How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb

[BVS]

I don't recall the US being involved in a conflict on a WWI or WWII type scale since the end of WWII. Don't recall, UK, Germany, Japan or china being in one either. Think maybe we're collectively afraid of being wiped out by nukes ?

It's a major deterrent to mass global conflict, countries with nukes just don't get into huge wars. Think there would have been an Iran/Iraq war if one or both had nukes ?

World safer without nukes ? ROFLMAO!!!!

But to prove this is due to nukes is laughable. That's like saying, we haven't been attacked since 9/11 it must be Bush or the fact that I cut my hair.

Maybe it's just some have learned from history.

 

[toscano]

But to prove this is due to nukes is laughable. That's like saying, we haven't been attacked since 9/11 it must be Bush or the fact that I cut my hair.

Maybe it's just some have learned from history.

Lesson learned from WWII : "If they've got nukes, don't fuck with them"

What's laughable is to think that we are somehow safer if we don't have nukes.

 

[BVS]

Lesson learned from WWII : "If they've got nukes, don't fuck with them"

What's laughable is to think that we are somehow safer if we don't have nukes.

I said we're safer if the world has no nukes, big difference.

 

[redhotswami]

I said we're safer if the world has no nukes, big difference.

exactly.
why does the u.s. feel the need to hold other countries up to standards that it doesn't even hold itself to?

 

[trevster2k]

Interesting posts here. So those who believe the world is safer with nukes should totally understand the reasoning for countries around the world to arm themselves with nuclear weapons ala Iran. I guess every country on the planet should have nukes so no one ever attacks anyone, congratulations, you have just come with a plan of world peace based on the rational of "If they've got nukes, don't fuck with them". I hope they spell your name right on the Nobel peace prize.

Incidents like below are why the world is not safer with nuclear weapons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrov

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Alexandrovich_Arkhipov

A misunderstanding between two countries not pointing nuclear weapons can't potentially lead to the annihilation of the planet. Many of those weapons are still aimed at each other today despite the cold war being over.

The fear of terrorists acquiring a nuclear bomb is driving the policy of the "war on terror" which is hardly making the world safer.

This discussion reminds me of the gun in the house debate. People are safer if they keep a weapon in their house, umm, sure, whatever gives you peace of mind I suppose.

I guarantee you this, if Canada were ever to decide to acquire nuclear weapons, the US would never ever allow it to happen despite us being their ally. Not that we would even consider it. Most countries on this planet don't want nukes, maybe nuclear energy but not nukes.

 

[trevster2k]

exactly.
why does the u.s. feel the need to hold other countries up to standards that it doesn't even hold itself to?

Cause you're the good guys and everyone else are bad guys.

 

[BVS]

Interesting posts here. So those who believe the world is safer with nukes should totally understand the reasoning for countries around the world to arm themselves with nuclear weapons ala Iran. I guess every country on the planet should have nukes so no one ever attacks anyone, congratulations, you have just come with a plan of world peace based on the rational of "If they've got nukes, don't fuck with them". I hope they spell your name right on the Nobel peace prize.

Excellent post!!!

 

[toscano]

Interesting posts here. So those who believe the world is safer with nukes should totally understand the reasoning for countries around the world to arm themselves with nuclear weapons ala Iran.

LOL! Iran has stated intent to wipe certain countrie soff the face of the Earth, hardly the kind of responsible country you want having a nuke !

 

[toscano]

Cause you're the good guys and everyone else are bad guys.

It's worked so far. It would appear the major country vs. country land wars going on these days are of the no-nuke country vs. no-nuke country variety. Maybe we should tell them they're safer.....

 

[toscano]

I said we're safer if the world has no nukes, big difference.

Right. The world was safer in 1939.

 

[toscano]

you have just come with a plan of world peace based on the rational of "

I hope so too, it's tougher than "rationale"....

 

[A_Wanderer]

LOL! Iran has stated intent to wipe certain countrie soff the face of the Earth, hardly the kind of responsible country you want having a nuke !

The religious minded leadership of Iran has stated that, not really the country.

In general communists are fine with nuclear weapons for their own uses, they want to remain a hermit kingdom then nukes don't really change the calculus too much. Problems arise with nuclear proliferation to those that would use them; and that would be those with an interest in the afterlife.

 

[u2fan628]

At least one things for sure,If we didn't have nukes then only people would die and the planet will live on.(not counting biological warfare)

 

[trevster2k]

LOL! Iran has stated intent to wipe certain countrie soff the face of the Earth, hardly the kind of responsible country you want having a nuke !

You are aware that this is only rhetoric designed to appeal to a certain base within the country. Bush has even made subtle references to the possible use of nukes. Words are not actions.

Also, based on your theory of a nuke country wouldn't attack another nuke country, why would Iran attack either Israel or the US. MAD was a great deterrent so I am certain that getting destroyed while you blow up one or two cities would definitely be a deterrent.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Attack Israel, wipe out the Jews and bring about the occulted who can usher in global paradise under Allah.

 

[Axver]

exactly.
why does the u.s. feel the need to hold other countries up to standards that it doesn't even hold itself to?

Oh, but here's the best part: not only are other countries not allowed to have nukes, but the rest of us aren't allowed to object to the US doing whatever it wants with its own nukes. Don't believe me? Just look up why the US suspended its ANZUS Treaty obligations to New Zealand. You'll find it was in a completely juvenile fit of "waaa, do what we want! Your sovereignty is irrelevant!"

In any case, I'd like to contribute former New Zealand Prime Minister David Lange's incredible speech that nuclear weapons are morally indefensible to this discussion, as I feel it is relevant. For those who have the time, I recommend listening to the audio - it is amazing. Play it and remember a time when politicians were actually very eloquent and were highly skilled debators. David Lange is quite simply the most skilled orator out of all of the politicians I have ever heard. Oh yeah, and he didn't need ghostwriters either.

I suppose it is only appropriate for me to end this post with another Lange quote, one that remains relevant today. Lange was known for his quick wit, and he once remarked to the US Ambassador to New Zealand, who raced a horse called Lacka Reason, "you are the only ambassador in the world who races a horse named after his country's foreign policy".

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Right. The world was safer in 1939.

Ok, this line of thinking Kills me, if you honestly believe that the world is safer now than before Nuclear weapons were developed think about this:

"The United States maintains a current arsenal of around 9,960 intact warheads, of which 5,735 are considered active or operational."

From Wickipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_the_United_States

Now, lets assume that this is off by 1,000 warheads give or take. Remember that this is the US ALONE, this is not counting Russia or China or any other country's stockpile.

The only two bombs that have been used for military purposes were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were 20 kilotons each and combined wiped out roughly 100,000 Japanese citizens outright and caused countless deaths due to radiation and related cancers.

Here is the frightening part; the average payload for the current stockpiled warheads is between 475 kilotons and 1 Megaton - that is 1000 Kilotons!

Forget Ferris wheels, I don't know about the rest of you but this scares the shit out of me! And I really don’t care if they are never supposed to be used again, all it takes is one slip, one accident, one person who is not thinking clearly and BANG, that’s it…

 

[trevster2k]

Attack Israel, wipe out the Jews and bring about the occulted who can usher in global paradise under Allah.

You are aware that there are 30 million Americans who believe in armageddon and the second coming of Jesus who can't wait for it to occur in the Middle east region too so they can be lifted up to heaven during the rapture. Bush is one of them too but you don't see him launching the bombs, although his policies sometimes seem designed to create chaos instead of calm.

 

[BVS]

Right. The world was safer in 1939.

Your line of thinking cracks me up. And I only laugh because if I didn't I'd cry. Many have pointed out the flaws in your thinking so I won't continue to do so.

Do you or will you continue this thinking when raising children? Do you teach them "he who carries the biggest stick"?

 

[redhotswami]

Oh, but here's the best part: not only are other countries not allowed to have nukes, but the rest of us aren't allowed to object to the US doing whatever it wants with its own nukes. Don't believe me? Just look up why the US suspended its ANZUS Treaty obligations to New Zealand. You'll find it was in a completely juvenile fit of "waaa, do what we want! Your sovereignty is irrelevant!"

Oh I totally believe you. It is sad because it is true.

 

[Butterscotch]

And you trust North Korea to comply? How could our government be so naive?

 

[LyricalDrug]

And you trust North Korea to comply? How could our government be so naive?

Ronald Reagan used to say "trust but verify" when talking about nuclear disarmament. That's what this deal requires, too.

 

[toscano]

Your line of thinking cracks me up.

Ditto.

If you think some mad fuck like Reagan, Brezhnev, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung wouldn't have started something without the threat of nuclear war to prevent them shows just how lacking your knowledge of history and human nature is, as well as showing how deep your head is buried in the sand.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

Ditto.

If you think some mad fuck like Reagan, Brezhnev, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung wouldn't have started something without the threat of nuclear war to prevent them shows just how lacking your knowledge of history and human nature is, as well as showing how deep your head is buried in the sand.

Ok, but let me ask you this, would you rather have a war with nuclear weapons or without?

Because that is what this discussion really comes down to as far as I'm concerned, Justin24 posed this question near the beginning of the thread:

Do you think the world would honestly be safe with out nukes?

People have skirted around this issue saying we need nuclear weapons because others have nuclear weapons or other weapons that need to be kept in check.

What I am saying is that yes, the world would be safer if there were no nuclear weapons at all. I realize that this is probably impossible at this point but if nuclear technology had not been developed in the 1940's at all our world would be safer.

 

[BVS]

Ditto.

If you think some mad fuck like Reagan, Brezhnev, Stalin or Mao Tse Tung wouldn't have started something without the threat of nuclear war to prevent them shows just how lacking your knowledge of history and human nature is, as well as showing how deep your head is buried in the sand.

You're missing my point. I'm not saying wars are going to stop, with or without nukes. I'd just rather be in a war without.

If your thinking is all the big powers have nukes but just sit on them for threat's sake then your kidding yourself. They will be used or get in the hands of someone else, it's just that simple.