Nuclear weapons: bane or boon?

[Beavis]

Ideally noone should have them - have people fight normal wars again without the possiblity of a catastrophe on global scale.

I'm pretty sure that conventional wars can be global catastrophes too.

[Hoomin]

If it were up to me war would be alienated and foreign to the human race completely, However it isn't up to me and this is something I cannot change...we will always fight. I am against nuclear weapons of any kind. A good quote came to mind while reading this, I believe it is from Einstein if my memory serves me correctly. "One cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

[Jaxi]

The USA used to have over 30 thousand nuclear warheads. We've scaled back quite a bit. I don't think we should completely dismantle, for the threat of mutually assured destruction has proven itself to be valuable, but we don't really need them much anymore. I just hope any new nation that develops them at least follows Israel's example and doesn't use them in a fit. It is nice to dream that one day we won't need weapons anymore, sadly today is not that day.

[cFortyfive]

I'm pretty sure that conventional wars can be global catastrophes too.

I doubt that even a new world war would have the impacts of a nuclear war between only two countries.

[Deleted]

England doesn't hold Nukes. They're sitting in a Loch about 20 miles outside Glasgow.

:|

I think you probably meant the UK.

[Beavis]

I doubt that even a new world war would have the impacts of a nuclear war between only two countries.

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.

[Morgaith]

Where's mah def vs aliens option?

[Providence]

no one should have them at all.

[Deleted]

It's a very touchy subject really. On one hand, every country is within its own rights to defend itself and technological advancement but you will always have some nations that can't control the power be it their government or what have you. On the other, using only a few select nations to hold onto them to deter others from going bonkers on each other seems like a rule through fear deterrent.

But, what can you doooo? *shrugs*

[Beavis]

no one should have them at all.

I don't really understand why people think this. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevented the United States and the Soviet Union from fighting World War 3. They will probably be one of two things that prevent the United States and China from fighting a major war. The relative peace and stability of the modern world is built on nuclear weaponry.

[Deleted]

I don't really understand why people think this. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevented the United States and the Soviet Union from fighting World War 3. They will probably be one of two things that prevent the United States and China from fighting a major war. The relative peace and stability of the modern world is built on nuclear weaponry.

I feel the same way. Put it this way, here's a quote from Thomas S. Power, head of the US Strategic Air Command from 1957 to 1964, which included the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
If we got through that without any nuclear exchange, its because the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction *works*.

[Providence]

I don't really understand why people think this. Nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevented the United States and the Soviet Union from fighting World War 3. They will probably be one of two things that prevent the United States and China from fighting a major war. The relative peace and stability of the modern world is built on nuclear weaponry.

the possibility of a nuclear war which would result in total destruction of the planet is A thing that prevented the US and USSR going to war, it's not the ONLY thing. Believe it or not, many countries choose not to go to war when nuclear weapons aren't involved. To say that nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevent a war is incorrect.

And even if they were, it's only through the use of high end tension. This means countries with nuclear warheads have strained relations with other countries with nukes, and complete dominance over other countries without them. You think that's a better world to live in as opposed to a world with no nukes?

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 08:16 PM ----------

I feel the same way. Put it this way, here's a quote from Thomas S. Power, head of the US Strategic Air Command from 1957 to 1964, which included the Cuban Missile Crisis.
"Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!"
If we got through that without any nuclear exchange, its because the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction *works*.

thats an insane thought process and totally oblivious to the reality, the quote that is

[Deleted]

the possibility of a nuclear war which would result in total destruction of the planet is A thing that prevented the US and USSR going to war, it's not the ONLY thing. Believe it or not, many countries choose not to go to war when nuclear weapons aren't involved. To say that nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevent a war is incorrect.

And even if they were, it's only through the use of high end tension. This means countries with nuclear warheads have strained relations with other countries with nukes, and complete dominance over other countries without them. You think that's a better world to live in as opposed to a world with no nukes?

That's the trouble, we don't know what the world would look like with no nukes. But we do have the following bits of evidence
-there have been no wars between two nations who both possessed nuclear weapons
-any wars that have taken place, involved a nuclear nation against a non-nuclear nation. Or two non-nuclear nations.

Its not like its impossible for there to have been more wars after number WW2, we've had plenty. Just none between nuclear powers.

[Thalais]

I believe that Nukes have actually slowed down our progression into the future.
I feel the same way about Oil and I think Oil has single-handly stopped progression towards the future.

Now, Nukes allowed us to do something great and it hasn't stopped us from killing each other since the middle east is all about killing people right now, and when i say middle east, I mean the governments and extreamist personal.

People think Nukes are the most powerful and will be the most powerful weapon of man kind, but sadly they are wrong.
If you just take Sci-Fi shows or Anime, they make Nukes to be just a waste of income.
My favorite weapon that hasn't and most likely wont be made is a Buster Rifle which is a highly condensed beam of Plasma energy which can blast through almost any defense outside the super/methical metals (Adamantine, Mithril, Gundanium, etc)

Oil has slowed us down to a halt in the means of progression into outerspace and beyond this little planet.
We have not advanced to what I wanted us (us = humans) to be: Out exploring the stars & other worlds.

[Kalyyn]

My opinion? You have the right to nuclear weapons if you are powerful enough to stop the countries who will try to take them away from you.

But that should be obvious. After all, who's going to stop you if nobody is powerful enough (or cares enough) to stop you? That's simple logic.

[GGashok]

Inform yourself about nuclear small-arms-ammunition, hear about the horrors alone these "little" bullets bring (to user and victim).
Nukes are not useable in a war for territory nor for gaining resources, they are not for war - they are for annihilation, and the destruction of our surroundings they serve no purpose.

[Deleted]

I believe that Nukes have actually slowed down our progression into the future.
I feel the same way about Oil and I think Oil has single-handly stopped progression towards the future.

Now, Nukes allowed us to do something great and it hasn't stopped us from killing each other since the middle east is all about killing people right now, and when i say middle east, I mean the governments and extreamist personal.

None of whom possess nuclear weapons, funnily enough. And oil has been one of the greatest technological drivers of the last two centuries, its amazing how many different things we can use that black goo for.

Oil has slowed us down to a halt in the means of progression into outerspace and beyond this little planet.
We have not advanced to what I wanted us (us = humans) to be: Out exploring the stars & other worlds.

...you do know how we currently achieve spaceflight, right?

[Providence]

That's the trouble, we don't know what the world would look like with no nukes. But we do have the following bits of evidence
-there have been no wars between two nations who both possessed nuclear weapons
-any wars that have taken place, involved a nuclear nation against a non-nuclear nation. Or two non-nuclear nations.

Its not like its impossible for there to have been more wars after number WW2, we've had plenty. Just none between nuclear powers.

probably the same that it has for the many many thousands of years before it. nukes are only like 70 years old, we can make a pretty decent assumption on what the world would be like without em.

your points are irrelevant, they do not point to anything currently and your facts don't correlate to anything.

---------- Post added 2012-02-21 at 10:03 PM ----------

People think Nukes are the most powerful and will be the most powerful weapon of man kind, but sadly they are wrong.
If you just take Sci-Fi shows or Anime, they make Nukes to be just a waste of income.
My favorite weapon that hasn't and most likely wont be made is a Buster Rifle which is a highly condensed beam of Plasma energy which can blast through almost any defense outside the super/methical metals (Adamantine, Mithril, Gundanium, etc)

yes because anime is a legitimate source of technological criteria.

[PizzaSHARK]

Oh the irony of thinking that nuclear weapons help make the world a safer place.

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.

[Sunseeker]

They're a bane and a boon, just like any weapon. Personally I think any nation capable of developing them should be able to do so without the treat of international conflicts, however, what they plan to do with it may cause such conflict. Possession=/=intent.