|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Weapons of peace.
Okay, here's the theory:
No nation would be crazy enough to start a nuclar WWIII.
Here's come assumptions:
1: A nation being totaly defeated by conventional means would resort to nuclear weapons in desperation.
2: No nation would want to destroy another so much that they would not care for their own saftey.
Therefore: if every nation had enough nukes to destroy any other nation, they would all be terrified of large-scale war.
Example: USA and USSR. Neither nation would directly attack the other, and neither dared start a large scale war that might involve a nuclear power.
Now consider if everyone had that kind of firepower...
How many wars would have been avoided?
Would Iraq have invaded Kuwait if they could wipe Iraq off the map?
I propose that if every nation had a nuclear deterrent equal to the USA, the globe would be in total stalemate, and no country would dare start more than petty border skirmishes.
Therefore myriad unused nuclear warheads could bring world peace.
This is the only realistic way I see of creating world peace. This would mean that nuclear disarmament programs actually make war more likely.
No nation would be crazy enough to start a nuclar WWIII.
Here's come assumptions:
1: A nation being totaly defeated by conventional means would resort to nuclear weapons in desperation.
2: No nation would want to destroy another so much that they would not care for their own saftey.
Therefore: if every nation had enough nukes to destroy any other nation, they would all be terrified of large-scale war.
Example: USA and USSR. Neither nation would directly attack the other, and neither dared start a large scale war that might involve a nuclear power.
Now consider if everyone had that kind of firepower...
How many wars would have been avoided?
Would Iraq have invaded Kuwait if they could wipe Iraq off the map?
I propose that if every nation had a nuclear deterrent equal to the USA, the globe would be in total stalemate, and no country would dare start more than petty border skirmishes.
Therefore myriad unused nuclear warheads could bring world peace.
This is the only realistic way I see of creating world peace. This would mean that nuclear disarmament programs actually make war more likely.
This is a tricky question.
Yes it's a sound theory and I think it does provide some nations some protection, but it's not universal. For example, one country is un-armed but is a close ally of the USA. They are attacked... the USA would respond with their firepower.
But this is an absurd theory also. There's a "macho" culture going on: "Look how strong we are, look at me, I've got 600 nuclear warheads"
But the guy who has 2 nuclear warheads is as much of a threat, if not a greater threat, than the guys with more.
The threat of force prevents force... unfortunately, that's just the world we live in today.
Yes it's a sound theory and I think it does provide some nations some protection, but it's not universal. For example, one country is un-armed but is a close ally of the USA. They are attacked... the USA would respond with their firepower.
But this is an absurd theory also. There's a "macho" culture going on: "Look how strong we are, look at me, I've got 600 nuclear warheads"
But the guy who has 2 nuclear warheads is as much of a threat, if not a greater threat, than the guys with more.
The threat of force prevents force... unfortunately, that's just the world we live in today.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
|
Therefore myriad unused nuclear warheads could bring world peace. This is the only realistic way I see of creating world peace. This would mean that nuclear disarmament programs actually make war more likely. |
Peace through fear? Seems like a paradox to me.
I don't think world warIII will breakout.But when it break out,our humbeings will have a real losing.
MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) has kept us out of a nuclear confrontation and at the same time kept us on the edge of one. With the collapse of the Soviet Union alot of nukes have made thier way into the world market and there is really no way of telling who has one now. As it was pointed out, it's the guy with one nuke that's the real danger. The [implied] threat of a nuclear attack by terrorists will keep many people and countries on edge for some time to come.That in itslef can be extremely dangerous because if every country that has nukes is scared and has thier collective fingers on the launch button, how long will it take before an "accident" happens?
Personally I think the whole "I got more nukes than you" mentality is quite absurd and very dangerous.
Personally I think the whole "I got more nukes than you" mentality is quite absurd and very dangerous.
Ha ha ha, it's very funny. US produces nuclear weapons and transfers nuclear weapon technologies some friend countries (like Israel and India) and permits that this countries have nuclear technology but US not agrees international nuclear weapon dropping agreements, even US singel country that didn't agree. But, after all, US threats Iran and says "You can not use nuclear technology to use produce electiricity, because you can make nuclear weapons soon. If you don't stop your nuclear technology researchs, I will strike against you".
Oh my friend, your idea sounds good but who is convince the US Government to this idea?
-----------------------------
(PS: I'm not an Iranian)
Oh my friend, your idea sounds good but who is convince the US Government to this idea?
-----------------------------
(PS: I'm not an Iranian)
Sorry, I think this concept is totally unrealistic. The main supposition, that every nation (and individual) wants to survive in first place is simply false. Two examples:
1. Suicidal terrorist. Probably every one knows that some terrorists believe that if they die for faith, they'll go to haven, so they die. As it was stated; one bomb is dangerous enough.
2. The horror of III Reich. Even when it was obvious that Germans would lose WWII they kept on fighting. For many of them it was a matter of some kind of honor, but maybe it is better to say, that it was a kind of frustration; like a child braking its toys when something goes wrong. They thought: we have lost and we're gone, but at least we will kill as many as we can.
Hitler claimed even, that Germans had failed an should be punished for that by a total annihilated. I think, that if he had a nuke, he would have used it.
As for cold war, I think we ware all just very lucky.
