• 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 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...



At all points of history when the there was not a MAD stand-off or a unipolar dominance, there has been ongoing warfare ranging skirmishes to world war. You know, exactly what is happening right now.

Your question is baseless.
 
code1211 said:
At all points of history when the there was not a MAD stand-off or a unipolar dominance, there has been ongoing warfare ranging skirmishes to world war. You know, exactly what is happening right now.

Your question is baseless.
Click to expand...

No it is not baseless because there are people in the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. who want to prevent Russia from projecting power into Europe by constraining their influence on Ukraine. This has resulted in the current military conflict there. If it comes to the point where the U.S. starts directly supporting Ukraine militarily, we do indeed run the risk of that escalating into a nuclear conflict with Russia. Therefore the question is not baseless.
 
MildSteel said:
No it is not baseless because there are people in the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. who want to prevent Russia from projecting power into Europe by constraining their influence on Ukraine.
Click to expand...
Russia's "influence" in Ukraine has so far resulted in a minimum of 5,400 dead and 1,000,000 displaced.
 
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 have a better question:

If you had the choice between ONLY two things, you beat your wife to an inch of her life or someone else beats your wife to an inch of her life, which would you prefer?


(I'm guessing that your reason for not choosing one of these is the same reason I didn't choose one of your poll options.)
 
The poll is a false contrast.

A multi-polar-world is more likely to need to nuclear war. Most notable are now numerous Islamic groups trying to recreate a theocratic Islamic Empire, including to fulfill prophesy of a castastrophic worldwide war - which Muslims will win.

Multiple major regional powers vying for top spot also creates the risk of nuclear war. It should be noted that nuclear war and a nuclear weapon terror attack are not the same.

Also, there is difference between a war in which some nuclear weapons are used - and total nuclear war. WWII could be called a nuclear war as atomic bombs were used. The human race was not destroyed. MANY VASTLY larger hydrogen bombs have been set off - without humanity destroyed.
 
MildSteel said:
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.
Click to expand...

The pro-Russian Chicken Little argument again. There isn't going to be a global nuclear war. Contrary to the view that if anyone uses a nuclear weapon humanity is destroyed, to the contrast life has a remarkable ability to survive - particularly humans.

Though not advocating it, a very limited nuclear exchange probably could be educational in the sense of stopping further escalation and circumstantially could save lives by ending a larger scale war. The 2 atomic bombs used against Japan probably saved millions of lives - Japanese, American/Allies, Chinese and Russian - by ending the war via demonstrating the pointlessness of continuing a massive conventional war.
 
MildSteel said:
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?
Click to expand...

None of your perspectives are reality. Russia is not going to go to nuclear war. There have been dozens of proxy conflicts and wars between the West and the East - so the answer is that your concerns simply are not reality.

Nor is the question of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine about the USA using military force. Rather, it is a matter of economics, diplomacy, and potentially giving/selling weapons to Ukraine against aircraft, heavy armor and other indirect military support, possibly thru 3rd parties.

The world has survived many wars all over the world, many conflicts, and many show-downs including between the USA/West and Russia, also with China. No nuclear war.

The nuclear weapons danger is not nuclear war. It is a nuclear terror attack which could kill millions, devastate the economy and fundamentally change society. But that is very different from total nuclear war. That won't happen.
 
MildSteel said:
No it is not baseless because there are people in the foreign policy establishment in the U.S. who want to prevent Russia from projecting power into Europe by constraining their influence on Ukraine. This has resulted in the current military conflict there. If it comes to the point where the U.S. starts directly supporting Ukraine militarily, we do indeed run the risk of that escalating into a nuclear conflict with Russia. Therefore the question is not baseless.
Click to expand...

It is baseless because you limit the choices to the two you have chosen.

During the periods of Pax Romana ended by the fall of the Roman Empire or Pax Britannica ended finally by WW2 but severely impaired by WW1, there was relative peace due to the overpowering uni-polar dominance of one country.

I would choose neither of the options you present.
 
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...

Of fundamentalist Christians. Oh wait...
 
idea_steed said:
Yea. A nuclear war is the start of the apocalypse which no one likes.
Click to expand...

There are lots of religious crazies who want exactly that. There are a regular stream of fundamentalist Christians who go to Israel with the express purpose of blowing up the Dome of the Rock so the Jews can rebuild the temple and begin the end of days. These people are out of their minds.
 
Which is better, a multi polar world or a nuclear war?
Click to expand...

A good question might be to ask people what they think a nuclear war is better than. Probably produce some interesting results.
 
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...

Guy, this is just about the most ill-written poll I have ever seen.

And FYI, a 'multi-polar' world is not bad. Replace "multi-polar vs. unipolar" with "commercial competition vs. monopoly" and you might see what I mean.
 
Longshot Lou said:
A good question might be to ask people what they think a nuclear war is better than. Probably produce some interesting results.
Click to expand...

