Nuclear Weapons

[Marcus]

Of course in a perfect world all the countries could throw away their nuclear weapons, and have a huge World Peace party with lots of free drink, musicians and plunge pools, and live happily ever after.

But this is not a perfect world. Many of the major countries in the world have nuclear bombs as a "last minute defence weapon". However, the problem and uncertainty, I feel, does not lie in these countries, it lies in other organisations and extremest groups. The Al-Qaeda, as you surely all know, have been after a bomb for a long time. Many believe it is the only reason they pulled out of Afghanistan, to focus their processes purely to get a bomb.

The major powers in the world all have a nuclear bomb, in all honesty, simply as a warning signal to such organisations and groups. On paper what they are basically saying with keeping these weapons is, "Make any sudden movements for a bomb, and we set this baby off, fireworks time." But in reality (remember this is all just my opinion) they are empty threats. I very much so doubt that countries such as USA and the UK would use the nuclear bomb the moment Al-Qaeda obtained one, they would play the waiting game. I am also willing to be my bottom dollar that Al-Qaeda knows this, and therefore the moment they get this bomb, they will set it off. But even if countries were prepared to use theirs the moment Al-Qaeda got their hands on one, surely the extremists would be able to set their's going first?

Therefore, nuclear bombs are not just kept for inter-country wars and campaigns, but also to keep the people we do need to worry about, in line.

But then the problem of more corrupt and more troubled countries must be taken into account. Countries like Zimbabwe and Israel, do we need to watch out for them acquiring one too? What would Mugabe do if he got hold of a nuclear weapon. Well, the list is endless of possibilites: run the country in fear, briberies, threats if anybody spoke out or challenged his authority. And Israel, it is fair to say that they are not exactly friendly with Palestine, countless battles, on and off, have gone on between the two. What would they do with a nuclear bomb, I'm sure Palestine is still fresh on their mind. And if you are questioning whether Israel is really that sort of country, take a look at this:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/28/3102825.htm

So, in conclusion, the question of nuclear technology and weapons is still very unclear. For the moment I believe we should keep them, until said organisations and groups are taken care of(if that will ever happen.) But then, there are the problems of other conflicts happening around the world; we must ensure that these countries never tag on to a nuclear technology leak. Of course the world would be a better place without it, but at the moment it is very difficult to do so.

However, it has been done. At this year's Nuclear Security Summit, where 40 world leaders gathered in Washington to discuss such world problems, South African President Jacob Zuma declared that they were putting an end to their nuclear technology advancements. Obama later described that South Africa, " "has been a strong, effective leader in the international community on nonproliferation issues. South Africa has special standing in being a moral leader on this issue." Maybe other countries need to be strong, and to set an example, and maybe the consequences will not be a severe as we imagine.

tl;dr? Read it, it's an interesting topic.

 

[EpicGamer12]

Breeding grounds lol

 

[Callie]

One word: Hiroshima.

Expanding on that one word: Nuclear bombings have large after affects, many people didn't die until years later from radiation. I say nuclear power is good when used in medicines, but let's keep it out of weapons (and possibly fuel sources, because all that left over radioactive stuff is just buried under ground)

 

[«Jack»]

One word: Hiroshima.

Expanding on that one word: Nuclear bombings have large after affects, many people didn't die until years later from radiation. I say nuclear power is good when used in medicines, but let's keep it out of weapons (and possibly fuel sources, because all that left over radioactive stuff is just buried under ground)

And then what happens once a rogue state with nuclear capabilities comes into play?
They now have the force behind them, and while others aren't powerless, there is still a significant military disadvantage.

 

[Callie]

One word: Hiroshima.

Expanding on that one word: Nuclear bombings have large after affects, many people didn't die until years later from radiation. I say nuclear power is good when used in medicines, but let's keep it out of weapons (and possibly fuel sources, because all that left over radioactive stuff is just buried under ground)

And then what happens once a rogue state with nuclear capabilities comes into play?
They now have the force behind them, and while others aren't powerless, there is still a significant military disadvantage.

Well, in an ideal world, all the countries would be ballsy enough to get rid of nuclear weapons. Of course we don't live in an ideal world.

If other countries use them, I still say we could use not nuclear weapons. So we wouldn't stoop down to their level. But at the same time, if it was taken too far, then maybe we should use them. But I say we should avoid it all costs.

 

[«Jack»]

One word: Hiroshima.

Expanding on that one word: Nuclear bombings have large after affects, many people didn't die until years later from radiation. I say nuclear power is good when used in medicines, but let's keep it out of weapons (and possibly fuel sources, because all that left over radioactive stuff is just buried under ground)

And then what happens once a rogue state with nuclear capabilities comes into play?
They now have the force behind them, and while others aren't powerless, there is still a significant military disadvantage.

Well, in an ideal world, all the countries would be ballsy enough to get rid of nuclear weapons. Of course we don't live in an ideal world.

If other countries use them, I still say we could use not nuclear weapons. So we wouldn't stoop down to their level. But at the same time, if it was taken too far, then maybe we should use them. But I say we should avoid it all costs.

So let's say North Korea/Iran nukes Washington D.C. and nuclear weapons have been eliminated from the arsenals of other countries.
It's not a one-time shot. Countries don't build a single nuke.
Now you've got an armed and dangerous rogue state that's proven they will use nuclear force, and they have the clear upper hand with a nuclear arsenal.

Pacifism's not going too well, huh?

 

[Callie]

One word: Hiroshima.

Expanding on that one word: Nuclear bombings have large after affects, many people didn't die until years later from radiation. I say nuclear power is good when used in medicines, but let's keep it out of weapons (and possibly fuel sources, because all that left over radioactive stuff is just buried under ground)

And then what happens once a rogue state with nuclear capabilities comes into play?
They now have the force behind them, and while others aren't powerless, there is still a significant military disadvantage.

Well, in an ideal world, all the countries would be ballsy enough to get rid of nuclear weapons. Of course we don't live in an ideal world.

If other countries use them, I still say we could use not nuclear weapons. So we wouldn't stoop down to their level. But at the same time, if it was taken too far, then maybe we should use them. But I say we should avoid it all costs.

So let's say North Korea/Iran nukes Washington D.C. and nuclear weapons have been eliminated from the arsenals of other countries.
It's not a one-time shot. Countries don't build a single nuke.
Now you've got an armed and dangerous rogue state that's proven they will use nuclear force, and they have the clear upper hand with a nuclear arsenal.

Pacifism's not going too well, huh?

Ok you're right. But I'm just saying we shouldn't use them willy nilly. If that happens, yeah, let's break out the nukes. I guess let them strike first. However if they hint/we know they are going to use them before we do, let's also break them out.

 

[«Jack»]

Quoting limited to 4 levels deep

Well, in an ideal world, all the countries would be ballsy enough to get rid of nuclear weapons. Of course we don't live in an ideal world.

If other countries use them, I still say we could use not nuclear weapons. So we wouldn't stoop down to their level. But at the same time, if it was taken too far, then maybe we should use them. But I say we should avoid it all costs.

So let's say North Korea/Iran nukes Washington D.C. and nuclear weapons have been eliminated from the arsenals of other countries.
It's not a one-time shot. Countries don't build a single nuke.
Now you've got an armed and dangerous rogue state that's proven they will use nuclear force, and they have the clear upper hand with a nuclear arsenal.

Pacifism's not going too well, huh?

Ok you're right. But I'm just saying we shouldn't use them willy nilly. If that happens, yeah, let's break out the nukes. I guess let them strike first. However if they hint/we know they are going to use them before we do, let's also break them out.

That's essentially the reason I'm opposed to the full eradication of nuclear weapons: there will always be someone crazy enough to use them. There is no perfect world, and self-defense may become necessary in the future.