• 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!

Nuclear disarmament

Should we proceed with nuclear disarmament?

  • We should do it unilaterally

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28
The technology will always exist period. However we can disarm countries of their nuclear weapons, and us ourselves can also do this.


Ok....


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/25/w...see-no-move-by-iran-to-build-a-bomb.html?_r=0
FCNL: U.S. & Israeli Officials: Iran is NOT Building Nuclear Weapons
'Mossad, CIA agree Iran has yet to decide to build nuclear weapon' - Diplomacy and Defense Israel News | Haaretz



Yes. With proper checks and inspections. We cam pretty damn close in the 80's.

It's not happening, not now not ever, and I hope it never does.

Quite frankly, let the mind out of la-la land.
 
Breathing is also consistent with intent to produce nuclear weapons.


What does that have to do with a top State sponsor of terrors attempt to produce Nuclear weapons ?

In terms of Foreign policy decisions in both the US and Israel in response to Irans Nuclead ambitions I'm sure " breathing " is assumed as a given.
 
What does that have to do with a top State sponsor of terrors attempt to produce Nuclear weapons ?

In terms of Foreign policy decisions in both the US and Israel in response to Irans Nuclead ambitions I'm sure " breathing " is assumed as a given.

You claimed that Iran is engaged in activities consistent with intent to make nuclear weapons. So is everyone.

There s no evidence Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. American and Israeli paranoia is not evidence.
 
You claimed that Iran is engaged in activities consistent with intent to make nuclear weapons. So is everyone.

There s no evidence Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. American and Israeli paranoia is not evidence.


Lol !!!

Yes, the leading State sponsor of terror, run by radical theocrats who've vowed numerous times to destroy Israel, who kept their Nuclear program secret for 18 years, who currently have thousands of centrifuges currently in operation have absolutely no intention of building a Nuclear weapon......

Now that's hilarious.
 
Lol !!!

Yes, the leading State sponsor of terror, run by radical theocrats who've vowed numerous times to destroy Israel, who kept their Nuclear program secret for 18 years, who currently have thousands of centrifuges currently in operation have absolutely no intention of building a Nuclear weapon......

Now that's hilarious.

What's hilarious is to consider two of the most belligerent countries on Earth credible to declare "dangerous" a country that hasn't attacked anyone in nearly two hundred years.
 
Sadly we live in a world that contains humans.

Therefore, having a nuclear threat hovering over anyone who would wish to attack us with WMD's (I believe this is current US policy) seems one of the better deterrents against a nation-state attacking us with such.
 
I am fully behind torturing people for information. Asides from spies, it's our best way to obtain intel on the enemy, intel that saves innocent lives, and not just American ones. Torture is a horrible, immoral, evil action, much like blowing up innocent bystanders. Every child blown up by a drone strike is a failure on our part, because there was a lesser evil we could have committed that would not have led to that child's death. An action's morality is judged by its outcome; torture puts a few people through Hell, while drone strikes destroy infrastructure and kill innocents. While neither is moral, one is clearly the lesser evil.
 
What's hilarious is to consider two of the most belligerent countries on Earth credible to declare "dangerous" a country that hasn't attacked anyone in nearly two hundred years.

LOL !

Yes, it's not Iran who is the leading State sponsor of terror in the world, or North Korea, who's run by a twisted dictator that starves his people and sends thousands off to prison camps or Russia who invades and attacks its neighbor, or even Cuba who condems its own people to perpetua poverty as its Leaders live in luxury who are the most belligerent.

No, its America and Israel.....

Wow.

You people will never be taken seriously if you continue to offer up nonsensical anti-American rhetoric like that
 
LOL !

Yes, it's not Iran who is the leading State sponsor of terror in the world, or North Korea, who's run by a twisted dictator that starves his people and sends thousands off to prison camps or Russia who invades and attacks its neighbor, or even Cuba who condems its own people to perpetua poverty as its Leaders live in luxury who are the most belligerent.

No, its America and Israel.....

Wow.

You people will never be taken seriously if you continue to offer up nonsensical anti-American rhetoric like that

1. Liberals will never take conservatives like myself seriously, because to do so would be their undoing, as their beliefs are inherently unreasonable.

2. I don't know why you're babbling about Communist potholes like Cuba and North Korea.

3. America and Israel have a long history of aggression, and America has a history of supporting terrorist groups (e.g. KSC, FSA). America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, and Israel the only country presently known to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

4. Iran lasted started a war in 1826.

5. There's still no evidence that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb. Paranoia is not evidence.

6. The supreme religious authority and head of state of Iran has officially declared production of nuclear weapons to be against their religion.

7. Even if Iran were trying to make a nuclear bomb, while bad, it would most likely be intended as a deterrent against American or Israeli attack.
 
Absolutely not! I'm a socialist, but I'm also a nationalist, and I think democracy and human rights can best be safeguarded by a powerful bulwark of liberal (relatively, hah) politics like Britain, the USA, or France. I would never advocate nuclear disarmament for the West.
 
We should modernize our weapons and make them smaller and more lethal. Our nukes should always be superior.
 
Reducing our stockpiles can be a good thing, but we should not do it unilaterally, and we should use it as leverage with the other party. Reducing our stockpiles shouldn't come cheap.
 
I went with "Other" as I think we ideally need to reduce the size of our overall arsenal, but at the same time we need to modernize our arsenal as well. Our nuclear arsenal is quite old and its questionable as to whether some of its even usable as we have not tested anything in over 20 years. If an nuclear arsenal is supposed to be a deterrent, then you can't simply build a stockpile and expect that initial stockpile to continue to be a deterrent several decades later.

As much as I would like to live in a world without nuclear weapons, the fact is we live in a world with them. The cat is out of the bag. A world without nuclear weapons is as realistic as one without computers.
 
Even though we live in a post-Cold War world, the prospect of nuclear warfare is still a possibility, however slim. Should we take steps to eliminate our nuclear weapons, and if yes, how so?

I made the poll multiple choice due to the complex nature of nuclear disarmament and the steps that may be taken in order to achieve it.

If I was stupid enough to trust the governments of other countries I would be for nuclear disarmament. However I do not trust the governments of other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons. So I am not for nuclear disarmament.
 
LOL !

Yes, it's not Iran who is the leading State sponsor of terror in the world, or North Korea, who's run by a twisted dictator that starves his people and sends thousands off to prison camps or Russia who invades and attacks its neighbor, or even Cuba who condems its own people to perpetua poverty as its Leaders live in luxury who are the most belligerent.

No, its America and Israel.....

Wow.

You people will never be taken seriously if you continue to offer up nonsensical anti-American rhetoric like that

1. Liberals will never take conservatives like myself seriously, because to do so would be their undoing, as their beliefs are inherently unreasonable.

2. I don't know why you're babbling about Communist potholes like Cuba and North Korea.

3. America and Israel have a long history of aggression, and America has a history of supporting terrorist groups (e.g. KSC, FSA). America is the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in war, and Israel the only country presently known to possess an undeclared nuclear arsenal.

4. Iran lasted started a war in 1826.

5. There's still no evidence that Iran is trying to make a nuclear bomb. Paranoia is not evidence.

6. The supreme religious authority and head of state of Iran has officially declared production of nuclear weapons to be against their religion.

7. Even if Iran were trying to make a nuclear bomb, while bad, it would most likely be intended as a deterrent against American or Israeli attack.

Using the A-Bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a ridiculous example of our supposed " aggression ".

Plus, the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin and Hamburg killed more civilians and did far more damage than the two Nukes we dropped on Japan.

It was also a War that we, the " aggressors " didn't start.

And Im sure the Mullas in Iran are trustworthy people when it comes to exposing their State Secrets......

If they say Nuclear weapons are against their religion, hey I'm sure their telling the truth....

Although its a bit of a arbitrary line drawn by the largest State sponsor of terror in the World.

And Pakistan doesn't seem to have a problem with Nukes violating their Islamic beliefs.

Hey, maybe those Imams are lying ? Did you ever think of that ?
 
Using the A-Bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a ridiculous example of our supposed " aggression ".

I didn't claim that they were. I claimed that they show our lack of moral authority in respect of nuclear weapons.

Plus, the bombing of Dresden, Tokyo, Berlin and Hamburg killed more civilians and did far more damage than the two Nukes we dropped on Japan.

The point being what? That we don't restrict our immoral activity to nuclear bombing?

It was also a War that we, the " aggressors " didn't start.

You forgot to point out that the sky is blue.

And Im sure the Mullas in Iran are trustworthy people when it comes to exposing their State Secrets......

The teachings of Shia Islam are not state secrets.

If they say Nuclear weapons are against their religion, hey I'm sure their telling the truth....

No reason to disbelieve them. Not everyone has feels the need to plan for the annihilation of the human race that we do.

Although its a bit of a arbitrary line drawn by the largest State sponsor of terror in the World.

Iran: Hezbollah

America: FSA
KSC
Planned Parenthood

Need I continue?

And Pakistan doesn't seem to have a problem with Nukes violating their Islamic beliefs.

And the sky seems to be blue.

Hey, maybe those Imams are lying ? Did you ever think of that ?

Maybe they are. And maybe all the media outlets telling us there is such a place as "Iran" are lying too. Maybe it's all a conspiracy.
 
Even though we live in a post-Cold War world, the prospect of nuclear warfare is still a possibility, however slim. Should we take steps to eliminate our nuclear weapons, and if yes, how so?

I made the poll multiple choice due to the complex nature of nuclear disarmament and the steps that may be taken in order to achieve it.

No. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and it's not going back in. MAD is the only way to stave off the threat of an actual attack by non-rogue powers. Now, that's not to say we need 5000 nukes (the current estimate of our arsenal). Just a hundred is absolutely more than sufficient to keep others from getting funny ideas.
 
Even though we live in a post-Cold War world, the prospect of nuclear warfare is still a possibility, however slim. Should we take steps to eliminate our nuclear weapons, and if yes, how so?

I made the poll multiple choice due to the complex nature of nuclear disarmament and the steps that may be taken in order to achieve it.

Absolutely. A non-nuclear world is a world in which US, and western, military power reigns supreme and in which their will can be made manifest.
 
Not a great idea, all things considered.

Nukes are a terrible, awful invention, but the cat's out of the bag and to completely eliminate nuclear stockpiles would be extremely foolish.

Yup, the world can never go back to zero nuclear weapons...it's just too late.
 
Absolutely. A non-nuclear world is a world in which US, and western, military power reigns supreme and in which their will can be made manifest.

Yet a non-nuclear world is impossible.
 
Back
Top Bottom