• 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!

If the US unilaterally gave up its nukes...

See OP


  • Total voters
    31
Re: If the US unilaterally gave up her nukes...

You did not answer the question.

Yes I did.. I voted "none of the above".. And I said the US would never give up their nukes, and even if they did, none of the above would. And if everyone or a few of them even claimed they gave them up they would still have "secret" nuke programs and "secret" ready nuclear weapons.

Thats what I tried to say.
 
Re: If the US unilaterally gave up her nukes...

Yes I did.. I voted "none of the above".. And I said the US would never give up their nukes, and even if they did, none of the above would. And if everyone or a few of them even claimed they gave them up they would still have "secret" nuke programs and "secret" ready nuclear weapons.

Thats what I tried to say.

I already voted UK and France...they would say they gave it up, but as you are saying, they really would have some underground program.

And coming to think of it, you sound to be on the ball, maximus zeebra.

If the US gave up there nukes, they would be setting themselves up for some trouble...deep trouble...

Although even if the US said they were giving up nukes, I don't think they would, or at least, they would, but in place of it they would work on some more deadly weapons...
 
I also voted none.

China has nukes as much as a deterrant to Russia as to the US
India's is a deterrant to Pakistan
Pakistan's is a deterrant to India.
Israel (if they have them) is a deterrant to Iran
Iran wants them to have a terror threat to Israel and the USA
UK and France have them for general deterrance only and certainly NOT at the USA. No reason to suspect they will give them up.
DPRK is, well, the DPRK. THey want to blackmail Japan.

The US would be absolutely CRAZY to unilaterally give up its nuclear arsenal. In fact, it would be stupid to give up the nuclear arsenal under ANY conditions.
 
And you think that, because...?

Why the hell WOULD they give them up just because we did? Maybe the UK and France would, to send a symbolic gesture of goodwill...maybe. The others, certainly not.
 
USA giving up it's nukes is of course not realistic or that other countries would follow if USA did. But if USA drasticly reduced it's numbers of nukes, England, France, Russia and probably China would also follow. Making the world more safe by lessen the risk of nukes getting stolen and end up in the wrong hands. Ecpecially sens Russia and China can risk internal turmoil. If the worst case scenario happens it would also be much better for mankind if hundred missiles went of instead of thousand.

That it's really no reason for USA to have thousands of nukes. That USA could flatten all the major cities in a countries with conventional weapons and finish the job with a few nukes if they like to go for overkill. That in today world is no reason for having absurd numbers of nukes. This is something both China and Russia could understand. If this happen greater pressure could be put on both India and Pakistan. North Korea would be tougher but reducing the numbers of nukes in the world could reduce the risk of other rouge states or terrorist getting their hands on them. But of course I'm not talking about zero nukes. That a first step would be that USA and Russia reduced the arsenal to less then thousands nukes. And that China at least didn't get anymore or more preferly reduced their in size.

List of states with nuclear weapons - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
That it's really no reason for USA to have thousands of nukes. That USA could flatten all the major cities in a countries with conventional weapons and finish the job with a few nukes if they like to go for overkill. That in today world is no reason for having absurd numbers of nukes.
Something we learned from the Russians is that you don't actually have to possess a capability as long as your enemies are kept at bay with the belief that you do. :wink:
 
USA giving up it's nukes is of course not realistic or that other countries would follow if USA did. But if USA drasticly reduced it's numbers of nukes, England, France, Russia and probably China would also follow.

Why would France and England reduce their arsenal of 350 nukes if the US and Russia reduced theirs to below 1000? I think this is an unrealistic assessment since French and British nuclear arsenals are relatively small and trimmed.

That it's really no reason for USA to have thousands of nukes. That USA could flatten all the major cities in a countries with conventional weapons and finish the job with a few nukes if they like to go for overkill.

:lol:

You really believe that? What country are you talking about? The US ability to project such power with conventional weapons, except in Canada and central America is rather limited.

And you also have to take into consideration that if the US tried such tactics on any large country it would also have to fight war against the country, and wars in the air, which would greatly reduce such a chance. Take Russia of China for example, if the US tried to flatten any of their cities with conventional weapons there would be war with equals, and most likely nuclear responses. So to think the US could flatten any cities with conventional weapons is ridiculous, they are completely dependent on nuclear weapons for any such tasks.

Do you even know how much firepower it take to flatten a major city with only regular bombings? Even with 100 planes that constantly go back and forward to bomb a city it would take days to flatten a city. If that city was anywhere across the pacific or the Atlantic the amount of time would increase enormously.
 
You really believe that? What country are you talking about? The US ability to project such power with conventional weapons, except in Canada and central America is rather limited.

And you also have to take into consideration that if the US tried such tactics on any large country it would also have to fight war against the country, and wars in the air, which would greatly reduce such a chance. Take Russia of China for example, if the US tried to flatten any of their cities with conventional weapons there would be war with equals, and most likely nuclear responses. So to think the US could flatten any cities with conventional weapons is ridiculous, they are completely dependent on nuclear weapons for any such tasks.
this isn't WW2. Precision weapons and Fire and forget weapons are extremely accurate and destructive.

Ever heard of a "daisy cutter"? Technically its a "conventional" weapon.

Do you even know how much firepower it take to flatten a major city with only regular bombings? Even with 100 planes that constantly go back and forward to bomb a city it would take days to flatten a city. If that city was anywhere across the pacific or the Atlantic the amount of time would increase enormously.
The ability to "flatten" a city is dependent upon the geographics, weather, and constitution of the city.

A single fire left unattended can destroy an entire city but elsewhere a nuclear weapon can cause only limited damage if hills and mountains absorb the blast from reaching other parts of the city.

So when you say "flatten" a city I'm not quite sure what you mean. But I am fairly certain that conventional weapons have grown extrodinarily powerful such that cities can be widely destroyed without such massive bombings or use of nuclear weapons as you suggest.

That is, weapons are damn scary these days because they are extremely accurate and more destructive.
 
this isn't WW2. Precision weapons and Fire and forget weapons are extremely accurate and destructive.

Ever heard of a "daisy cutter"? Technically its a "conventional" weapon.

The ability to "flatten" a city is dependent upon the geographics, weather, and constitution of the city.

A single fire left unattended can destroy an entire city but elsewhere a nuclear weapon can cause only limited damage if hills and mountains absorb the blast from reaching other parts of the city.

So when you say "flatten" a city I'm not quite sure what you mean. But I am fairly certain that conventional weapons have grown extrodinarily powerful such that cities can be widely destroyed without such massive bombings or use of nuclear weapons as you suggest.

That is, weapons are damn scary these days because they are extremely accurate and more destructive.

I dont know what I mean by flatten city. It was berglagstroll who used the expression, I assumed "bomb to complete destruction" and literally flatten..

Any missiles for such use would cause war, and it would take massive amounts of missiles to inflict the same damage upon a city as nuclear missiles.
I think he was talking about air strikes in the first place since long range missiles are rather limited in numbers.
 
Its a shame we invented nukes. They rendered the President more powerful than God, capable of destroying all life on earth. Does anyone still believe in limited government, when the President can destroy everyone and everything with the push of a button?
But we need them. Not because of the threat posed by any other nation. We need them in case of space invaders.
 
Its a shame we invented nukes.
:roll: because it would have been so muc better to have to invade Japan or have an iron curtain over it because of Russia.

They rendered the President more powerful than God, capable of destroying all life on earth.
not all life, just most of human life.

Does anyone still believe in limited government, when the President can destroy everyone and everything with the push of a button?
I trust an elected official more than the ignorant masses. You got a better idea.
But we need them. Not because of the threat posed by any other nation. We need them in case of space invaders.
:lol: what makes you think a civilization so advanced that it could travel the universe would be scared of nukes? That's like a neanderthal believing that his spear will be an effective weapon against a tank.
 
Something we learned from the Russians is that you don't actually have to possess a capability as long as your enemies are kept at bay with the belief that you do. :wink:

But it also led to MAD became really mad. The fear that the other side had more nukes then you and that you needed get more to prevent a sneak atack led to crazy spiral of more and more nukes. Like the last scene from doctor strange then dooms day are at hand, that the first things they need for their caves is nukes so they can prevent a sneak attack from the other sides cave.

Why would France and England reduce their arsenal of 350 nukes if the US and Russia reduced theirs to below 1000? I think this is an unrealistic assessment since French and British nuclear arsenals are relatively small and trimmed.

International pressure and reduced threath. That if USA and Russia started a serious downsize of their nuclear arsenal France and England would probably follow even if they kept most of their nukes.

:lol:

You really believe that? What country are you talking about? The US ability to project such power with conventional weapons, except in Canada and central America is rather limited.

And you also have to take into consideration that if the US tried such tactics on any large country it would also have to fight war against the country, and wars in the air, which would greatly reduce such a chance. Take Russia of China for example, if the US tried to flatten any of their cities with conventional weapons there would be war with equals, and most likely nuclear responses. So to think the US could flatten any cities with conventional weapons is ridiculous, they are completely dependent on nuclear weapons for any such tasks.

Do you even know how much firepower it take to flatten a major city with only regular bombings? Even with 100 planes that constantly go back and forward to bomb a city it would take days to flatten a city. If that city was anywhere across the pacific or the Atlantic the amount of time would increase enormously.

I'm not any expert on the subject and I could have prashed the post better. Still USA stands for almost half the world military spending and including USA allies two thirds of the worlds spending. That at the same time the power of conventional weapons have increase drasticly sens the WW2. So if any countries launched nukes against USA, the retaliation with regular weapon should be catastrophic to that country ecpecially sens then all glows are off. That conventional weapon could probably do as a deterrent. If USA wanted nukes to be certain it at least doesn't needs thousands of them.
 
I'm not any expert on the subject and I could have prashed the post better. Still USA stands for almost half the world military spending and including USA allies two thirds of the worlds spending. That at the same time the power of conventional weapons have increase drasticly sens the WW2. So if any countries launched nukes against USA, the retaliation with regular weapon should be catastrophic to that country ecpecially sens then all glows are off. That conventional weapon could probably do as a deterrent. If USA wanted nukes to be certain it at least doesn't needs thousands of them.

Actually the US military is quite weak, and conventional power at its peak in 2009 is still not strong by any measure.. Some people claiming the US military is the most powerful ever and so on is just untrue if you compare with the rest of the world and the most powerful militarizes of the past compared with the rest of the world. Anyhow its ofcourse more powerful than swords and shield militarizes.

The reality is such that we overestimate the current military capabilities of the developed world as very strong, when its actually not that strong at all. It would take years or decades for the US and Europe for example to win and conquer Russia or China together, and it would take a substantial part of our economies, and it would ruin things at home, in a conventional war, if we could ever do that, even together. The US or Europe doing it alone is just unrealistic, because militaries arent really so strong as we think they are, and military budgets, efforts, equipment and such would need a massive upgrade and at least 25% of our GDP(and 25-50% national effort) to stand any chance at waging such a war. We would need at least 25-50 million man in armed forced to take Russia completely, and this is completely counting out nuclear weapons, and it would probably take a 100 million men to permanently conquer China in the same way, or even more. Thats when our current troop numbers of 1.5 million in the US and close to 2 million in Europe seems quite weak, and our equipment capabilities far below what it needs to really be as strong as some people want to think it is.

Remember that Germany during the second world war had a total over 20 million men in service.
 
Actually the US military is quite weak, and conventional power at its peak in 2009 is still not strong by any measure.
What military is stronger, and by what relevant measure?

Some people claiming the US military is the most powerful ever and so on is just untrue if you compare with the rest of the world and the most powerful militarizes of the past compared with the rest of the world.
There's not a military in history that the current US military could not soundly defeat.

The reality is such that we overestimate the current military capabilities of the developed world as very strong, when its actually not that strong at all. It would take years or decades for the US and Europe for example to win and conquer Russia or China together, and it would take a substantial part of our economies, and it would ruin things at home, in a conventional war, if we could ever do that, even together
How does that mean the 'current military capabilities of the developed world' are not 'very strong'?

The US or Europe doing it alone is just unrealistic, because militaries arent really so strong as we think they are, and military budgets, efforts, equipment and such would need a massive upgrade and at least 25% of our GDP(and 25-50% national effort) to stand any chance at waging such a war.
Do you think that repeating your argument creates support for your argument?

We would need at least 25-50 million man in armed forced to take Russia completely....
"Defeating" Russia/China and "taking Russia/China completely" are extraordinarily different things. One need not accomplish the latter in order to accomplish the former.
 
Last edited:
Re: If the US unilaterally gave up her nukes...

... what other countries would follow suit?

Please state the reasons for you answer.

The USA is never going to give up its nuclear arsenal.
 
Re: If the US unilaterally gave up her nukes...

The USA is never going to give up its nuclear arsenal.
yes we will, when we invent something better :wink: nukes will be so passe then.
 
Back
Top Bottom