• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

Are nuclear weapons a deterrent?

  • Yes

    Votes: 38 74.5%
  • No

    Votes: 4 7.8%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 7 13.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Total voters
    51
I think the threat of nuclear force is a deterrent to rational people. Not everyone who leads a country is necessarily rational though.
Right, but people at the top are generally a little more savvy and realistic to the possible repercussions.

For example, it seems to be relatively easy to convince some schmuck to be a suicide bomber with the promises of martyrdom and rewards in heaven, but you don't see leaders of countries doing this, nor do you see them sending their immediate family members to do this.
 
That's rather childish. You have much to learn about the world.

Remember when the world was going to go bonkers if USSR/DPRK/China acquired nuclear weapons?
We said their leaders were ****ing crazy (which are)...
Why can Israel be the only people in the middle east with nukes?
 
Only incidentally. If Iraq had used nuclear weapons on US troops, they would have destroyed their own country.

Now. A suitcase bomb in New York City? Whole different animal.

It must be really easy to find weapons grade plutonium for sale in the US. :roll:
 
Remember when the world was going to go bonkers if USSR/DPRK/China acquired nuclear weapons?

Another ridiculously silly statement. "Remember," indeed. Were you even alive when the USSR existed? Nothing from you leads me to think you could have been. "Remember" the 1940s? Really? What a pitiably asinine statement.

And, I dunno; the USSR obtaining nuclear weapons led to situations which nearly destroyed the entire world at least once. Likely more.

The entire world lived in fear of annihilation for decades. You have no idea what it was it like.

Seriously, this is laugh-out-loud stupid. At least open a book once in a while, and don't stick just to the parts which seem to confirm what you already think you know.


Why can Israel be the only people in the middle east with nukes?

First, there's no proof that they have them. Second, they're not an offensive threat (if they were, they'd have been used by now). Third, Israel isn't run by a bat****, apocalyptic theocracy. Fourth, Israel doesn't sponsor terrorist groups which attack other nations, which they could arm with nukes. Fifth, Israel hasn't threatened the flow of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz or anywhere else. Sixth, it doesn't even matter, because Israel's got little to do with it. It would be a bad thing for Iran to have nukes, period.
 
Last edited:
Another ridiculously silly statement. "Remember," indeed. Were you even alive when the USSR existed? Nothing from you leads me to think you could have been. "Remember" the 1940s? Really? What a pitiably asinine statement.

And, I dunno; the USSR obtaining nuclear weapons led to situations which nearly destroyed the entire world at least once.

The entire world lived in fear of annihilation for decades. You have no idea what it was it like.

Seriously, this is laugh-out-loud stupid. At least open a book once in a while, and don't stick just to the parts which seem to confirm what you already think you know.

You don't think that air raid rehearsals in grade school were ridiculous? How about those fallout shelters? Yes, the world went a little bit bonkers during the Cold War. Yes. Yes, they did.

This lady says it best:

The notion of the atomic bomb was a ubiquitous background discourse: films showing atomic bomb tests and Japanese WWII footage; "duck & cover" exercises for schoolroom; daily tests of the Emergency Broadcast System on radio; tests of air raid sirens; jokes about what to do if an atomic attack occurred ("bend over and kiss your ass good-bye!"); news on Soviet arms build-up, Bay of Pigs, Cuban Missile Crisis; etc. Part of the general foreboding (background "noise") of everyday life. In high school, protesting Vietnam War, the subtext would eventually unravel to the topic of Ultimate Destruction. Looking up at the moon and stars, reflecting with friends about LIFE (as teenagers do, I suppose), the choice seemed to be between First Strike or Silent Spring.
 
You don't think that air raid rehearsals in grade school were ridiculous? How about those fallout shelters? Yes, the world went a little bit bonkers during the Cold War. Yes. Yes, they did.