1. Suicidal terrorist. Probably every one knows that some terrorists believe that if they die for faith, they'll go to haven, so they die. As it was stated; one bomb is dangerous enough.
2. The horror of III Reich. Even when it was obvious that Germans would lose WWII they kept on fighting. For many of them it was a matter of some kind of honor, but maybe it is better to say, that it was a kind of frustration; like a child braking its toys when something goes wrong. They thought: we have lost and we're gone, but at least we will kill as many as we can.
Hitler claimed even, that Germans had failed an should be punished for that by a total annihilated. I think, that if he had a nuke, he would have used it.
As for cold war, I think we ware all just very lucky.
| yasaroz wrote: |
| Ha ha ha, it's very funny. US produces nuclear weapons and transfers nuclear weapon technologies some friend countries (like Israel and India)... |
Man,, don't forget, how somebody becomes the friend of US.. you think US consider India as a friend... I can guarentee you that.. it is all business.. don't forget that... US was a big friend of Bin Laden family and suplied all the ammunittions to split russia, and US was a friend of Iraq and supplied all ammunitions to attack Iran... and now the truth is Now it is the same &&& US giving money and supplying ammunittions to &&& Pakistan just to attack India so that Indian economy won't grow... and they think nobody would know about it... Indian's do not need any &&& Uranium from US to make nuclear weapons.. they made and experemented all their nuclear power in 92 I think.. and they do not need any uranium cause... they have thorium.... and the events happened in the past week is all politics.. TRUST ME... India is one of the countries that can survive without any support from US (every country can, but they are just scared) and when a country proves that... She become a terrorist and is attacked by stupid allies of US and US itself... hope you got my points... if there is any questions please ask...
Yes... VERY intelligent move on the side of the US to let India become a nuclear power without signing the correct agreements about blowing shit up...[/sarcasm] I support Australia's stance that until India signs it they dont get Aussie Uranium.
Sometimes I have the feeling that Bush is bringing us close to the edge.
I agree with Rhysige. Nations should sign up to the NPT. Spreading nuclear weapons, and accepting their spread is a recipe for disaster.
A much better way not to have an all out nuclear war is to destroy the weapons in the first place. MAD barely worked. There is an implicit assumption that world leaders are good guys who understand that starting wars and killing thousands of people is wrong. They might think, for example, that pre-emptive nuclear attacks are okay, rather than be attacked first, or that they would prefer to start a nuclear war than to become a horrible communist/capitalist/islamic/whatever state.
Arming the world with nuclear weapons just multiplies the possibilities of destroying the world.
Instead the world should disarm. The nuclear weapons states already agreed to do this, but conveniently for them they ignore this agreement. South Africa and the countries of the former Soviet Union gave up their nuclear weapons, and their nuclear weapons technology. The IAEA has been a very effective watchdog, and with the proper support we could ban nuclear weapons. If we don't do this, it only takes two crazies and bye-bye world.
A much better way not to have an all out nuclear war is to destroy the weapons in the first place. MAD barely worked. There is an implicit assumption that world leaders are good guys who understand that starting wars and killing thousands of people is wrong. They might think, for example, that pre-emptive nuclear attacks are okay, rather than be attacked first, or that they would prefer to start a nuclear war than to become a horrible communist/capitalist/islamic/whatever state.
Arming the world with nuclear weapons just multiplies the possibilities of destroying the world.
Instead the world should disarm. The nuclear weapons states already agreed to do this, but conveniently for them they ignore this agreement. South Africa and the countries of the former Soviet Union gave up their nuclear weapons, and their nuclear weapons technology. The IAEA has been a very effective watchdog, and with the proper support we could ban nuclear weapons. If we don't do this, it only takes two crazies and bye-bye world.
But if every country had a nuclear project then when some scientists found sth to make them invurneable then the other countries would be doomed. And if irak(no offense) could get it they would probably attack
George Bush is making war. Around 3000 Americans died in September 11, but how many other people have died since he went into Afghanistan or Iraq? "Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity" is some saying i found on some site.
@ ocalhoun;
I bet you can guess what I think on this one
I bet you can guess what I think on this one
MAD as a principle works when it is applied to large scale nations with logical sane rulers. However in today's world of religious and ideological fanaticism, this principle no longer is capable of providing a "safe' peace. When you have people willing to sacrifice themselves in order to destroy others, then you'll have a massive problem with that many nukes. Widespread nuclear proliferation brings up another problem. Not every country's nukes are as secure as, for example, America's. What happens when a terrorist organization gets one and uses it? There will no one nation to nuke in response to guarantee mutually assured destruction.
The theory is invalided for ignoring two mechanisms.
1. Escalation
2. Advancement
We saw advancement in the cold war. Each state, under this theory, would be required to maintain and ever increasing deterrent. Eventually this would lead to empty bellies, the number one cause of war.
Constant advancement of technology and tactics would demand that if a state ever found its self able to remove a rival it would be required to immediately. Essentially starting and ending an “eventual” war for the sake of self preservation.
1. Escalation
2. Advancement
We saw advancement in the cold war. Each state, under this theory, would be required to maintain and ever increasing deterrent. Eventually this would lead to empty bellies, the number one cause of war.
Constant advancement of technology and tactics would demand that if a state ever found its self able to remove a rival it would be required to immediately. Essentially starting and ending an “eventual” war for the sake of self preservation.
Related topics
 |