• 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!

Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

Is complete nuclear disarmament a good idea?

  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.
Morality Games said:
Nuclear weapons forced diplomacy.

I can understand wanting to get rid of nuclear weapons, but you can't look at the Cold War and say the threat of nuclear annihilation didn't motivate political and military actions.
Click to expand...

It definitely played a part... but at the ninth hour when we were on the verge of blowing ourselves to smitherines, it was control and calm that got us through it. That was our first major test with nuclear weapons.
 
No.

We will need them to fight off the ravening alien hordes from space.

And to blow up random asteroids on July 4th, 2076 (or something).

Very important.

-------

More seriously, did you take into account all the OTHER kinds of "WMD" out there?

If (hypothetically) a reincarnated version of the USSR hits NYC with a biological attack that wipes its population out, what do we do?

MAD would tell us to at least wipe out one of their main cities.

But if we could nuke the plants and facilities that launched the attack....

One nice thing about nukes - methinks any known (and many unknown) biological agents would be eliminated by a nuclear strike on their manufacturing/storage facility....

Downside too that is the radiation afterwards...
 
Personally, I'm not in favor of complete nuclear disarmament. I think nukes are important as a deterrent, and I honestly believe they may have an important role in future plans to defend us from dangerous objects which could impact the earth from space.

I do think that our current stockpiles' ability to render the earth uninhabitable several times over is a bit overkill, and that stockpiles should be reduced. I honestly don't think any country needs more than a couple hundred of them at most.
 
Wake said:
Is it true that people can be blinded by their belief that humanity is inherently good? That nations will just disarm themselves?
Click to expand...

It's not about the possibility that some country would nuke us. It's about opportunistic hawks in all the countries who use imagined threats to keep the pot boiling.

ricksfolly
 
Orion said:
I was mostly referring to the Cuban missle crisis. Nuclear weapons got us to that point, and it was level headed leadership that prevented the pot from boiling over.
Click to expand...
That's one instance across 45+ years of history, and it doesnt address the questions I asked.
ble What do you suppose would have happened in October of 61 if the US had no credible nuclear deterrent?
 
Goobieman said:
That's one instance across 45+ years of history, and it doesnt address the questions I asked.
ble What do you suppose would have happened in October of 61 if the US had no credible nuclear deterrent?
Click to expand...

The past is the past. Russia is no longer our enemy. All I know now is what I see. Smaller and unstable powers are clamouring for nuclear weapons because the major world powers all set that example. The UN Security Council is basically a council of nuclear powers only. We taught them through our foreign policy and diplomacy that when you have nukes, people will listen to you. If you don't have nukes, then you are just as liable to be invaded.

I do not think it's practical to completely disarm at this time. The security dilemma would have to be resolved before that could happen, and we simply don't have that level of trust between nations yet. However, it would be a show of good faith to reduce the arsenal. No single country needs enough nuclear weapons to incinerate every square inch of planet earth four times over. It is irresponsible and impractical to possess so many weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the warhawks in politics, war in the world is on the decline. Complex interdependence is increasing. Yes, there are major inequities that still remain unaddressed, but at least we aren't at each other's throats as much as we used to be. There are some regions that still need stability and that may or may not require intervention, but on the whole the world is much better off than the days of the Cold War. Don't you agree?
 
molten_dragon said:
I saw a little blurb on CNN the other day that President Obama visited Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?) Japan as part of his hope to create 'a world without nuclear arms'

Assume for a moment that it would be possible to convince every country in the world to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. Is it a good idea? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

No it is not, unfortunately. One can hate nuclear power, but the secret is already out, and each power, especially those who have it, want to keep that status-and arguably, should. That doesn't mean I can't hold some sort of warm feeling anytime our Presidents say something like this (Reagan did it as well), however, the reality is that it is an immensely bad idea.
 
Orion said:
The past is the past. Russia is no longer our enemy. All I know now is what I see. Smaller and unstable powers are clamouring for nuclear weapons because the major world powers all set that example. The UN Security Council is basically a council of nuclear powers only. We taught them through our foreign policy and diplomacy that when you have nukes, people will listen to you. If you don't have nukes, then you are just as liable to be invaded.

I do not think it's practical to completely disarm at this time. The security dilemma would have to be resolved before that could happen, and we simply don't have that level of trust between nations yet. However, it would be a show of good faith to reduce the arsenal. No single country needs enough nuclear weapons to incinerate every square inch of planet earth four times over. It is irresponsible and impractical to possess so many weapons of mass destruction.

Despite the warhawks in politics, war in the world is on the decline. Complex interdependence is increasing. Yes, there are major inequities that still remain unaddressed, but at least we aren't at each other's throats as much as we used to be. There are some regions that still need stability and that may or may not require intervention, but on the whole the world is much better off than the days of the Cold War. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

I'm mostly mixed on that message. I like being an optimist and the idea of nuclear draw-downs (especially when it makes sense, like with Russia and the United States), but the reality is that state-on-state conflict will remain. Each state will try to one-up the other in the negotiating table, which is arguably what happened not long ago with the US and Russia. Likewise, one of the biggest issues for the security intellectual development is what to do about Non-governmental actors and nuclear arms. There has been very little concrete progress in that regard, and perhaps there won't be.
 
Last edited:
The Giant Noodle said:
Keep it as it is. DONT let anyone else have them!!!!!
Click to expand...
I recommend developing really small nuclear weapons – or better yet, really small nuclear reactors (coupled with lightbulbs) – for the purpose of replacing Christmas lights.
 
Orion said:
The past is the past. Russia is no longer our enemy. All I know now is what I see.
Click to expand...
You're sidestepping.
Fact of the matter is the only thing that kept Russian armor from the channel was the credible threat of the US nuclear deterrent.
 
Orion said:
Despite the warhawks in politics, war in the world is on the decline. Complex interdependence is increasing. Yes, there are major inequities that still remain unaddressed, but at least we aren't at each other's throats as much as we used to be. There are some regions that still need stability and that may or may not require intervention, but on the whole the world is much better off than the days of the Cold War. Don't you agree?
Click to expand...

You woefully underestimate the role the nuclear deterrent plays in diminishing conventional war. If you think there's a reduced level of conventional conflict simply because the world is evolving beyond it . . . think again.
 
There is no nuclear enemy, and MAD is and always was a false idea. The reason that the US and USSR never exchanged nuclear attacks is because no one on either side wanted a destructive war. There was no benefit to it. No one would prosper from such violence. Only a truly insane person would destroy another country and murder innocent people just to prove a point. And even the crazy terrorists who are trying to do this now do not have the numbers to pose a real threat, nor do they congregate in groups large enough to be a nuclear target. Major governments no longer make war upon one another. There is no profit in it.
 
Paschendale said:
There is no nuclear enemy, and MAD is and always was a false idea. The reason that the US and USSR never exchanged nuclear attacks is because no one on either side wanted a destructive war.
Click to expand...

OK.

You say "MAD is and always was a false idea" and then say nuclear war never happened BECAUSE of MAD. Are you sure you know what MAD is?
 
If it were possible to convince them all to disarm then of course. Man now possesses the power to literally put an end to pretty much all living organisms on the face of this planet with Nuclear Weapons. Kind of scary when you think about it.
 
BCR said:
If it were possible to convince them all to disarm then of course. Man now possesses the power to literally put an end to pretty much all living organisms on the face of this planet with Nuclear Weapons. Kind of scary when you think about it.
Click to expand...

Well, the power to disarm current actors is one thing. The power to keep the materials necessary completely out of the hands of any actors what so ever is yet another, and perhaps far more elusive challenge. I think it was Khrushchev who said that when he first learned of the power of the Soviets' nuclear arsenal, he couldn't sleep for a very long time. It frightened him dearly. Then apparently he came to the conclusion that these weapons were so horrible that they couldn't be used, and then he could regain the ability to sleep.
 
Paschendale said:
There is no nuclear enemy, and MAD is and always was a false idea.
Click to expand...
The reason that the US and USSR never exchanged nuclear attacks is because no one on either side wanted a destructive war. There was no benefit to it. No one would prosper from such violence.
Click to expand...
You know you just contradicted yourself, right?
 
Why? The USSR restrained itself from significant involvement in Korea to prevent a wider war, for example.

edit :there are more considerations yes:
 
Last edited:
molten_dragon said:
I saw a little blurb on CNN the other day that President Obama visited Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?) Japan as part of his hope to create 'a world without nuclear arms'

Assume for a moment that it would be possible to convince every country in the world to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. Is it a good idea? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

nuclear disarmament is a wonderful idea. there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever that any country with hegemonic or other intentions would ever recreate nuclear weapons in order to dominate their neighbors, despite the fact that it would be an instant win for them to do so.

and after we destroy nuclear weapons, we can just pass a law outlawing war, so that we will never have to fight again, and then we can think positive thoughts and get rid of hunger and poverty too. while we're at it, we'll pass a UN resolution that everyone agrees to love each other, so that crime will disappear from the face of the earth, and people won't fight over silly things, like religion ever again :D
 
molten_dragon said:
I saw a little blurb on CNN the other day that President Obama visited Hiroshima (or was it Nagasaki?) Japan as part of his hope to create 'a world without nuclear arms'

Assume for a moment that it would be possible to convince every country in the world to destroy all of their nuclear weapons. Is it a good idea? Why or why not?
Click to expand...