The threat was very real and that was shown, indubitably, on numerous occasions. Whether or not "duck and cover" drills were silly is neither here nor there. I think a very great deal of what happens in schools in response to perceived dangers is ridiculous (like kids getting suspended for drawing soldiers with guns). It doesn't mean I don't think there are actual problems and dangers.
 
Would we allow U.N. inspectors to inspect our nuclear facilities? I don't think so.

Inspect us for what? They already know we have nuclear weapons... :?
 
Why can Israel be the only people in the middle east with nukes?

Ah yes, the default argument from anyone whose total knowledge of the history of the situation comes from an assortment of loosely related cnn headlines...
 
The posts in this thread have pretty much covered the topic. Yes, having nukes is a deterrent... which is why every country that doesn't have nukes wants them or will want them as soon as they feel threatened.

Eventually, all of the countries who want them will have them. Genie is out of the bottle, and we're not going to get the top back on... ever. When that happens, rogue nations (like Iran, NK and others) will not be shooting them from their own soil. They'll be selling them to others or giving them to their own lackeys to be set off at remote locations... like Tel Aviv or NYC.

Like Risky Thicket, I don't believe it's a question of "if", it's a question of "when". If Iran's nuclear program is destroyed this year, I don't think WWIII will break out, and I do think it will be at least another decade before Iran comes this close again. But when Iran has a nuke, I believe it will definitely use the nuke in a manner that they can deny responsibility. That is when WWIII will break out.

I hope I'm long gone by then. It's my kids and grandkids that I truly worry about, and what kind of world awaits them. :(
 
Israel is NOT alone in the Mideast nuclear race, they are however the only non-arabic entity.
 
I think that fact the world survived the Cold war is enough evidence for me
 
Lets say Iran is making a nuclear bomb (no one knows thats why the UN team is there), lets say they are and they do.. Who gives a ****?


Not you, that's for sure.
 
what would they gain as a nation if they fired a short range nuke? Would not be worth it for them and they know this

The fear is... and it's legitimate in my view... is that if Iran gets a nuke, it has minions who can hand-deliver it to any place they wish, like Tel Aviv or NYC. Meanwhile, they have plausible deniability, knowing that there will be no proof that they are behind the attack.
 
The fear is... and it's legitimate in my view... is that if Iran gets a nuke, it has minions who can hand-deliver it to any place they wish, like Tel Aviv or NYC. Meanwhile, they have plausible deniability, knowing that there will be no proof that they are behind the attack.

I see your point but the Dirty bomb scenario has been thrown around for the last 20 years and we have never seen anyone try it yet.
 
Indeed and the best thing to do is to get the **** out of the region. We have no business there. They have every right not to want us there. They have ever right to want to be able to defend themselves against us. If the situation was reversed the US would be apoplectic.


Brilliant!




and....er.... what do you propose we do for an economy after the current one collapses following the US withdrawal?
 
I suspect that the real reason we don't want them to have nuclear weapons is because we don't want them to use them against us should we decide to attack them.

This is a very good reason for them not have them. What do you suppose might happen to Iran, say, if they were to acquire nukes and use them upon U.S. troops during a U.S. invasion of Iran?

What do you think might happen to Iran if they were to light one off in a major U.S. city?
 
What do you think might happen to Iran if they were to light one off in a major U.S. city?

The US may attempt a counterstrike, which Allah would protect them from, and the 13th Imam would return, leading the Persian people to their rightful place at the center of the Faith and the center of the World.













I remain fascinated by those who spent the last 8 years criticizing Neoconservatives for having flawed assumptions about the possibility of fostering democracy in Arab lands who now posit foreign policy under the same critiqued assumption that underneath the foreign clothes and tongues, other regimes are really just agnostic Westerners who want to get along and make a buck. They are not. And we forget that at our peril.
 
Last edited:
This is a very good reason for them not have them. What do you suppose might happen to Iran, say, if they were to acquire nukes and use them upon U.S. troops during a U.S. invasion of Iran?

What do you think might happen to Iran if they were to light one off in a major U.S. city?

