• 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!

How Many?

How many warheads?


  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .

Dooble

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
311
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?
 
And just what authority is "allowing" us to have them?

I have no idea how many would be necessary for the worst case scenario, global nuclear war, but I would think a cap on the # is irrelevant. New kinds of nukes, like bunker busters, are developed all the time.

I'd simply like all old nukes to be decomissioned, and their fissionable material utilized. The idea of the proliferation of Cold War warheads is somewhat unsettling.
 
I think enough for mutually assured destruction is plenty.
How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?
 
The US government is who is allowing the US government... sounds to me like a poor check on that power, should a cap on nukes be law.
It depends on which political side is in power. If we went straight Democrat in all three branches for the next 50 years, we wouldn't have any nuclear warheads. Just a hate-filled media with a bunch of adulterous, foul mouth politicians.
 
As much as the military thinks we need that is sustainable to our budget... ideally enough nukes to completely destroy multiple nations at a time... enough to win any possible war.
 
You could have worded that differently. "Allowed" to have? Allowed by whom? The USA can have as many nukes as we think we need to have.

Peace really is maintained through strength. If America is weak, other forces will rush in to fill the void. Would you want world affairs to be dominated by the Chinese, or by Islamic Fundamentalists?
 
Zero, the same as everyone else. Every nation in the world should have enough conventional forces to gang up and massacre any nation that stockpiles WMDs of any kind.

But unless we can get the world to agree, and enforce compliance, then we need to have more than the rest of the world put together.
 
Another point: Libs always seem to be the ones who want to cut the military, but think about this. You think American Conservatives are bad, just remember the only thing between you and a burka is the strong arm of our military.

You think the Muslim Brotherhood give a damn about your right to an abortion? You think Islamic Fundamentalists are sensitive to LGBT issues? You think the Chinese give a **** about civil rights? Freedom of speech? Academic freedom?

All of those freedoms you guys love so much were born here in America, and don't you take them for granted. If we are weak, the other powers waiting in the wings are not going to be sensitive to any of those issues you guys hold dear.
 
We need to make peace. Unilateral disarmament is a good place to start. We have huge numbers of really good weapons. Weapons are really profitable, good for business. Nukes are especially proftable. And then there is the money to be made from repairs, upkeep, decommissioning, etc. Hot dam, and then there are all those Nations attacking us and killin' our babies. Well, maybe attacking. Or thinking about attacking. Or writing about attacking. Or dreaming about attacking. Well, maybe, almost, or even possibly giving wing to consideration. Yep, it's a dangerous world for all the poor bastards we have been attacking. Libya, Iraq, Vietnam, Grenada, etc. Millions dead. Good thing we're not pissed.
 
Zero, the same as everyone else. Every nation in the world should have enough conventional forces to gang up and massacre any nation that stockpiles WMDs of any kind.

But unless we can get the world to agree, and enforce compliance, then we need to have more than the rest of the world put together.

can I gett an amen to that brothers and sisters. AMEN
 
Not that I agree with "arms are for hugging". Arms are for killing; I just believe in reasonable limits about how many people a given weapon should be able to kill at once. I'm comfortable with a few thousand at a time, and tens or hundreds of thousands on a good day. I'm just not comfortable with weapons that can kill millions of people, or weapons that keep killing people years after they've been fired, or weapons that can kill the whole goddamned planet.
 
How many nuclear warheads should the U.S. be allowed to have?



As many as we decide to have. We are a sovereign nation and currently the primary military power in the world, so nobody is going to "allow" us anything.
 
No nation should have any nuclear warheads, so in turn the US should have none. If someone is stupid enough to launch a nuclear warhead on us, we should not fire a nuclear warhead back, no matter how much it would feel good, because that would doom the entire world.
 
Zero, the same as everyone else. Every nation in the world should have enough conventional forces to gang up and massacre any nation that stockpiles WMDs of any kind.

But unless we can get the world to agree, and enforce compliance, then we need to have more than the rest of the world put together.


My personal preference would be swords and bows, but no one has ever had any luck putting a Genie of Technology back into its bottle.


"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, soon end up plowing for those who did not."
 
True enough. Nukes are here to stay. The temptation for nations to have them is just too large. I, for one, would rather be the one with the most nukes.

My personal preference would be swords and bows, but no one has ever had any luck putting a Genie of Technology back into its bottle.


"Those who beat their swords into plowshares, soon end up plowing for those who did not."
 
If they're not 100% convinced that we're going to fire back, what's to stop someone from firing a nuke at us?

No nation should have any nuclear warheads, so in turn the US should have none. If someone is stupid enough to launch a nuclear warhead on us, we should not fire a nuclear warhead back, no matter how much it would feel good, because that would doom the entire world.
 
No nation should have any nuclear warheads, so in turn the US should have none. If someone is stupid enough to launch a nuclear warhead on us, we should not fire a nuclear warhead back, no matter how much it would feel good, because that would doom the entire world.




Despite sensationalized films like Catch22, there is no reason to believe this would be the case, even if every nuke in the world were set off at once.
 
No nation should have any nuclear warheads, so in turn the US should have none. If someone is stupid enough to launch a nuclear warhead on us, we should not fire a nuclear warhead back, no matter how much it would feel good, because that would doom the entire world.
interesting...

what could stop the violence quicker then a nuke on a nuking country?

If one country uses Nukes and we do not, we would most certainly lose and we wiped off the map. Using many tactical nukes in the right spots could stop the violence completely. What stops that country from using more nukes on other countries the next time after the U.S. is wiped off the map?
Or are you counting on the nukes from other countries to stop it so you can feel like the martyr?
 
I say we should have 0. In addition to a comment earlier about technology, we should hire a group like "Anonymous" to be on hand. Since everything is going digital, we could use them to hack into other countries systems and affect things like their power, communications, etc. You can't launch a nuke at us if we shut your power down. And when it goes dark, we swoop in and take care of business the old fashioned way.
 
I agree with everyone who said that we should have as many as we need to make sure we remain powerful. There are evil people in the world and only a very naive person would think otherwise. I like feeling safe. I would prefer we keep it that way.
 
I have to agree with Ronald Reagen on this one:

“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1985

Nonetheless, at our current position, I'm not looking for any major reduction.
 
I have to agree with Ronald Reagen on this one:

“We seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.”
Ronald Reagan, Inaugural Address, 1985

Nonetheless, at our current position, I'm not looking for any major reduction.


No nukes in the world would be nice, but with all respects to President Reagan, that is a La-La Land wish that needs to stay with the Lollipop Guild and the Unicorns and other imaginary creatures.

:)
 
No nukes in the world would be nice, but with all respects to President Reagan, that is a La-La Land wish that needs to stay with the Lollipop Guild and the Unicorns and other imaginary creatures.

:)

How dare you speak negatively of Ronald Reagen.
 
Back
Top Bottom