Nuclear Weapons

[Half-n-Half]

This is a topic we discussed in one of my classes. The topic was, do nuclear weapons serve a purpose and have a future that give them enough merit to keep them? What do you think?

I personally am a little unsure. In a perfect world we would not need nuclear weapons. However, for now it is very important to use them defensively, a sort of strategic deterrent. Ideally, nations around the world would work together to reduce their caches of nuclear weapons. What about the countries that would not cooperate?

I am looking forward to your answers!

 

[Chidoriashi]

I would say whether they serve a purpose or not, they are not going anywhere. That is until better weapons replace them. Have humans ever put aside or totally gotten rid of any weapon for reasons other than being outdated?

 

[Emoni]

Glad to see this topic, as it is a subject I'm very interested in. I'd post more but I just finished the GRE and my eyes are HURTING.

Short summary is that I'm very much against nuclear weapons even for defense, as they are excessively destructive and contain too many drawbacks.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

There is an interesting branch of applied mathematics called game theory, which can offer some insights on how to deal with the reality of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, game theory's ultimate answer to how to deal with them is that no-one should have got them in the first place.

 

[Pachipro]

The MAD theory (Mutually Assured Destruction) some years ago asserted that if all had nuclear weapons then none would use them as it would assure their own destruction, by those that had them.

Of course the use of nuclear weapons would be the downfall of the human race, but the fact remains that if all had them none would use them based on the above theory. They would ony be on hand for "protective purposes" only.

Therefore, I believe that all nations should have them for their own survival and retaliation. However, the biggest fear is some rouge nation/peoples getting their hands on them and causing strife in the world. This, I believe cannot be avoided as they are there, and there are some willing to sell the plans on making one for their own profit and gain. Then again, there may be some nations willing to sell the plans or a bomb, hoping someone will use them, and therefore make thier own gains in this crazy world of ours.

It's all a chess game and we, the working people, are the pawns and cannon fodder/expendible people, for their own gains. It's a sad situation and one we must live with as there is no avoiding it in today's crazy world. If one uses them, it is almost assured that someone else would use them leading to the almost total annihilation of the human race as we know it.

 

[Hezam]

I am against the nuclear weapons even for us,it's a big mistake to force the other people by using such dangerous weapons like nuclear.
Korea,israel,iran,India,pakistan should not have the nuclear weapons.

I hope to see the world more peacfull.

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I feel nuclear weapons do serve a purpose but absolutely do not have a future in an ideal society.

Rules of conflict and warfare have changed with the times. Political negotiations rise as the more accepted method for handling disputes. There still remains those who don't have to play by the rules. This is how we end up with prediciments like the piracy epidemic near the Somali coast. Whereas it would be rather effortless to eliminate the presence of pirates by means of brute force, such behavior is stilled by the red tape of legalities for what is or is not permissable.

This brings about the fear for defense. Investments into upgraded defense silo tests are the hallmark of paranoia. Few want to ever use nuclear weapons, but nobody wants to be without them. These issues are why organizations such as the UN exists, despite what people might view of its strength or worth. The spread of influence is the key to keeping the world on the same page and hopefully that page is from a story with a happy ending.

 

[Haruspex]

Technology is advancing though, and the obstacle in the way of creation of nuclear weapons is increasingly external supervision, rather than technological difficulties.

Nuclear weaponry is an issue that will not be tackled without victims, and without the violation of human rights. And if the problem is not tackled, it will take itself.

No theocracy should ever have an army, let alone nuclear weapons. You can negotiate with leaders that fear for their lives, but you can not with those who do not, or with those who rely on a way out somehow.

I personally think that we do not have a political system on Earth that could sufficiently such a burden. You leave it up to one person? Nah, does not work. You leave it to a bunch of elected fools? Isn't safe either. You leave it to the people? Joke, no entity ever can be as foolish as the electorate of a country. And as gullible.

Wait... but have have them nevertheless. Well, tough. If our fear does not prove to be enough to prevent the use of nuclear weapons, paradoxically, the use of these weapons will create the necessary fear to prevent their use. Or make it impossible altogether.
I mean, if the kids in your country are born with as many legs as a centipede , as many arms as a fish, and just as many fins after a neighbouring country gets blown up, yeah, chances are you would perhaps consider peaceful settlements of issues. Well, consider may be not too much.

 

[Amigo]

Is dynamite a bad invention?
It depends on how to use it.
Nuclear weapons are the same.
If we had a political system to control them, as Derfel said, they are useful to create an "asteroid shield". Nuclear weapons are the most powerful defense of human kind, AFAIK. If only we, humans, kept them in a proper way such a space threat...

 

[Hezam]

I think we should find another way to protect the peace in the world.
Nuclear weapons is a danger for the earth,not only humans.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Is dynamite a bad invention?
It depends on how to use it.
Nuclear weapons are the same.
If we had a political system to control them, as Derfel said, they are useful to create an "asteroid shield". Nuclear weapons are the most powerful defense of human kind, AFAIK. If only we, humans, kept them in a proper way such a space threat...

