The idea of having a nuclear weapon as a deterrent i.e. other countries attacking with nuclear weapons (kinda like the UK and USA goverments said Iraq could use... twice, both with a damn bush in office) ...is the most backwards thing ever.
Lets say russia (sorry, too much MW2 and BF2) fires a nuclear weapon at america, so america "retaliates" with a nuke of its own. Its pretty obvious noone wins in this situation.
I also looked up the dictionary spelling of "DETERRENT" and happend to see this as one of the defenitions.
3.military strength or an ability to defend a country or retaliate strongly enough to deter an enemy from attacking.
so even the dictionary says to deter means not to get an ass whoopin cos your guns are bigger "to deter a country from attacking"
Would a country really retaliate with a nuke if fired upon and is it right to do so?
After all... noone wins and mostly innocent people die. Because some fool made decisions for us.
I think nukes should be abolished, and anyone who thinks otherwise is welkomm to try and make a point.
I think nukes should be abolished, and anyone who thinks otherwise is welkomm to try and make a point.
It's like abolishing guns. If you take them away, the only people who have them are villains. If a villain is the only one who has nukes, then he has nothing to fear by using them.
Nobody wants to defend themselves with nuclear weapons and it won't be easy to abolish them from countries that hide them.
it also doesnt help that you can figure out how to make a nuke on the internet.... nuclear weapons are one thing that should have never have been invented... it finally gave mankind the ability to effectively destroy itself.
Anyone with a six month course in nuclear physics can make a nuke. It's not as insanely hard as it seems, and small nukes can be made with very little resources.
Abolishing nukes is pointless. It only allows you to have your pants around your ankles while your enemy lays waste to your country.
Overpowering force has always been a deterrent. You aren't going to take on someone twice your size, unless you have a gun. Let's say nuclear weapons are guns. You, a smaller person, could kill a larger person with a gun. Until that larger person gets an even bigger gun than you. Now you still aren't going to attack them, because you know you are dead either way.
it also doesnt help that you can figure out how to make a nuke on the internet....
Anyone with a six month course in nuclear physics can make a nuke. It's not as insanely hard as it seems, and small nukes can be made with very little resources.
Lol guys, of course, all nuclear physicists have a few dozen nukes at home, just in case a burglar comes in. I dunno who told you that nuclear bombs were easy to build, but if that was really the case then we should be much more afraid of terrorists... But I find it hard to believe.
Anyone with a six month course in nuclear physics can make a nuke. It's not as insanely hard as it seems, and small nukes can be made with very little resources.
Thats not true at all. Refining uranum is an extremely difficult, lengthy and expensive process.
As to th eop, im not so sure. On the one hand, it seems dangerously fatalistic to think that the only reason the entire world isnt at war is because we all have the capacity to annhilate each other at the push of the button.
On the other hand, the only way i can see nuclear disarmament happening is in the light of the invention of a much more powerful weapon. MAD is a myth in my opinion, since nukes offer no defensive capacity, but rather an intangible psychological benefit. This isnt something which justifies the existence of something so dangerous in my opinion.
How come that some countries have succeeded in abolishing nukes? Germany for example got rid of their nukes, but America, Korea (maybe) and some other countries still have them. Why does America have nukes? Because they want to show their supremacy over other people and because they think they can fix everything with a single atom bomb! They waste so much money on their arms and army when other countries are perfectly happy without Nukes!
Germany for example got rid of their nukes, but America, Korea (maybe) and some other countries still have them.
Euh Germany was never allowed to have nukes... Theoretically only the permanent members of the UN security council are allowed to have nukes (eg. France, UK, USA, Russia and China) but Israel also has them and several other countries have the capabilities to produce them.
I take it this is what i saw posted on BBC News today using Snaptu on my mobile.
Remember this;
The media is a nuclear weapon, it's a ticking time bomb. They word everything to cause mass hype, the fact is the mass hype can cause more unwanted inconvenience then anything else possibly could because the majority of the world follows what they read in a newspaper, and little of the majority ever actually go and witness the headlines first hand.
yes the world has nuclear weapons, but for N.Korea to threaten a Nuclear Deterrent, i'm pretty sure, no i'm positive that the situation would be a lot more serious then it's made out to be.
