• 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?

  • Yes, we should eliminate all of our nuclear weapons

    Votes: 4 14.3%

  • Yes, but we should only eliminate some, not all

    Votes: 2 7.1%

  • No

    Votes: 19 67.9%

  • We should do it in conjunction with other countries

    Votes: 6 21.4%

  • We should do it unilaterally

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Other

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • Total voters
    28
MadLib

MadLib

monstrous vermin
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 6, 2011
Messages
6,248
Reaction score
2,439
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
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.
 
MadLib said:
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.
Click to expand...


Uhm, NO.

As long as Nations like Iran are trying to procur Nuclear weapons and Nations like Russia and North Korea HAVE Nuclear weapons we should keep our stockpile.

The US President that vows to completely do away with the American stockpile is a dangerous man.

At least to the safety and security of the American people.
 
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.
 
Absolutely not. If you cannot trust all of those with nukes today, then there is no reason to trust any disarmament negotiation between these nations. Worse, the US is in no position to offer a further agreement given our difficulties with a good third of the planet. Besides, that game is long since up as we have too many others around the globe now with nukes or actively trying to obtain / develop them. Mutually assured destruction, unfortunately, still has to exist.
 
Ideally, we should get rid of all weapons of mass destruction, but since the Cold War the world has been put in a International Mexican Stand off with Nuclear weapons.
 
MadLib said:
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.
Click to expand...

Retain our supply of tactical nuclear weapons. Retain a few high-power bombs to target any underground military bases (not in populated areas) we are aware of in enemy nuclear nations, in the event of nuclear war.

On an international level, work for the voluntary mutual destruction of all nuclear weapons, excluding N-bombs.
 
No. The term nuclear deterrent is still very much valid and relevant.
 
Absolutley. We should faciliatate this efforts with some of the countries that already have nuclear weapons.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Absolutley. We should faciliatate this efforts with some of the countries that already have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

That is acting with so much ideology it becomes asinine, what about the nations who do not want to participate in disarmament?
 
Absolutely not. If there was a magical button that would disarm all nuclear weapons in the world, and prevent anyone from ever making new ones, may as well press it; then, we could all ride off into the sunset on our flying pink unicorns to the Kingdom of Sunshine and Sparkles. Sadly, we do not live in a college hippie's wet dream, so we have to keep our nuclear arms for our own protection.
 
Last edited:
Nuclear weapons = disincentive to **** with USA (in regards to Russia, China, etc.)

Getting rid of nuclear weapons = bye bye land of the free, your ass is going to be a nuclear wasteland!

IOW, **** no. We have over 5000 warheads, let's keep it that way. If someone ****s with us we turn them into a desolate wasteland before they turn us into such.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Absolutley. We should faciliatate this efforts with some of the countries that already have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Maybe, if you believe with all your heart, Putin and Kim Jung Un's hearts will grow three sizes, and they'll go along with your plan!
 
Last edited:
Paleocon said:
Retain our supply of tactical nuclear weapons. Retain a few high-power bombs to target any underground military bases (not in populated areas) we are aware of in enemy nuclear nations, in the event of nuclear war.

On an international level, work for the voluntary mutual destruction of all nuclear weapons, excluding N-bombs.
Click to expand...

The largest weapon we currently have in our Stockpile is 9 Mega-tons.

Not sure about the Russians though.

Amd whats a " N Bomb " ?? A neutron bomb ?

That's the most destructive and dirtiest weapon that exist. It kills everything and effectively salts the earth for decades.

Hyrdogen weapons may cause more damage to buildings and infrastructure but they produce a fraction of the radioactive fallout that a Nuetron bomb creates.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Maybe, if you believe with all your heart, Putin and Kim Jung Un's hearts will grow three sizes, and they'll go along with your plan!
Click to expand...

Kim Jong-Un? Pshh who cares about him. If he ever used his nuclear weapons his country would be destroyed within a month. Even China (their puppet masters) would immidedatley turn against them. But, Putin? It can be done. The same was said "the USSR and the US could never work out a deal" but look what happened...
 
Even if there WAS a magic button to remove ALL nukes from the world, forever, I would not want to push it. Fact is, I have no desire to see a world war. Nukes make that dream a reality.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Kim Jong-Un? Pshh who cares about him. If he ever used his nuclear weapons his country would be destroyed within a month. Even China (their puppet masters) would immidedatley turn against them. But, Putin? It can be done. The same was said "the USSR and the US could never work out a deal" but look what happened...
Click to expand...

Nukes are different. Even if we were to disarm every nuclear weapon in existence, nuclear technology would still exist, and it wouldn't take a nuclear engineer with bad intentions much time to figure out how to make it explode again. Hell, even a backwards-ass country like Iran would have had their hands on nukes by now if it weren't for American sabotage.

On top of that, do you honestly believe any government in it's right mind would ever consider full disarmament, and take other nations at face value?
 
Fenton said:
The largest weapon we currently have in our Stockpile is 9 Mega-tons.

Not sure about the Russians though.

Amd whats a " N Bomb " ?? A neutron bomb ?

That's the most destructive and dirtiest weapon that exist. It kills everything and effectively salts the earth for decades.

Hyrdogen weapons may cause more damage to buildings and infrastructure but they produce a fraction of the radioactive fallout that a Nuetron bomb creates.
Click to expand...

A neutron bomb is a tactical nuclear weapon with a small blast range, but which irradiates the surrounding area with neutrons. How it works is it is a (small) hydrogen bomb, without the U-238 casing to capture the neutrons (a hydrogen bomb fuses deuterium and tritium, thus releasing a neutron in each atomic interaction, which, if not captured, would irradiate the surrounding area, in contrast, only the last in a series of fission events releases a neutron into the surrounding area). A neutron bomb leaves the same amount of residual radioactivity as a hydrogen bomb of the same size. The extreme radioactive effect only harms those in the vicinity at the time of the explosion.
 
If we were to, it would be horrible timing. Now that nations like Iran who aren't very fond of us are trying for nuclear weapons, it would just make us an easier target. The world would be changed forever if it came to world-wide nuclear warfare, and it's sad. Unfortunately, we have to remain prepared in case something of that horrific nature happens.
 
As long as the knowledge to create nuclear weapons exists, it is safer for us to have them than to not have them.
 
Paleocon said:
A neutron bomb is a tactical nuclear weapon with a small blast range, but which irradiates the surrounding area with neutrons. How it works is it is a (small) hydrogen bomb, without the U-238 casing to capture the neutrons (a hydrogen bomb fuses deuterium and tritium, thus releasing a neutron in each atomic interaction, which, if not captured, would irradiate the surrounding area, in contrast, only the last in a series of fission events releases a neutron into the surrounding area). A neutron bomb leaves the same amount of residual radioactivity as a hydrogen bomb of the same size. The extreme radioactive effect only harms those in the vicinity at the time of the explosion.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong and I know how Nuetron Bombs function.

Nuetron bombs are also known as " Enhanced Radiation Devices. "

The casing that sheilds conventional Fusion weapons is deliberately thin facilitating a greater release of the Nuetrons produced during the Fusion. Reaction.

A Nuetron Bomb produces 10 times the radioactive fallout that a conventional fissile weapon creates. Its the Fissile trigger in a Fusion Bomb that creates the Radioactive fallout.

They are also banned under the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban.

Also, Hydrogen weapons use deuterium and Lithium 6, not tritium.

Tritium is produced a microsecond after the fissile trigger detonates from the Lithium 6.
 
Jesse Booth said:
Nukes are different. Even if we were to disarm every nuclear weapon in existence, nuclear technology would still exist,
Click to expand...
The technology will always exist period. However we can disarm countries of their nuclear weapons, and us ourselves can also do this.

and it wouldn't take a nuclear engineer with bad intentions much time to figure out how to make it explode again.
Click to expand...
Ok....

Hell, even a backwards-ass country like Iran would have had their hands on nukes by now if it weren't for American sabotage.
Click to expand...
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

On top of that, do you honestly believe any government in it's right mind would ever consider full disarmament, and take other nations at face value?
Click to expand...

Yes. With proper checks and inspections. We cam pretty damn close in the 80's.
 
we should disarm, but it's a Pandora's box. probably won't ever happen until humans decide that imaginary lines or different beliefs aren't worth blowing each other up over. alternatively, society might collapse entirely, the bombs will decay and we'll forget how to make them. i'd prefer the former.
 
Fenton said:
No, you're wrong and I know how Nuetron Bombs function.

Nuetron bombs are also known as " Enhanced Radiation Devices. "

The casing that sheilds conventional Fusion weapons is deliberately thin facilitating a greater release of the Nuetrons produced during the Fusion. Reaction.

A Nuetron Bomb produces 10 times the radioactive fallout that a conventional fissile weapon creates. Its the Fissile trigger in a Fusion Bomb that creates the Radioactive fallout.

They are also banned under the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban.

Also, Hydrogen weapons use deuterium and Lithium 6, not tritium.

Tritium is produced a microsecond after the fissile trigger detonates from the Lithium 6.
Click to expand...

If you say so. In any case, those of us who understand what radioactive fallout is, will continue knowing what we're talking about.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your article that says Iran has " not decided to build Nuclear weapons " is 2 years old

The IAEA issued a report in 2011 statkng that Iran had been involved in activities consistent with the intent to build Nuclear weapons INCLUDING specifc research onUranium cores and detonators.

Consider the IAEAs report along with the fact that Iran had kept its Nuclear weapons program secret for 18 years until it was uncovered in 2000.

There's no reason to believe their research and work is based on energy development.
 
Fenton said:
Your article that says Iran has " not decided to build Nuclear weapons " is 2 years old

The IAEA issued a report in 2011 statkng that Iran had been involved in activities consistent with the intent to build Nuclear weapons INCLUDING specifc research onUranium cores and detonators.

Consider the IAEAs report along with the fact that Iran had kept its Nuclear weapons program secret for 18 years until it was uncovered in 2000.

There's no reason to believe their research and work is based on energy development.
Click to expand...

Breathing is also consistent with intent to produce nuclear weapons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom