Why do we have Nuclear Weapons?
Discussion
A weird dream last night got me thinking....
Can we not all just get rid of them?
There should be an international ban because, if ever actually used, the effects would be disastrous.
I know there is the self-defense argument but if nobody had any then there is no need to defend with them.
Clearly this would result in the last couple of bombs being dropped on Iran, North Korea... perhaps Russia (hopefully not) who will refuse but is that actually a bad thing to do?
Looking at the bigger picture here.
Can we not all just get rid of them?
There should be an international ban because, if ever actually used, the effects would be disastrous.
I know there is the self-defense argument but if nobody had any then there is no need to defend with them.
Clearly this would result in the last couple of bombs being dropped on Iran, North Korea... perhaps Russia (hopefully not) who will refuse but is that actually a bad thing to do?
Looking at the bigger picture here.
jmorgan said:
Few years down the line and we are all cosy with no nukes and a little upstart in North Korea starts spouting off about getting S Korea or he will nuke Japan. Oh dear, someone not playing by the rules. We could use harsh language?
Thats why we Nuke them and take over the land.We can do the same with Iran.
Then we will have a happier world, have nice places to live/go on holiday and not live in fear of nuclear attack.
The biggest problem I have with them is that it only takes one lunatic to decide to use them and before we'd know it we'd be in a nuclear world war.
Imagine if Mugabe had nuclear weapons!! I wasn't too pleased about George Bush having control of them either.
I know its a cliche, but why can't we disarm (at a nuclear level) and just share the planet without having to threaten each others existance constantly. Its a very sad reflection on mankind that we cannot.
Imagine if Mugabe had nuclear weapons!! I wasn't too pleased about George Bush having control of them either.
I know its a cliche, but why can't we disarm (at a nuclear level) and just share the planet without having to threaten each others existance constantly. Its a very sad reflection on mankind that we cannot.
plasticpusher said:
jmorgan said:
Few years down the line and we are all cosy with no nukes and a little upstart in North Korea starts spouting off about getting S Korea or he will nuke Japan. Oh dear, someone not playing by the rules. We could use harsh language?
Thats why we Nuke them and take over the land.We can do the same with Iran.
Then we will have a happier world, have nice places to live/go on holiday and not live in fear of nuclear attack.
Fort Jefferson said:
Eric Mc said:
And people are reluctant to messs with you if you have them.
We've had them for years, and people still mess with us. So who out there, would have messed with us, who didn't, because we had nuclear weapons?
I was thinking of the "serious" variety.
plasticpusher said:
jmorgan said:
Few years down the line and we are all cosy with no nukes and a little upstart in North Korea starts spouting off about getting S Korea or he will nuke Japan. Oh dear, someone not playing by the rules. We could use harsh language?
Thats why we Nuke them and take over the land.We can do the same with Iran.
Then we will have a happier world, have nice places to live/go on holiday and not live in fear of nuclear attack.
plasticpusher said:
Thats why we Nuke them and take over the land.
We can do the same with Iran.
Then we will have a happier world, have nice places to live/go on holiday and not live in fear of nuclear attack.
I'm not sure if places that have been nuked are that much of a holiday destination really. Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't have a boom (excuse the pun) of package holiday deals after the bomb was dropped. Also the land that is left after an attack isn't that useful We can do the same with Iran.
Then we will have a happier world, have nice places to live/go on holiday and not live in fear of nuclear attack.
The simple reason we have them is that it's the safest way to ensure that they will never be used by a semi-rational leader. The day one falls into the hands of a terrorist organisation is the day we should worry about having them.
plasticpusher said:
A weird dream last night got me thinking....
Can we not all just get rid of them?
There should be an international ban because, if ever actually used, the effects would be disastrous.
I know there is the self-defense argument but if nobody had any then there is no need to defend with them.
Clearly this would result in the last couple of bombs being dropped on Iran, North Korea... perhaps Russia (hopefully not) who will refuse but is that actually a bad thing to do?
Looking at the bigger picture here.
.simple answer is no....'cos ther will always be some other cumt that has them.....Can we not all just get rid of them?
There should be an international ban because, if ever actually used, the effects would be disastrous.
I know there is the self-defense argument but if nobody had any then there is no need to defend with them.
Clearly this would result in the last couple of bombs being dropped on Iran, North Korea... perhaps Russia (hopefully not) who will refuse but is that actually a bad thing to do?
Looking at the bigger picture here.
Ok, lets look at 2 scenarios,
1. Iran or North Korea successfully develop a missile deliverable nuclear warhead but do not dare use if for fear of total annihilation by one of the nuclear club, instead they use it as a bargaining tool.
2. Iran or North Korea successfully develop a missile deliverable nuclear warhead which makes them the worlds only nuclear power and are free to use it in which ever way they see fit.
This is of course assuming we can convince every nuclear power to decommission all of their existing warheads (and not secretly develop new ones). The fact is that nuclear weapons have worked. They shortened WWII and prevented WWIII so one could argue they have made a valuable contribution to society.
1. Iran or North Korea successfully develop a missile deliverable nuclear warhead but do not dare use if for fear of total annihilation by one of the nuclear club, instead they use it as a bargaining tool.
2. Iran or North Korea successfully develop a missile deliverable nuclear warhead which makes them the worlds only nuclear power and are free to use it in which ever way they see fit.
This is of course assuming we can convince every nuclear power to decommission all of their existing warheads (and not secretly develop new ones). The fact is that nuclear weapons have worked. They shortened WWII and prevented WWIII so one could argue they have made a valuable contribution to society.
plasticpusher said:
jmorgan said:
Few years down the line and we are all cosy with no nukes and a little upstart in North Korea starts spouting off about getting S Korea or he will nuke Japan. Oh dear, someone not playing by the rules. We could use harsh language?
Thats why we Nuke them and take over the land.We can do the same with Iran.
Then we will have a happier world, have nice places to live/go on holiday and not live in fear of nuclear attack.
Maybe this is why Iran and N Korea believe they have to develop NukesGassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff