I heard Obama wants to get rid of all nuclear warheads.

[CCS]

He wants every country on the planet to destroy thier nukes, so we can have a safer planet.

Here are my objections:

1. How do we know every country will actually do it? Any country that does destroy theirs may find that they are the only country that did and now can be invaded by others.

2. Ever since Pakistan and India got nukes, they have not had any major fighting because they do not want to back the other into a corner where it may launch them before going down.

3. Ever since WWII, every political candidate has known that you do not invade a nuclear country, like Russia for example. Nukes keep the peace.

4. If there were no nukes, China and other huge population countries could take us over with ther huge armies. Just like if you take guns away from everyone, buff guys could beat up small guys again, whereas now they only beat you up if they are sure you don't have a gun.

5. If an asteroid is headed towards earth, how will we blow it up? If we save nukes for this purpose, what is to stop us from launching them at other countries? Why should other countries then not keep theirs too? (for asteroids)


I say we keep the nukes, but only confinscate them from highly unstable countries, like maybe North Korea, which might launch one just the government feels it has nothing to lose.

 

[HughJass]

Nukes keep the peace.

Nukes create the conditions for nightmare scenarios. There's enough plutonium missing out of Russian/soviet facilities to destroy all life on the planet more than a few times over.

4. If there were no nukes, China and other huge population countries could take us over with ther huge armies.

Would America not fight back?

Pretty sure plenty of citizens would allow themselves to be conscripted

whereas now they only beat you up if they are sure you don't have a gun.

or they just go get their own gun

I say we keep the nukes, but only confinscate them from highly unstable countries, like maybe North Korea, which might launch one just the government feels it has nothing to lose.

what gives you the impression that America has a right to dictate which countries should own them?

That congenital failure you called your President claimed to be guided into war decisions during conversations with an invisible god... I don't know about you but I feel somewhat uncomfortable with a person like that being allowed to hold the codes to a stockpile of +1000 warheads (which he increased and constantly threatened to use against a country which had done nothing to warrant it)

 

[Old Baldy]

I don't think we really have the right to dictate nuclear weapons ownership Aussie, we are afraid about certain countries using them against us.

Just fear is all it is I guess.

 

[HughJass]

I think the Iranians know how you feel!

 

[Old Baldy]

I think the Iranians know how you feel!

You think?

 

[CCS]

Nukes create the conditions for nightmare scenarios. There's enough plutonium missing out of Russian/soviet facilities to destroy all life on the planet more than a few times over.

Just my point. If we get rid of all ours, and we don't know where Russia's leaked off to, that means we would not have any, and some other countries then would. Our super military is afraid to attack Pakistan too much because we don't want to get nuked by them. So is India. If someone has a nuke and can strike the US, do you not think they could hold us hostage if we don't have any to wipe them out fast?

4. If there were no nukes, China and other huge population countries could take us over with ther huge armies.

Would America not fight back?

Pretty sure plenty of citizens would allow themselves to be conscripted

They have over a billion people. There are 7 billion on Earth. We have only 300 million. Who do you think will win? Maybe us, but it would be a lot bloodier than if we had nukes and just told them to back off.
What if our economy is down and we can't pay for a military? At least with nukes we could threaten people to stay away.

whereas now they only beat you up if they are sure you don't have a gun.

or they just go get their own gun

Guns have been proven to reduce many types of violent crime. Yes, people can get their own guns, but they know they risk their life since everyone else around them has one too. When people know they risk more than just a bloody nose, they tend to do stuff legally.

I say we keep the nukes, but only confinscate them from highly unstable countries, like maybe North Korea, which might launch one just the government feels it has nothing to lose.

what gives you the impression that America has a right to dictate which countries should own them?

If they finance and harbor people who blow up our buidings, then they ask for our trouble. Otherwise, we all leave each other alone. I would leave Iran alone, but I'd like to know if they were at all behind 9/11. They better govern their people and not support vigil antis, or we will come over and straighten them out.

That congenital failure you called your President claimed to be guided into war decisions during conversations with an invisible god... I don't know about you but I feel somewhat uncomfortable with a person like that being allowed to hold the codes to a stockpile of +1000 warheads (which he increased and constantly threatened to use against a country which had done nothing to warrant it)

Many of us don't approve of Bush. Our two party, winner takes all, highest vote wins even if not 50%, winner by district then state then country then house of reps system we have makes it almost impossible for the smart people of this country to get a third candidate in. We are disorganized, and the media does not help.

We need to fix the voting system, not get rid of nukes. And congress's election system needs overhauling too. We need each state to elect it's representatives using proportional representation. We need instant runoff, and recall, for the sentate. Then we need instant runoff for the president. That would let many good candidates get in there and throw the bums out.



For all of you who want nukes gone because you are afraid of the US:
Would you let the US do deep inspections of your country all the time so that we know you got rid of them all and are not making more later? Would you need to send your own inspectors to the US too? Would it not be better for each country to assume the other is armed, and to just not mess with each other?

 

[CCS]

And you did not answer my other points.

Either answer them or state that they are right. I even numbered them for you.

 

[diffuse propecia]

5. If an asteroid is headed towards earth, how will we blow it up? If we save nukes for this purpose, what is to stop us from launching them at other countries? Why should other countries then not keep theirs too? (for asteroids)

I remember watching a documentary a year or two back discussing the ways we could survive an asteroid on its path to earth, I am pretty sure that the consensus was not to use Nukes to stop it. The experts being Interviewed stated that Nuking an asteroid would only replace the problem of a large chunk of rock slamming into the earth with having to deal with hundreds if not thousands of radioactive pieces of the asteroid being spread all over, which could bring untold death tolls if it hits water supplies or damages the environment in other ways.

 

[CCS]

Depends how far away it is when we hit it. More time to spread apart and disipate.

Hydrogen bombs are clean. Their only problem is the uranium that starts them.

I'd rather deal with the little bits than be crushed.

 

[CCS]

We had a big war every 20 years. One in 1898, 1914, 1942. And don't forget the civil war of 1860. Every 20 years.

Then we get nukes in 1945. After that no one messes with us.

Look and India and Pakistan, super bloody wars, until they both get nukes. Now neither wants to back the other into a corner and risk getting nuked by someone who has nothing left to lose. All they do now are minor bombings or a little gun fire here or there. Neither will invade the other.



Nukes make the world safer.

If you know that no one has any weapon at all, all you have to do is size them up and decide if you want to beat them up. For any reason. Some onlookers may be afraid to get involved.

If everyone has a gun, you do not want to risk escalation. You do not shoot unless you have a good reason, which does not occur since no one wants to escalate. And if you shoot someone, you don't know who around you will shoot you, since it is so much easier than trying to fight you with fists.

Guns save lives.


Everyone looks at school massacres and keeps saying it is the gun's fault.
Fact: if those students were armed, the gun men would not have been able to pull that off. The Anti-gun people are responsible for the deaths of those defenseless students.

 

[CCS]

If you want to kill everyone in a building, especially a school that is a weapon's free zone, it is so easy. Just bring lots of ammo and pretend it is a video game. Chain the doors shut so no one escapes.

You may want to shoot yourself thought since the police won't let you out alive. But hey, if you wanted to commit suicide anyway, why not go down this way?

It is just to easy to kill unarmed people by the dozen.

But if they all had guns, those killers would be shot dead in seconds. They'd kill maybe 5 people.

If you don't trust average citizens not to pull out their guns and kill each other over nothing, then you can't trust our government either, since it is made of such people.


Lets all wear straight jackets everywhere so we can't hurt each other and the liberals will be happy. Just don't blame me if you forgot to put a straight jacket on someone you trusted or did not notice, and they kill you all or force you to sexually serve them.

 

[CCS]

Cocaine is illegal.

Meth is illegal

Heroine is illegal.

Cops will throw you in jail if someone puts some in your pocket when you are not looking.

There is a zero tolerance, war on drugs.

Yet the stuff is everywhere, and any party where people want some.

What makes you think you can't stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals? Or nukes from getting in the hands of other countries. Iran has many high speed centrifuges going now.

Fact is, law abiding countries should stay armed.

Those of you who think you are safe without guns need to go read the "self defense systems" thread, and see what SAF and I have to say about what chance you stand against someone who is bigger than you if you are not armed.

It is not hard to see who is bigger than who, or which country has the better economy and the most people or most guns. China has many manufacturing facilities and could easily start making guns instead of computers.

 

[The Gardener]

CCS, we're not going to get rid of our nukes. Neither are the Russians.

It's just "diplomo-speak", or diplomatic strategy. Remember, Reagan and Gorbachev BOTH said that their goal was the elimination of nuclear weapons as well, but they never did. They just took small steps in that direction.

What the US and Russia are both very afraid of, as well as many other first world nations, is nuclear proliferation in the third world. BUT, the US nor Russia can't make any significant progress in reining in nuclear proliferation if we are perceived as being resistant to examining our OWN nuclear arsenals.

So, the US and Russia make a high profile statement saying they are "seeking the elimination of nuclear weapons". The US and Russia will both REDUCE their warhead stockpiles (which is something that both countries are wanting to do anyways, because both of us have more warheads than we really need, and maintaining nuclear warheads is very expensive)... and follow that up with language to the effect that this is a continuing process just as it was under Reagan/Gorbachev. By doing this, it gives the US and Russia cover to demand quid pro quo from the developing world... and then a broader set of nations would sign up to counter any attempt for third world nations to get nukes. In other words, the US and Russia could tell these nuclear aspiring nations, "look at us, we are in the process of eliminating OUR nuclear stockpiles... so, what basis does the world have in letting you develop and grow a nuclear stockpile of your own?"

If the US and Russia didn't take this step of making agreements to reduce their own stockpiles... then when a third world nation decides to develop and grow a nuclear stockpile, this third world nation could point at America and Russia and say "well they have nukes, so why shouldn't I be able to have one too?"

By making this "initiative", the US and Russia have an answer to that argument.

I think there's a deeper quid pro quo going on here... the US getting Russian help in preventing Iran from developing a weapon, in exchange for Russia and China getting US help in preventing Japan and/or South Korea from going nuclear.

 

[HughJass]

Nukes create the conditions for nightmare scenarios. There's enough plutonium missing out of Russian/soviet facilities to destroy all life on the planet more than a few times over.

Just my point. If we get rid of all ours, and we don't know where Russia's leaked off to, that means we would not have any, and some other countries then would. Our super military is afraid to attack Pakistan too much because we don't want to get nuked by them. So is India. If someone has a nuke and can strike the US, do you not think they could hold us hostage if we don't have any to wipe them out fast?

I think you're forgetting that any de-nuke program would not be unilateral. All nations would be involved in it, so nobody would have nukes.

They have over a billion people. There are 7 billion on Earth. We have only 300 million. Who do you think will win? Maybe us, but it would be a lot bloodier than if we had nukes and just told them to back off.
What if our economy is down and we can't pay for a military? At least with nukes we could threaten people to stay away.

That's about as simplistic as it could get.....

plenty of other nations would be helping the US out if an invasion was to occur and China couldn't keep up a sustained war effort if there was trade embargo's against it. Numbers aren't everything- a few billion wretched chinese conscripts who probably don't even want to be there aren't going to compare to millions of people who are willing to defend their homeland against an invasion. China don't even have a bluewater Navy.

The US's size and resources are enough for any country to think twice before launching a full scale conventional invasion.

And why would anybody be invading the US? It's not even the best way to f*ck a superpower up these days.

[quote:n7rpag28]
Guns have been proven to reduce many types of violent crime.

While introducing a raft of new crimes....

If they finance and harbor people who blow up our buidings, then they ask for our trouble. Otherwise, we all leave each other alone

Nothing that the US (and many other western countries)hasn't done , so I'm still wondering why you think America should be judge and jury of who gets to own a-bombs?

For all of you who want nukes gone because you are afraid of the US:
Would you let the US do deep inspections of your country all the time so that we know you got rid of them all and are not making more later?

Yes

Would you need to send your own inspectors to the US too?

Yes

Would it not be better for each country to assume the other is armed, and to just not mess with each other?[/b]

[/quote:n7rpag28]

Nukes don't keep the peace between nuclear armed nations, those countries just end up fighting proxy wars against each other.

 

[CCS]

Proxy wars are better than WWII style invasions.

 

[HughJass]

To say that nukes are what prevented WWIII (so far) is just speculation, I think.

Would the world have been ready to fight another world war after it had already seen several in the same century? I doubt it....

 

[optimus prime]

To say that nukes are what prevented WWIII (so far) is just speculation, I think.

Would the world have been ready to fight another world war after it had already seen several in the same century? I doubt it....

Most of the people involved in WWI are dead and the people involved in WWII are very old. A large number of people (especially the young generation) are having it easy and have forgotten what our ancestors had to go through. The way we waste energy and food today, we would make the same mistakes and enter a WWIII.

I think nuclear weapons play a huge part in keeping peace and I also think the Americans and British and any other nuclear country would be incredibly foolish to allow any other country in the world (especially unstable countries like Iran and North Korea) gaining access to the weapons.

 

[Hammy070]

Nukes are awful things.

We don't need to address stockpiles, proliferation or proxy wars etc. The heart of the issue is the human impulse to acquire such devastating weaponry. Obviously we are very far from addressing this matter conclusively. But it is the core issue. We all have kitchen knives, thankfully most of us simply don't think of them as potential bloodbath enablers, because the impulse for that is somewhat negligible...for most of us anyway.

We are, I think, developing morally. More people abhor war and violence. Many of us would even forego our deterrant nukes purely for the moral high ground. Unwise certainly, but indicative of our development. There needs to be further development universally so that a nuclear threat seems just silly. Just as we don't carry knives because we are confidant most people are decent and non-threatening.

World wars are over. Too much internationalism for it to make sense. One of the good aspecs of globalization. Looking out for our kinsmen and in return being looked out for has extrapolated greatly from a hunting group of 15 people to a global conglomerate of nations covering billions. Extrapolating this trend I'd imagine nuclear irrelevance to be a reality this century.