• 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!

Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?

  • Total voters
    29
MildSteel

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
 
What a stupid question!

"Hey! Who here wants to see mankind wiped from the face of earth?!"

I doubt this forum has any ISIS members.
 
The German said:
What a stupid question!

"Hey! Who here wants to see mankind wiped from the face of earth?!"

I doubt this forum has any ISIS members.
Click to expand...

It is not a stupid question.
 
Why do you ask this question? What's your point?
 
The multi-polar world is the only realistic choice. No-one would risk a nuclear war.
 
spud_meister said:
The multi-polar world is the only realistic choice. No-one would risk a nuclear war.
Click to expand...
Yea. A nuclear war is the start of the apocalypse which no one likes.
 
MildSteel said:
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

I do not really think that is a viable question, as the two do not exclude each other. As a matter of fact, the almost certain outcome of a multi-polar structure with proliferation is nuclear war. So, what you are actually asking is, whether we want nuclear war now or in ten years. If that is the meaning, I will go for ten years. ;)
 
This is a stupid question for two reasons.

1. Because only a crazy person is going to choose a nuclear war.
2. Because the two are not mutually exclusive.
 
molten_dragon said:
This is a stupid question for two reasons.

1. Because only a crazy person is going to choose a nuclear war.
2. Because the two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

Or the only options. The most peaceful (brief) period we've had in recent history was when the world was in a unipolar moment. Now we look at the conflicts fomented around a rising Russia, a rising Iran, the tensions in the east and south china sea's, and do we really think that multipolarity, which multiple powers each assured of their own strength and competing for influence is more stable?
 
Simpleχity;1064273313 said:
It is a stupid question.
Click to expand...

You have demonstrated exactly why it is not a stupid question.
 
MildSteel said:
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Not a stupid question at all. In fact, I was thinking of this today.

I believe nuclear war is inevitable. Much like mankind transitioned from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, We are currently in an era of transition from the carbon age to a nuclear age.

The only thing holding man back is fear. Fear of the power that nuclear energy carries with it. Fear of nuclear war, meltdowns, etc. That fear manifests itself in to political policy - anti proliferation is a current global theme and one upon which is placed perhaps more weight than any other geopolitical issue.

However, what we must understand is that, as man transitioned from bronze to iron, so too is the transition to a nuclear world inevitable. Progress can never be stopped, if history teaches us anything.

In other words, nuclear power is a genie that cannot be put back in its bottle, in spite of our fears or political efforts.

Proliferation is inevitable. The only question is how long it can be delayed. The nations of the Middle East will go nuclear, as will the Asian nations. One day, every nation on earth will have access to nuclear technology.

The question is then, how do we learn to exist in such an environment??

I believe very strongly that we will have to settle our differences one way or the other. We could do this peacefully, but if history is any teacher for us, more likely our differences will be settled by war.

I believe what divides us more than anything else is ego, thirst for power, and religion. I believe a holy war is inevitable. Islam will clash with the rest of the world, and the question will ultimately need to be settled.

I think the upshot of such a conflict could go one of two ways. Either, in the ashes of such a war, we do find a new equilibrium and mankind learns to forge ahead in a new, nuclear world, or the war will cripple us to such an extent that we are sent back to the Stone Age.

Either way, I believe these things are coming. I believe a multipolar world in the nuclear age will prove impossible, and that ultimately, this is a game from which some unified ideology needs to emerge victorious.
 
Peter Grimm said:
Not a stupid question at all. In fact, I was thinking of this today.

I believe nuclear war is inevitable. Much like mankind transitioned from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age, We are currently in an era of transition from the carbon age to a nuclear age.

The only thing holding man back is fear. Fear of the power that nuclear energy carries with it. Fear of nuclear war, meltdowns, etc. That fear manifests itself in to political policy - anti proliferation is a current global theme and one upon which is placed perhaps more weight than any other geopolitical issue.

However, what we must understand is that, as man transitioned from bronze to iron, so too is the transition to a nuclear world inevitable. Progress can never be stopped, if history teaches us anything.

In other words, nuclear power is a genie that cannot be put back in its bottle, in spite of our fears or political efforts.

Proliferation is inevitable. The only question is how long it can be delayed. The nations of the Middle East will go nuclear, as will the Asian nations. One day, every nation on earth will have access to nuclear technology.

The question is then, how do we learn to exist in such an environment??

I believe very strongly that we will have to settle our differences one way or the other. We could do this peacefully, but if history is any teacher for us, more likely our differences will be settled by war.

I believe what divides us more than anything else is ego, thirst for power, and religion. I believe a holy war is inevitable. Islam will clash with the rest of the world, and the question will ultimately need to be settled.

I think the upshot of such a conflict could go one of two ways. Either, in the ashes of such a war, we do find a new equilibrium and mankind learns to forge ahead in a new, nuclear world, or the war will cripple us to such an extent that we are sent back to the Stone Age.

Either way, I believe these things are coming. I believe a multipolar world in the nuclear age will prove impossible, and that ultimately, this is a game from which some unified ideology needs to emerge victorious.
Click to expand...

An excellent post!!!!

Thank you very, very much for that!!!!
 
MildSteel said:
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Depends which pole I'm under. If I live without personal liberty id probably choose death one way or another.
 
molten_dragon said:
This is a stupid question for two reasons.

1. Because only a crazy person is going to choose a nuclear war.
2. Because the two are not mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...


Stupid and silly - it reminds me of the Monty Python sketch; Take your pick given the silly choices.
 
MildSteel said:
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmmm.....a world in which we are not the world's single most powerful country, or being covered in radiation burns whilst gazing upon the end of civilization? Which to choose, which to choose...

Do I get a hint?
 
MildSteel said:
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

I am far more likely to be alive and have my family alive in a multi-polar world, so I choose that.
 
MildSteel said:
If you had the choice between ONLY two things, a multi-polar world in which the US shared power with other countries or a nuclear war, which would you prefer?
Click to expand...

My preference remains the same. Less bait threads posted by MS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom