View Poll Results: Is complete nuclear disarmament a good idea?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, we should destroy all nuclear weapons.

    10 21.28%
  • No, but stockpiles should be reduced.

    13 27.66%
  • No, stockpiles should be maintained at current levels.

    8 17.02%
  • No, stockpiles should be increased

    14 29.79%
  • Other

    2 4.26%
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 68

Thread: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

  1. #41
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,702

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by BCR View Post
    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.
    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.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

  2. #42
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    You know you just contradicted yourself, right?

  3. #43
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    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 by MKULTRABOY; 11-10-10 at 12:42 PM.

  4. #44
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,130

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    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?
    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

  5. #45
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    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?
    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.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  6. #46
    Clown Prince of Politics
    Psychoclown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hiding from the voices in my head.
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 09:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    1,738

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    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.
    Slipping into madness is good for the sake of comparison - Unknown.

  7. #47
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    London, England and Dijon, France
    Last Seen
    03-06-11 @ 01:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    598

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    We should disarm our enemies but keep a massive stockpile for ourselves.
    Er... Are you joking?

  8. #48
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    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.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #49
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 12:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    11,691

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    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.

  10. #50
    Angry Former GOP Voter
    Fiddytree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    25,702

    Re: Is nuclear disarmament a good idea?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    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.
    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.
    Michael J Petrilli-"Is School Choice Enough?"-A response to the recent timidity of American conservatives toward education reform. https://nationalaffairs.com/publicat...-choice-enough

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •