• 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
What the hell kind of question is that?

Of course I'm going for "multi-polar world".

No sane person wants a nuclear war.
 
What the hell kind of question is that?

Of course I'm going for "multi-polar world".

No sane person wants a nuclear war.

The point is this, there are some who appear hell bent on maintaining a uni-polar world with the US on top, even to the point of risking nuclear war.
 
Let's start a war!

Let's start a nuclear war!

At the gay bar, gay bar, gay bar!


(Seriously, dude? Nuclear winter. You're asking people if they want to die a slow and miserable death.)
 
Seriously I'm saying that although some appear to be willing to risk a nuclear war to maintain U.S. hegemony in the world, it would be better to live in a multi-polar world than to have a nuclear war.

It's not a joke and there is nothing funny about it.
 
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?

A stupid question Indeed.
 
A stupid question Indeed.

There would be no need to ask such a stupid question if people in the U.S. foreign policy establishment did not do stupid things. People such as you advocate for U.S. military intervention right on the border of a nuclear armed country that has the ability to destroy the U.S. If such stupid policy were not being advocated, there would be no need for such a stupid question in the first place.
 
There would be no need to ask such a stupid question if people in the U.S. foreign policy establishment did not do stupid things. People such as you advocate for U.S. military intervention right on the border of a nuclear armed country that has the ability to destroy the U.S. If such stupid policy were not being advocated, there would be no need for such a stupid question in the first place.


And people like YOU panic at the thought of confronting oppressive regimes.

Foreign Policy decisions shouldn't be based on a irrational fear of a exaggerated threat. That leads to appeasement and eventually a far more dangerous World.

You really think Putin would launch a Nuclear strike on American soil just to keep Ukraine ? Where's the logic in that assessment ?
 
And people like YOU panic at the thought of confronting oppressive regimes.

Foreign Policy decisions shouldn't be based on a irrational fear of a exaggerated threat. That leads to appeasement and eventually a far more dangerous World.

You really think Putin would launch a Nuclear strike on American soil just to keep Ukraine ? Where's the logic in that assessment ?

This isn't about confronting a regime because of oppression. If we were really concerned about that we would confront Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly U.S. interests in Ukraine lie in containing Russia. However people like you cannot differentiate between an interest and a vital interest. Although Ukraine is of interest to the U.S. because the U.S. does have an interest in containing Russia, it is not a VITAL interest. However, Crimea is a vital interest of Russia. There is no panic on my part. What I am trying to do is keep people who think like you that actually have power from putting the U.S. in a position in which there would actually be a need to panic.

If the U.S. launched an assault to take Crimea from Russia, Russia would be in a situation in which their conventional forces would be overwhelmed by U.S. military superiority. In that situation it is highly likely that they would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Why some idiots want to put the U.S. in such a position over Ukraine is mind boggling.

That said, let me ask you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and eastern Ukraine from Russia by force?
 
This isn't about confronting a regime because of oppression. If we were really concerned about that we would confront Saudi Arabia. Quite frankly U.S. interests in Ukraine lie in containing Russia. However people like you cannot differentiate between an interest and a vital interest. Although Ukraine is of interest to the U.S. because the U.S. does have an interest in containing Russia, it is not a VITAL interest. However, Crimea is a vital interest of Russia. There is no panic on my part. What I am trying to do is keep people who think like you that actually have power from putting the U.S. in a position in which there would actually be a need to panic.

If the U.S. launched an assault to take Crimea from Russia, Russia would be in a situation in which their conventional forces would be overwhelmed by U.S. military superiority. In that situation it is highly likely that they would retaliate with nuclear weapons. Why some idiots want to put the U.S. in such a position over Ukraine is mind boggling.

That said, let me ask you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and eastern Ukraine from Russia by force?

No, they would not likely respond with Nuclear Weapons. Why on earth would they risk their people and their Sovereign territory over Ukraine ? They wouldn't. Not too mention the current stock piles of Nuclear Bombs on both sides primarily contain strategic weapons with low yields.

The big 40 Megaton city killers don't exist anymore and the largest weapon we or the Russians have is around 9 Megatons.

The only threat of a Nuclear strike would be from a rogue Nation, Terrorist organization or rogue individual.

It takes a vivid imagination to come up with a scenario that would lead to a all out Nuclear exchange with Russia.
 
No, they would not likely respond with Nuclear Weapons. Why on earth would they risk their people and their Sovereign territory over Ukraine ? They wouldn't. Not too mention the current stock piles of Nuclear Bombs on both sides primarily contain strategic weapons with low yields.

The big 40 Megaton city killers don't exist anymore and the largest weapon we or the Russians have is around 9 Megatons.

The only threat of a Nuclear strike would be from a rogue Nation, Terrorist organization or rogue individual.

It takes a vivid imagination to come up with a scenario that would lead to a all out Nuclear exchange with Russia.

I think that you are dead wrong. A U.S. assault on Crimea would be a direct attack on the heart of Russian naval power. Russia would surely lose in a full, direct, conventional conflict with the U.S. It would be a devastating blow to Russian power, because that is the only place from which they can project substantial naval power. Yes, they would be forced to retaliate with nuclear weapons under such a scenario. Do you actually think Russia could let the U.S. severely damage their naval power in such a way? You must be out of your mind.

I asked you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from Russia by force? What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
 
I think that you are dead wrong. A U.S. assault on Crimea would be a direct attack on the heart of Russian naval power. Russia would surely lose in a full, direct, conventional conflict with the U.S. It would be a devastating blow to Russian power, because that is the only place from which they can project substantial naval power. Yes, they would be forced to retaliate with nuclear weapons under such a scenario. Do you actually think Russia could let the U.S. severely damage their naval power in such a way? You must be out of your mind.

I asked you a question. Do you think that the U.S. should take Crimea and Eastern Ukraine from Russia by force? What's the matter, cat got your tongue?
Personally, I think the ideal solution would have been some kind of negotiated deal where Russia was allowed to use the naval facilities they needed without basically having a civil war in a couple countries.

But apparently that didn't happen and Russia considered conflict worth the rewards.

Unless I'm way off target here.
 
I can get the "excitement "in the video games. Don't want a real one.

Then we had better get an international system the robustly guarantees security in place, because otherwise we will get the Real One.
 
Under the current circumstances - and for the forseeable future - the only thing worse than a world dominated by the US is a world not dominated by the US.
 
Putin's Russia is bad enough, but Putin's Europe...? No, just . . . no.
Although, honestly, I'd take Putin over the COMMUNIST PARTY OF CHINA any day. (But I vehemently despise both).
 
Server was too busy, ended up doubling my post...
 
Last edited:
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. But what's even worst, is that it was such a waste of potential. There's a good discussion of whether a bipolar or multi-polar world is best.
 
No country or people should be considered above another, that is my response. The idea that some lives matter more than others is the root of all that is wrong with the world.
 
No country or people should be considered above another, that is my response. The idea that some lives matter more than others is the root of all that is wrong with the world.

All lives matter. But not all countries matter as much as others. The US matters more than Liechtenstein. That's a fact.
 
What a stupid question. But what's even worst, is that it was such a waste of potential. There's a good discussion of whether a bipolar or multi-polar world is best.

There would be no need to ask stupid questions if people in charge of implementing U.S. foreign policy did not do stupid things.
 
There would be no need to ask stupid questions if people in charge of implementing U.S. foreign policy did not do stupid things.

Now here's why this one was stupid. Actually, there's two reason for this one (it was a doubly stupid comment).

1. As others have point out, this isn't a mutually exclusive option. For instance, in the multipolar world we live in, it's very possible that we could end up in a nuclear war that we don't start. For instance, a couple of radicals launch a coup in Pakistan. India gets a bit nervous and launches some nukes, China responds and well I'll let you fill in the pieces.

2. This is the most important one though, you actually had a chance to have a very interesting post as I said. Which is a safer world to live in? One where super powers stare down each other with enough firepower to blow up the world many times over, or one where a nuclear war could get started, killing hundreds of millions of people, and screwing up the world in the process... without us even so much as sending in a drone?
 
If it is stupid to you, fine. You are entitled to your opinion.

Fair point. I suppose that goes for the majority of posters on this thread that said it's stupid, yes?
 
Back
Top Bottom