That is an interesting point. In fact, I heard about a program that would use small nuclear weapons to actually change the flow of rivers to poor, desolate areas to help with irrigation. Now, of course there are dangers of radiation, fault lines, and maybe even changing the climate of an area, but if well planned out and the risks weighed, why not?

 

[ShadowSpirit]

I think we should find another way to protect the peace in the world.
Nuclear weapons is a danger for the earth,not only humans.

The problem is that the technology for it exists. We can only try to stifle production of updated nuclear weapons while engaging a global effort to dispose of existing nukes.

I'm optimistic that mankind will start making smarter decisions to aid in our salvation. The question comes as to whether this change will come soon enough before the problems become irreversible.

We should try hiring that Superman guy. He sure came in and handled the nuclear issue well in Superman IV: Quest for Peace. Then again, his efforts did spawn a solar villian of immense power. I'm willing to take my chances.

 

[Hezam]

We should try hiring that Superman guy. He sure came in handled the nuclear issue well in Superman IV: Quest for Peace. Then again, his efforts did spawn a solar villian of immense power. I'm willing to take my chances.

I am afraid of the other Evil persons LOL

 

[Malamis]

I like the strategic gardening tool idea, I really do.
Extend that out into orbital and post orbital applications and you have a legitimate reason to get all patriotic, albeit somewhat premature.

As for the practical use, I always thought that there should be an incentive toward neutron bombs and the like, so that while you may end up wiping out a nation-city ( say, London), the dirt and bricks are still standing and still usable (mostly). Less of a burden on the nation post-war as the infrastructure for reurbanising and restructuring still exists.

But if they're never going to be used, then scrap them for God's sake, and dump the money into the ground pounders. By withholding atomic intervention, it's them that will pay for it so they may as well be equipped appropriately.

 

[Illusional]

it's like, if your opponent brings a baseball bat to a fight. he doesn't have any intent of using it, but he brings it along for securtiy purposes. wouldn't you feel better if you had a bat in your corner too, just in case he changes his mind?

raverboy

 

[bakaKanadajin]

it's like, if your opponent brings a baseball bat to a fight. he doesn't have any intent of using it, but he brings it along for securtiy purposes. wouldn't you feel better if you had a bat in your corner too, just in case he changes his mind?

raverboy

I'd rather not fight actually.

 

[Haruspex]

I'd rather not fight either, but that does not mean its a wise choice to disregard the possibility of someone else taking the initiative. You're nuked once, its not really a recurring experience, and I am pretty sure its not a pleasant one.

But if they're never going to be used, then scrap them for God's sake, and dump the money into the ground pounders. By withholding atomic intervention, it's them that will pay for it so they may as well be equipped appropriately.

Again its the authority we are lacking. There is no real, all-powerful, unbiased authority that would supervise it. We simply can not make sure that everything would go smooth, and imagine things going wrong with nukes.

 

[Illusional]

whether we want to fight or not, war is usually an inevitable matter that only takes time to come about. people have too many differences in the world, and when it comes to politics, the government of different countries are usually too stubborn to agree on anything.

raverboy

 

[Seon-a Kim]

That covers my opinion...

Random fact: Did you know that the USA "offered" an atomic bomb to France to drop on North Vietnam? ...France declined.

 

[Yan]

I think that nuclear weapons are very useful for research progress but this kind of weapon must be only destined for research and nothing more. It is so powerful that using it for war is a genocide and a crime against humanity.

 

[Illusional]

^^^ it's humankind's own ability that will be our destruction. people love to out do themselves and push their abilities to the highest limits.

raverboy

 

[Malamis]

I think that nuclear weapons are very useful for research progress but this kind of weapon must be only destined for research and nothing more. It is so powerful that using it for war is a genocide and a crime against humanity.

And who pray tell has the authority to pass that judgement?

I'd say that Our Friend the Nuke was the (possibly temporary) nail in the coffin of Total War,in that it demolished the effectiveness of total commitment to military buildup

 

[Anohito]

Edward Teller, "the father of the hydrogen bomb", wanted to use nuclear explosives to create a harbor in Alaska:

http://philpaine.com/mycenea/modules/content/index.php?id=108

 

[scieck]

dynamite and nuclear war heads have nothing in common and the acceptance of the first doesn't justify the latter.

Currently atomic bombs are allowing countries that own them to act as bully against other countries that don't own them, and this is all is happening, is all a dangerous game of power and economic control.

Of course is not for self defense, but can you imaging a politician going on TV and saying: "we need nuclear war head to be able to bully other countries"; of course they have to lie and tell you that they are for self defense, so you leave happier.

There is no justification for any one/country to own such an unbelievable destructive weapon, only the fact of owning one in my opinion is a crime against humanity, let alone using one.

 

[Haruspex]

It is for self-defense. Much like a treaty, but this treaty actually works. It is the Treaty of Fear. And the problem here is that nuclear technology is just mainstream. Its not only "fairly" responsible countries that possess nuclear weaponry, but countries governed by retards absorbed by their foolish ideologies.
Would you not want to have a trump card in such a situation? The day you rely on altruism and the goodwill of other countries as a politician is the day you have failed as one.