I don't know what your perspective about Nuclear Weapons.In my opinion, I don't like to have it .It can give give us the worst things more than the good events. 
If you are likely to have it for your country ,how do you consider for Nuclear wastes 
| kolaro2 wrote: |
| I don't know what your perspective about Nuclear Weapons.In my opinion, I don't like to have it .It can give give us the worst things more than the good events. If you are likely to have it for your country , |
If others didnt' have/want it, I'd say no. But since we/they do, then yes.Yes I agree with you. Countries should not possess nuclear weapons and they should try things in peaceful way instead.
Given the facts that:
1: No nation with nuclear weapons has ever declared war on any other nation with nuclear weapons.
2: No nation without nuclear weapons could achieve victory in a war against a nation with nuclear weapons.
The best solution would be for all nations to have nuclear weapons; doing so might just be enough to bring about the end of all international wars (but not peace, it wouldn't stop terrorists or revolutionaries within a nation.)
This is more of Philosophy and Religion thread than a Science and Nature issue.
What do you think would have happened in the middle east if
every time Al Quida made a beheading video
a small tactical nuc had been used on an insurgent village?
By not responding to the beheading videos,
it gave Al Quida a measure and blueprint to the coalitions resolve.
Eventually they would have gotten tired of kicking themselves in the beanbag.
Saying that we should all be on the same level with weapons is preposterous! For instance, let's say one day in the year 5011 we would have advanced to an age where we have a device the size of an iPod that can open a black hole and eat up the entire solar system. Suggesting that we should put everyone on the same level and give everyone this device does not solve anything, there's still some very crazy people out there who will press the button and destroy everybody.
This is an extreme example but it's representative. Allowing a nation like North Korea where the regime is not accountable to anybody but their own agenda is potential disaster.
^When you start talking in terms of global nuclear war, North Korea's rulers are held accountable by other nuke-wielding nations: If they shot a nuke at say, the USA, there would be consequences for their action.
Also, note that I said every nation should have them. They should certainly never be put in the hands of people that would not have to worry about retaliation (by hiding): if they got into the hands of people who could hide among innocents, then they would have no consequences for launching nukes.
As for the black-hole I-pod, nobody should have that kind of power.
^I should have said that the North Korean government do not feel accountable to anyone but their own agenda. I feel the same about Al Qaeda.
As for giving nukes to nations, I assume you mean countries bound by geographical and political borders (as opposed to nations without those borders and centralized government, such as the Kurds). It's giving way too much power that affects too many people.
If the power that is distributed weakens by giving the power to more people, then I agree with you. However, with nuclear arms, the power is the same, it does not weaken with the number of people to whom you give it to.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| The best solution would be for all nations to have nuclear weapons; doing so might just be enough to bring about the end of all international wars (but not peace, it wouldn't stop terrorists or revolutionaries within a nation.) |
I think this idea is stupid myself but just going along with it for the moment ...
How would you distribute the weapons? It would take fewer nukes to destroy a small country but many to destroy a larger country. The USA could for example nuke most medium to large towns/cities in the UK but we would be able to nuke nothing that would cause any real damage back.
Ideally, no one would have nukes. However world peace does not exist and until it does their required. For now, a drastic reduction of numbers should be done (mainly Russia and USA) leading up to none. There are still however reasons to not even reduce them with not knowing who else has how many. If the arson was reduced too dramatically and estimates of certain other countries nuclear arsenal had been severely underestimated, there would of course be large concerns. | kolaro2 wrote: |
| I don't know what your perspective about Nuclear Weapons.In my opinion, I don't like to have it .It can give give us the worst things more than the good events. If you are likely to have it for your country ,how do you consider for Nuclear wastes |
I dont think any country should have it for 3 main reasons.
First of all you just cant attack another country without affecting the rest of the world.
Secondly I dont think it΄s fair to eliminate civilians and eliminate entire cities, no matter the reason for the war.
Thirdly I would hate to see the hands of an nuke in the wrong hands. A country like USA can for sure use a nuke and bomb the hell out of a country (yup, been there done that), BUT imagine if everyone(or at least more countries) got access to nukes. That would make it a lot easier for terrorists to get access to nukes. While countries (even USA... at least a little) are willing to take the consecuenses for their actions terrorists might be willing to use 10 nukes, and die themselves, just for the cause (whatever they seem beeing a good one).
So nah, please, for the love of God(even though you might not beleave in any such 
) trash all the nukes before we have the first nuklear terrorrist attack, cause then it will be too late.Well, the point is that everybody would have them, but nobody use them. (Because of the obvious consequences)
As for the superpowers getting rid of all their nukes, frankly, I think that would be stupid. If that was done, and then some third-rate nation manages to build nukes of their own, who's to stop them from using them?
Note: the only time in history when nuclear weapons were ever used in war, was in a situation where one side (USA) had nukes, but nobody else did. Do you want nations like North Korea or Iran to be in that situation?
if the UN had more credibility, i would not see a problem giving them the power of nukes.
though i think the United States takes the credibility away from the UN quite frequently, sometimes for good reason and other times for its own agenda!
I agree wid u.I wont support my country for making nukes.But the nuke country can only stop the development of nukes around the world.They sud stop burn the technology of developing the nukes....and well superpower contries sud make strong rules againt nukes countries.But this cant be possible if supercountries itself continue producing the nukes.... 
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Well, the point is that everybody would have them, but nobody use them. (Because of the obvious consequences)
Note: the only time in history when nuclear weapons were ever used in war, was in a situation where one side (USA) had nukes, but nobody else did. Do you want nations like North Korea or Iran to be in that situation? |
The topic needn't be so narrow, you talk of Mutually Assured Destruction, and believe in MAD. So do I, but MAD doesn't have to be only nukes, it can (and does) include other military weapons/assets. You don't have to say "we'll nuke your capital if you nuke ours", you can say that "we (and our allies, including any self respecting nation in the world) will throw all of our conventional weapons at you if you nuke us". Personally I'm all for nuclear disarmament, not because I think that we should let other nations have an advantage over us, but because I know that we retain the advantage with or without nuclear weapons. Merely having the weapons around anymore doesn't make sense, we no longer fight wars of outright aggression towards another state, we are in the era of cold wars, wars fought on ideology regardless of nation and state. To add a somewhat controversial statement: nationalism reached its peak in the World Wars, globalization has taken over since. | Montressor wrote: |
| "we (and our allies, including any self respecting nation in the world) will throw all of our conventional weapons at you if you nuke us". |
They and their allies will have only minutes to do so before their military assets are vaporized. Military bases would be the highest priority targets in a nuclear war. Am I mistaken in assuming that most countries can't mobilize their entire forces in the time it takes an ICBM to travel from it's silo to it's target?It's a very hard question.
The perfect world would be without any form of war and agression but unfortunally that is not human nature.
| Quote: |
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
quote: Jack Handey |
If countries would totally abolish nuclear weapons and we could be sure that everybody would do the same then maybe. The problem is that if for example only one country would posses this kind of power then they would have way to much power no matter what country it is.
I don't think history have one war that can be said to be good but sometimes it seems like nothing can avoid it. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| They and their allies will have only minutes to do so before their military assets are vaporized. Military bases would be the highest priority targets in a nuclear war. Am I mistaken in assuming that most countries can't mobilize their entire forces in the time it takes an ICBM to travel from it's silo to it's target? |
There are not enough missiles in existence to eliminate all military threats that would be incurred due to the use of those missiles. Now if you were to give everybody enough missiles to do so, then you are correct in saying that MAD (though thermonuclear warfare) is the only way to go.NW is too dangerous, if we do not intend to distroy our world,never make it,include any other country.
well here in belgium we don't make nuclear weapons, but it's the biggest country secret (and of cousre evrebody knows it then) that we have stored some nucleair rocket heads here. for the meaning if Germany would start a new world war. they are here stationed just after WW 2 but even while our country is protesting, they stay here, because they don't exist on paper.
Most people in the world want all countries to make peace with eachother, and basically have world peace. However, if a country decides to contradict that and try to have a war with us using nuclear weapons, we should do the same by using some nuclear weapons for ourselves. But not for the intentions of blowing other nations up, but for defending ourselves against the other countries.
So, basically, my idea was that this country should have nuclear weapons, but we shouldn't be able to use them, unless another country tries to bomb us with nuclear weapons.
But then it would be easier for terrorists to get nuclear weapons to...
Nuclear weapons!!!!
Sounds dangerous, isnt it???
yes it really is and has the capacity the whole human civilization as well.
and its created by the humans only...
but i think had there been no nuclear weapons in the world, we would have seen another world war many years ago...
its is due to the fear of nuclear weapons that the world and the powerful nations are silent..
so to me its good to have nuclear weapon.
and moreover its increases country's status...
| ccer wrote: |
but i think had there been no nuclear weapons in the world, we would have seen another world war many years ago...
its is due to the fear of nuclear weapons that the world and the powerful nations are silent..
|
That's right! Without nukes, the cold war wouldn't have been cold. (and the war in the Pacific would have had a very different ending).
Without nukes, would both the USA and USSR have held back in Korea or Vietnam? Without the thread of MAD, either of those wars could have been WWIII.i don't like nuclear using as a weapon. if one country make nuclear weapons another country will make too
it's very-very bad for me
i hate country that using nuclear as weapon
I would ike to say no we shouldn't have them but while there are countries out there that want them then we must equal ourselves to call their bluff.
On the flip side... If we or anyone else possesses Nukes then who are we to tell other countries that they can't have nukes.
This discussion is one with no real answere.
No country should possess nuclear weapons neither America and Russia. Nothing will change if only Northern Korea will stop with producing nuclear weapons. Bush only wants to get power if there will be nuclear war in the future. Countries must be equeal to each other.
Nations want other nations like north-korea to stop making simply because they are afraid that a nuclear war might start. but i dont think it makes much difference who has the weapons, once a nuclear war is started it would most likely mean that other nations would also launch there nukes no matter who started it.
I really think that no country should. But those country that are telling other country the limit their nuclear weapon have the most nuclear weapon, lol.
I think that all the BIG country have nuke aram...
And i think that when one will use it this will be the end of the world...
I don't think anybody should have nuclear weapons. If many countries have them, then all it would take is for a single weapon to be launched to cause a nuclear holocaust that would probably destroy the world.
There is absouloutly no gain for countries to have nuclear weapons. It is the same mentality as led to the cold war. Why do all countries have to think that power is shown by the amount of killing potential? The world would be much nicer if there was no nuclear weapons. Or even no weapons at all.