Having more weapons (and thus power) is always preferable to having less.
 
Brilliant!




and....er.... what do you propose we do for an economy after the current one collapses following the US withdrawal?

That's a fair question, CP. However, I would venture to say the economy is going to collapse anyway. Certainly a good war is the preferred economic engine of the GOP. But, it has to end. We soon will not be able to afford to travel the globe and **** with nations.

More to answer your questions, the withdrawal would have to be gradual and permanent so that it wouldn't adversely affect the economy.
 
The US may attempt a counterstrike, which Allah would protect them from, and the 13th Imam would return, leading the Persian people to their rightful place at the center of the Faith and the center of the World.













I remain fascinated by those who spent the last 8 years criticizing Neoconservatives for having flawed assumptions about the possibility of fostering democracy in Arab lands who now posit foreign policy under the same critiqued assumption that underneath the foreign clothes and tongues, other regimes are really just agnostic Westerners who want to get along and make a buck. They are not. And we forget that at our peril.

To a large extent, this is true of many of the Middle Eastern dictators who are holding onto power. Saddam wasn't a religious fanatic. Neither was Gaddafi. What motivated those guys was power, and how to hold onto it.

Now, granted, Iran is somewhat of a different case, but for the most part all this talk about the Iranian leadership being fanatical nihilists is just pure hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
I see your point but the Dirty bomb scenario has been thrown around for the last 20 years and we have never seen anyone try it yet.

A "dirty bomb" is not something one can kludge up from a hardware store, and the radioactive component is difficult to get, never mind handle safely enough not to kill the bombmaker. Just because one hasn't been set off yet doesn't mean that there haven't been attempts. I believe that several countries in Europe have thwarted "dirty bomb" plans, and IIRC several here in America as well.

The thing with a nuclear weapon is that it is built by governments that have vast amounts of dollars to do a proper job. The only tricky thing is the delivery system. Iran isn't going to lob a detectable missle from its own soil. But it may very well have one of the terrorist groups it supports lob it from Lebanon, or the Sinai. That's what makes the US, the EU and most of the UN so fearful, along with Iran's ME neighbors. They know that Iran has the means to target an enemy without having to accept either the responsibility or the retaliation.
 
A "dirty bomb" is not something one can kludge up from a hardware store, and the radioactive component is difficult to get, never mind handle safely enough not to kill the bombmaker. Just because one hasn't been set off yet doesn't mean that there haven't been attempts. I believe that several countries in Europe have thwarted "dirty bomb" plans, and IIRC several here in America as well.

The thing with a nuclear weapon is that it is built by governments that have vast amounts of dollars to do a proper job. The only tricky thing is the delivery system. Iran isn't going to lob a detectable missle from its own soil. But it may very well have one of the terrorist groups it supports lob it from Lebanon, or the Sinai. That's what makes the US, the EU and most of the UN so fearful, along with Iran's ME neighbors. They know that Iran has the means to target an enemy without having to accept either the responsibility or the retaliation.
There actually were two dirty bombs that got stopped prior to assembly targeting NYC IIRC but they def. got stopped post 9/11 and were supposed to be a second wave of the terrorist attacks. You have exactly expressed the first thing Iran would be capable of, the people there aren't suicidal but their government actually might launch a nuke from Iran just for the hell of it, they are that nuts in the leadership.
 
There actually were two dirty bombs that got stopped prior to assembly targeting NYC IIRC but they def. got stopped post 9/11 and were supposed to be a second wave of the terrorist attacks. You have exactly expressed the first thing Iran would be capable of, the people there aren't suicidal but their government actually might launch a nuke from Iran just for the hell of it, they are that nuts in the leadership.

For the most part, policymakers aren't worried so much about Iran launching a nuke at us (or likely at anyone), but rather that they might allow those weapons to become insecure, either intentionally or by accident, or otherwise sell them to the highest bidder, as DiAnna said.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom