.

And even if they could, who in the fuck would willingly give away that kind of power? If you throw away your nuclear weapons, not only are you giving away the biggest stick you have, you're also making yourself vulnerable to being victimized by the people who didn't throw away their big sticks.

[Beavis]

And you can irrefutably prove that nuclear weapons have done, and will always do this? I cant help but feel that people that write "strawman" in an argument, dont have an argument.

Zagare, Frank. The Dynamics of Deterrence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. xiv + 194.

Zagare, Frank. Exploring the Stability of Deterrence. [Edited with Jacek Kugler]. University of Denver Graduate School of International Studies Monograph Series in World Affairs. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1987, pp. viii + 168.

Knock yourself out, buddy.

[PizzaSHARK]

And you can irrefutably prove that nuclear weapons have done, and will always do this? I cant help but feel that people that write "strawman" in an argument, dont have an argument.

Honestly, who the fuck cares about what happens 200 or 500 or 1,000 years from now? It's not gonna be our problem, we'll have long since begun the process to be used as fuel.

And I really don't see a nuclear exchange happening anytime in our lifetimes. Neither the Russians, nor the Chinese, nor us Americans, nor the EU are fucking insane enough to start that war. Maybe those stupid extremists in the Middle East (and yes I am including the more aggressive/hostile elements in Israel with that) or the psychopaths in North Korea might want to, but in both cases I don't see it happening either - if Israel or any of the other nations in the Middle East does something of that magnitude, the entire rest of the world is going to use that as an excuse to effectively "keep peace" in the area (while also getting rid of annoying little corporations like OPEC so they don't have to pay through the ass for oil anymore.)

If North Korea did something that stupid, China would likely disown them, and China is the only reason those crazy fucks weren't wiped out in the first place.

Beavis it's getting awfully hard to read your posts with the correct voice.

[Beavis]

Beavis it's getting awfully hard to read your posts with the correct voice.

Keep trying. It makes them like twice as hilarious.

[PizzaSHARK]

Keep trying. It makes them like twice as hilarious.

It really does, man. It's hard to do it but it's fucking worth it.

[Primernova]

It's a completely pointless weapon, dismantle them all.

It's like a Mexican Standoff, that no one gives a shit about anymore, for the past two or more generations.

Would be funny if some country actually decided to pull the trigger and every one of them just fizzled...

[PizzaSHARK]

It's a completely pointless weapon, dismantle them all.

It's like a Mexican Standoff, that no one gives a shit about anymore, for the past two or more generations.

Would be funny if some country actually decided to pull the trigger and every one of them just fizzled...

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.

[Kuntantee]

Iran is no bigger threat then USA when it comes to using nukes. Everyone who can develop them should possess them. For example, I want my country(Turkey) to possess nukes in current state of world. However, there is a better solution that is no country should posses such weapons. I doubt the better solution is applicable on practice.

[Deleted]

They're a bane, people think this is all some clever game and carefully constructed conspiracy of MAD but the situation is a lot more fragile than that. Post world-war II I could understand the rationale for MAD. But frankly the likes of Reagan and Gorbachev who mellowed regarding nuclear weapons meant we got closer to disarmament - and if you knew anything about the paranoid Yuri Andropov you'd realize just how close we were to a second cuban missile crisis and potentially nuclear war. I'd love to see nuclear weapons gone, along with the specter of fear of some mad box of rabbits deciding to make use of them as global tensions ratchet up.

[PizzaSHARK]

Iran is no bigger threat then USA when it comes to using nukes. Everyone who can develop them should possess them. For example, I want my country(Turkey) to possess nukes in current state of world. However, there is a better solution that is no country should posses such weapons. I doubt the better solution is applicable on practice.

Correct.

I'm not worried about Iran trying to nuke the US, or even the EU. Most likely, they'll nuke Saudi Arabia (those two countries still hate each other, right?) or Israel. The thing is, I don't think anyone would be amenable to someone nuking someone else regardless of reason, and if they shot one at Israel that would absolutely get NATO and/or the UN involved.

Likewise, I don't think North Korea would take a shot at the US - they'd be more likely to try and blast South Korea, or maybe Japan. And if China didn't stomp them flat, the US sure as hell would.

---------- Post added 2012-02-22 at 08:09 AM ----------

They're a bane, people think this is all some clever game and carefully constructed conspiracy of MAD but the situation is a lot more fragile than that. Post world-war II I could understand the rationale for MAD. But frankly the likes of Reagan and Gorbachev who mellowed regarding nuclear weapons meant we got closer to disarmament - and if you knew anything about the paranoid Yuri Andropov you'd realize just how close we were to a second cuban missile crisis and potentially nuclear war. I'd love to see nuclear weapons gone, along with the specter of fear of some mad box of rabbits deciding to make use of them as global tensions ratchet up.

But, again, is that practical? How will you convince not just one nation, but EVERY nation to give up their biggest and most powerful weapon?

[Xanjori]

But, again, is that practical? How will you convince not just one nation, but EVERY nation to give up their biggest and most powerful weapon?

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?

[Deleted]

But, again, is that practical? How will you convince not just one nation, but EVERY nation to give up their biggest and most powerful weapon?

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).