It's only a good thing if *everyone* is on the same page that you're on.

If you're the only one - or one of the few - doing it - then the brutish dictator somewhere else is just going to take advantage of it.

Might as well bend over and lube up now.
 
No. Disarmament is a fool's errand. The genie is out of the bottle now, so even if we could somehow disarm all of the current nuclear powers, what guarantee is there we can prevent Iran or some country run by a crackpot dictator from obtaining them. Secondly, MAD hasn't eliminated war, but it has made the great powers of the world far more reluctant to engage in global, total war on the scale of the last two World Wars. Something about knowing the other guy can annhilate you with the press of a button makes you a little less willing start an all out war against him.
 
As I understand things, it's currently (and seemingly for the foreseeable future) impossible to eliminate all possible chances of someone building (or obtaining) a nuclear (or at the least, radioactive) weapon (however crude).

The processes involved are too easy and simple (comparatively) to prevent.

Even if the entire (mostly) population of the world was convinced that nuclear weapons were too dangerous to have around, there would still be the various other uses that radioactive materials are put too.

Such uses could be the source for a so-called “dirty bomb”…

And the likelihood that there would be some small (even tiny) minority of humans who wished to use such weapons is high.

Now, admittedly, a nuclear arsenal would seemingly be of little use against someone employing a “dirty bomb” to attack the US – seeing as most that would use such are far more likely to be a non-state entity as opposed to someone who can be damaged by nuclear weapons.

But there are always the “non-nuclear” WMD’s – bio weapons and such.

Having nuclear weapons as a “MAD” against bio-weapons seems a good idea – outside terrorists using bio-weapons, which would most likely also leave no target for the nuclear weapons.

Personally, I consider the threat of biological warfare to be greater than that of nuclear.

Sure, nuclear is perhaps currently more dangerous, but biological has the potential to be far more damaging and long-lasting.

My personal conclusion is that we need to keep the option of nuclear strike(s) (however small [relatively, of course…]) open.
 
In an ideal world, nuclear stockpiles could be eliminated. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. Although there is likely room for reducing nuclear stockpiles, elimination of such stockpiles would merely create a powerful incentive/temptation for some state or states to cheat. That situation would heighten the risk of aggression rather than reduce the risk of conflict.
 
The Mark said:
As I understand things, it's currently (and seemingly for the foreseeable future) impossible to eliminate all possible chances of someone building (or obtaining) a nuclear (or at the least, radioactive) weapon (however crude).

The processes involved are too easy and simple (comparatively) to prevent.

Even if the entire (mostly) population of the world was convinced that nuclear weapons were too dangerous to have around, there would still be the various other uses that radioactive materials are put too.

Such uses could be the source for a so-called “dirty bomb”…

And the likelihood that there would be some small (even tiny) minority of humans who wished to use such weapons is high.

Now, admittedly, a nuclear arsenal would seemingly be of little use against someone employing a “dirty bomb” to attack the US – seeing as most that would use such are far more likely to be a non-state entity as opposed to someone who can be damaged by nuclear weapons.

But there are always the “non-nuclear” WMD’s – bio weapons and such.

Having nuclear weapons as a “MAD” against bio-weapons seems a good idea – outside terrorists using bio-weapons, which would most likely also leave no target for the nuclear weapons.

Personally, I consider the threat of biological warfare to be greater than that of nuclear.

Sure, nuclear is perhaps currently more dangerous, but biological has the potential to be far more damaging and long-lasting.

My personal conclusion is that we need to keep the option of nuclear strike(s) (however small [relatively, of course…]) open.
Click to expand...

Well, the notion of limited tactical nuclear strikes went against the doctrinaire of MAD, because it was more or less a binary conceptual framework to use. For defenders of MAD they thought that the use of tactical nuclear strikes was dangerous as well as, ....well, "mad" or "insane". Nevertheless, such thinkers of limited strikes defended the concept by saying that if you give us two options: live or die, you trap humanity into thinking it is doomed if only one weapon flies out there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom