EPTWhy states should have more nuclear weapons - Page 3
| Blogs > shArklight |
|
Artifex
Belgium189 Posts
| ||
|
Soleron
United Kingdom1324 Posts
Fanatical groups will pretty easily be able to steal the weapons from less stable countries though (how much nuclear material has gone missing from Russia since the 80s?) They won't hesitate to destroy the US/Israel/insert country here if they could. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind. A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way. Essentially, you are saying: "Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace." It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race. MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place. People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK. Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions. If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them? Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development. To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing. 2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover. We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space. All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
| ||
|
clownfish
Angola25 Posts
| ||
|
Shai
Canada806 Posts
| ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote: MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place. I mentioned like 5 examples of where MAD stopped a full war. India and Pakistan, China and India, China and the US (mid 90's Taiwan crisis), USSR and the US, etc. While perhaps nuclear weapons were not the only consideration for backing down; I think it's a fair bet they played a large role. I'll say it again, no two nuclear armed nations have ever gone to war with each other directly. Nuclear deterrants have essentially made conventional war between world powers irrelavent. If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them? Turkey is not a nuclear armed nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation Though NATO did (and maybe still does) have ICBMs in Turkey. To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing. I don't know that any one is arguing in favor of greater nuclear proliferation. I think the argument is for maintaining the US/UK/French nuclear deterrant depending on where you're from. At least that's the argument I would make. I don't want to see crazy dictators or religiously headed government with nuclear weapons, thus is why I support sanctions and military action against Iran. However I would say that free and fair democracies have every right to develop nuclear weapons, as long as they sign onto the non-proliferation treaty. If for example Germany wanted to develop nuclear weapons (hypothetically, I know it's unlikely) I wouldn't have a single problem with it. | ||
|
Bunn
Estonia934 Posts
It sad how it's possible that we(humans) could potentially destroy ourselves before finding aliens and achieving space travel.  | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On April 03 2012 04:54 TheToast wrote: I mentioned like 5 examples of where MAD stopped a full war. India and Pakistan, China and India, China and the US (mid 90's Taiwan crisis), USSR and the US, etc. While perhaps nuclear weapons were not the only consideration for backing down; I think it's a fair bet they played a large role. I'll say it again, no two nuclear armed nations have ever gone to war with each other directly. Nuclear deterrants have essentially made conventional war between world powers irrelavent. Turkey is not a nuclear armed nation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_proliferation Though NATO did (and maybe still does) have ICBMs in Turkey. I don't know that any one is arguing in favor of greater nuclear proliferation. I think the argument is for maintaining the US/UK/French nuclear deterrant depending on where you're from. At least that's the argument I would make. I don't want to see crazy dictators or religiously headed government with nuclear weapons, thus is why I support sanctions and military action against Iran. However I would say that free and fair democracies have every right to develop nuclear weapons, as long as they sign onto the non-proliferation treaty. If for example Germany wanted to develop nuclear weapons (hypothetically, I know it's unlikely) I wouldn't have a single problem with it. I'm sorry but it has been assumed by many knowledgable historians, including John Lewis Gaddis, one of the most prolific Cold War authors that MAD is a terrible idea, so I don't know what academic resource is telling you that MAD worked. It was an ok scare tactic, but was basically making everyone fear for their lives on a constant basis, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis. On April 03 2012 04:45 Shai wrote: You should just rename this thread "why the cold war was a great idea." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this. Astute, well stated, and completely succinct. This is basically what you are saying OP. | ||
|
taitanik
Latvia231 Posts
| ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On April 03 2012 03:18 zalz wrote: I would gladly have a dozen world wars every century if that meant nuclear weapons would no longer exist. No matter how gruesome, a conventional war will never mean the destruction of mankind. A single nuclear war will be the end of humanity existing in any meaningfull way. Existing off the scraps of a previous society and having no progress in terms of science is not existing in a meanginfull way. Essentially, you are saying: "Lets take the big gamble where we risk either absolute destruction or world peace." It is the principle of suicide. Nuclear proliferation will mean the end of the human race. MAD has never been tested on a large scale, it simply existed between two nations who both benefitted from the status quo. Outside of these large super powers, you have tiny nations that are more than willing to put entire nations to the sword over their ideology and have very little to lose in the first place. People like Mugabe would orgasm as the very idea of being able to nuke a country like the UK. Besides, world peace is not all it is cracked up to be. Totalitarian nations would be able to commit the worst crimes against humanity, like genocide, and they could never be held responsible for their actions. If Turkey decided to commit genocide against the Kurds, what would we do to stop them? Just look at North-Korea. Is it really that great that we can't keep them in line? Does that improve the human condition, or does it deteriorate it? It is very obviously a bad development. To argue in favor of nuclear proliferation is foolish at best and sickening at worst. You would throw all of humanity over the edge of the world, for nothing. 2000 years from now these little things that we care for, will be meaningless. What arrogance you must have to believe that our trivial problems are so important that they are worth risking the fate of the human race over. One single nuclear war will be the end of all progress, blasting us so far back that it is unlikely that we will ever recover. We are so close to going into space, a step that will make our race nearly immortal. As Carl Sagan said, we are in that small sliver of time where we are advanced enough to destroy ourselves, but not yet advanced enough to make our race immortal by spreading into space. All we need to do is stay in the ring for a hundred more years. And you would argue that we should give countries like Afghanistan nukes? Like hell we are going to murder all of humanity because "it's only fair" that a bunch of medieval theocrats have acces to weapons they cannot even build, let alone understand. what???? the UK gave mugabe rhodesia on a silver platter, he should be licking the Queen's foot.. | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
| ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
Please read about Mearsheimer's article in Foreign Affairs journal and Bruce Russet's Grasping Democratic Peace. | ||
|
AnachronisticAnarchy
United States2957 Posts
I do disagree with project zero, on the principle that most likely many nations will not get rid of every nuke and thus hold an insurmountable advantage, as well as the fact that we still know how to make more after Obama is satisfied he got all the nukes. The status quo, which is forbidding more nations for getting nukes, is the greatest solution I can see at the moment. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 03 2012 06:27 Endymion wrote: what???? the UK gave mugabe rhodesia on a silver platter, he should be licking the Queen's foot.. The guy still blames the UK for literally every last thing that is wrong with Uganda. If he could set off a nuke in the UK, he wouldn't hestiate for a second. | ||
|
Lokrium
United States131 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On April 03 2012 07:03 zalz wrote: The guy still blames the UK for literally every last thing that is wrong with Uganda. If he could set off a nuke in the UK, he wouldn't hestiate for a second. Zimbabwe. | ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
On April 03 2012 07:03 zalz wrote: The guy still blames the UK for literally every last thing that is wrong with Uganda. If he could set off a nuke in the UK, he wouldn't hestiate for a second. that's because he is a retarded dicatator with no hope of salveging zimbabwe.. same with south africa and mozambique as far as i'm concerned, the US and UK never should have fucked southern africa over even if they were racist, the area is paying the price now.. | ||
| ||