N.Korea seem to throw there toys out the pram whenever they don't like something, although it is all just hot air, places such as N.Korea are ruled by some crazy, sick and twisted SOB, that would more than likely go ahead with an attack. Even if they knew a nuke would be sent back, because it's how some people are.
An example would be that, you and another person both have a gun pointed at each others heads point blank. If you pull the trigger, they will have a high chance of pulling the trigger as well. So best example really of how mentally ill N.Korea's leaders are. And the country really as a whole.
It's like abolishing guns. If you take them away, the only people who have them are villains. If a villain is the only one who has nukes, then he has nothing to fear by using them.
I have to completly disagree.
If I get into a fight and guns are available to carry, then I face the worry that the other dude is scared and decides to pull his pistol out and shoot me.
The big difference in a gun and a nuke is nukes dont stop at one silly mistake. We are still testing nuclear bombs on the remote places of this world!
So best example really of how mentally ill N.Korea's leaders are. And the country really as a whole.
You cant put a whole country under one "mental health" banner.
In the medieval times, siege engines were the most devastating weapon. However, nobody in the medieval times said they should abolish siege engines.
A single siege engine couldn't kill millions of people in seconds or level an entire modern city. It's a lopsided analogy you're making here - siege engines were dangerous, but they weren't absurdly powerful. They didn't have the potential to destroy the civilized world.
Nukes are a tough topic, really. They shouldn't be completely abolished until they can be completely controlled, which won't happen for a while.
And lol Orion, nukes are not easy to build. Raw uranium can't make a nuke.
They shouldn't be completely abolished until they can be completely controlled, which won't happen for a while.
On the contrary... they should be abolished immidiately...
Perhaps we should be looking to nuclear defences.
If a terrorist wants to "nuke" a city, then who exactly would we fire back at??? I seriously doubt any world leaders are nuts enuf to fire a nuke at europe or america. its more likely to be a terrorist group, and thay are more likely to be a sophisticated and VERY well funded organisation.
An eye for an eye ends up with everyone dead, which doesnt please anyones god when it comes to nukes.
On the contrary... they should be abolished immidiately...
That would make no sense. Our arm of abolishment can only reach as far as UN countries. Iran and NK don't give a f**k about the UN or the sanctions we'll give them - until we can control all the nukes, abolishing them will only take them away from the level-headed countries too smart to actually use them. Nukes are a valuable deterrent against Iran and NK for now - once they're in the UN and the UN security council's directives mean anything to them, we should abolish nukes. For now, we have no authority over the other countries, and it would be shooting ourselves in the foot to not have such a threat hanging over their heads, preventing them from trying to attack the USA or other UN countries.
Perhaps we should be looking to nuclear defences.
The USA already has pretty good nuke defences - it's just that countries like NK and Iran will try to get past them if they don't fear retaliation. Nukes are a convincing deterrent, especially considering how ours would destroy their country, while theirs would take out a major city. It's too much of a risk for NK and Iran to have no fear in trying to nuke us. Once the UN Security Council can actually tell them what to do, or we get rid of their programs to refine uranium and create nukes, then we abolish them.
I seriously doubt any world leaders are nuts enuf to fire a nuke at europe or america
Ahmadenijad(however you spell his name) and Kim Jong-Il are definitely stupid enough. They both hate the Western world, and would be fine with trying to destroy it. But they won't try to, because they will fear retaliation from another nuke-bearing country. Like I keep saying, abolishing nukes is pointless if it doesn't actually abolish all nukes. We can't abolish nukes now, as it stands, because we can't control all the nukes. Which is why I'm saying we shouldn't try to abolish all nukes until it is feasibly possible to do so. About the terrorist organizations, they just need to be destroyed. Of course, all-out war doesn't work on destroying them. They're a different animal entirely - our biggest deterrent doesn't work on them. But abolishing nukes really doesn't pertain to terrorist organizations - if we can control every country's nukes, we can control the supply of enriched uranium, and if we get rid of both from every government, we'll just have to worry about tracking down the very little that would get into the hands of terrorists.
An eye for an eye ends up with everyone dead, which doesnt please anyones god when it comes to nukes.
That's obvious - but if someone wants to poke out your eye, but is scared to because you'll gouge our both of their eyes and then obliterate them in retaliation, they're not likely to attempt it.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm all for the abolishment of nukes, but it makes no sense to try when we can only influence some of the supply.