A nuclear war would certainly be better than a gamma-ray burst pointed at our direction within five light-years.

A nuclear war would certainly be better than a stellar-mass black hole wandering too close to our planet.

A nuclear war would certainly be better than the earth being struck by a moon-sized comet.

I'm running out here - anybody else got any suggestions?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
A nuclear war would certainly be better than a gamma-ray burst pointed at our direction within five light-years.

A nuclear war would certainly be better than a stellar-mass black hole wandering too close to our planet.

A nuclear war would certainly be better than the earth being struck by a moon-sized comet.

I'm running out here - anybody else got any suggestions?
Click to expand...

A nuclear war would be better than a zombie virus.
 
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...

Damn it man, is that the only two choices? Come on, indiscriminate nuclear weapons have zero legitimacy, ok.
 
joko104 said:
Though not advocating it, a very limited nuclear exchange probably could be educational in the sense of stopping further escalation and circumstantially could save lives by ending a larger scale war.
Click to expand...

That is easy to say. Much more difficult if one is victimized by such.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Guy, this is just about the most ill-written poll I have ever seen.

And FYI, a 'multi-polar' world is not bad. Replace "multi-polar vs. unipolar" with "commercial competition vs. monopoly" and you might see what I mean.
Click to expand...

There is a very good reason for the question.
 
Montecresto said:
Damn it man, is that the only two choices? Come on, indiscriminate nuclear weapons have zero legitimacy, ok.
Click to expand...

You don't understand. I probably should have made this clear at the beginning. The U.S. perceives that it is in our interests to thwart the rise of Russian power by obstructing Russia's ability to control Ukraine. By doing so the U.S. puts up a substantial obstacle to Russia's ability to project power into Europe and thus facilitates the maintenance of it's status as the world's sole superpower. However, these efforts have led to the current military conflict that we see in Ukraine. Some are advocating that the U.S. get more involved militarily in Ukraine. This could lead to a direct conflict between Russia and the U.S. which would have the potential for turning into a nuclear conflict. As such, one could ask the question, would it be better to have a multi-polar world than to have a nuclear conflict? That is the missing context. I hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
MildSteel said:
You don't understand. I probably should have made this clear at the beginning. The U.S. perceives that it is in our interests to thwart the rise of Russian power by obstructing Russia's ability to control Ukraine. By doing so the U.S. puts up a substantial obstacle to Russia's ability to project power into Europe and thus facilitates the maintenance of it's status as the world's sole superpower. However, these efforts have led to the current military conflict that we see in Ukraine. Some are advocating that the U.S. get more involved militarily in Ukraine. This could lead to a direct conflict between Russia and the U.S. which would have the potential for turning into a nuclear conflict. As such, one could ask the question, would it be better to have a multi-polar world than to have a nuclear conflict? That is the missing context. I hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Somewhat yes thanks. If I understand you correctly, then I would answer that we should back off of Russia.
 
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...

We DO share power with other countries. That is how it should be.
 
spud_meister said:
The multi-polar world is the only realistic choice. No-one would risk a nuclear war.
Click to expand...

That's not true. Nuclear War is inevitable.
Inevitable for our reality and just as inevitable in your multi-polar world.

MAD has worked so far. But it is only a matter of time before an unstable minded leader or group of leaders takes charge.
It is not even realistically possible that we would keep these nuclear weapons pointed at each other and never use them.
Never use them in 100 years, 200 years, 500 years... it simply must happen eventually.

There is also the accident angle.
Run a search on the term "Nuclear close calls" and check that out.

The only way we will advance human existence into the next millennium is if we dismantle the nukes, life makes it past the point of war, or we colonize other worlds.
 
Painter said:
That's not true. Nuclear War is inevitable.
Inevitable for our reality and just as inevitable in your multi-polar world.

MAD has worked so far. But it is only a matter of time before an unstable minded leader or group of leaders takes charge.
It is not even realistically possible that we would keep these nuclear weapons pointed at each other and never use them.
Never use them in 100 years, 200 years, 500 years... it simply must happen eventually.

There is also the accident angle.
Run a search on the term "Nuclear close calls" and check that out.

The only way we will advance human existence into the next millennium is if we dismantle the nukes, life makes it past the point of war, or we colonize other worlds.
Click to expand...

Agreed that nuclear weapons must be eliminated.
 
Montecresto said:
Somewhat yes thanks. If I understand you correctly, then I would answer that we should back off of Russia.
Click to expand...

Honestly I understand that the U.S. needs to be involved in Ukraine. Furthermore, I really don't have a problem with us making a play to bring them over to our side. My problem is the way we went about it. That stuff of helping to facilitate the demise of a democratically elected government, right of Russia's border in direct defiance of Russia in the name of maintaining our status as the world's sole superpower was way overboard. Therefore I say, that it would be better to tolerate a multi-polar world than to risk a conflict that has the possibility of going nuclear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom