No More Nukes?

[knowltok2]

If you had the choice, would you eliminate all nuclear weapons and the ability to make more. This is a hypothetical, and in it, there would be no possibility of any more nuclear weapons. Reactors would still work and everything else continues the same, just that no nation has, or ever will have nuclear weapons. The effects are irreversable, and are public knowledge.

 

[andycapp]

Given the hypothetical situation you've constructed you would have to be MAD if you didn't vote yes!

 

[CurtSibling]

Without nukes, we would have a world like the 1930's and 1940's
with nations facing off with vast armies and bullying each other
with conventional warfare...geopolitics and mass destruction.

Anyhow you forget about the threat from the other two from the
magic ABC combination;

Atomic,
Bacterial,
Chemical,

All these weapons are deadly.

Nukes are not the only weapon available, as we have been
shown, a madman can make a passenger jet into a tool of
damned terrorism.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
Anyhow you forget about the threat from the other two from the magic ABC combination;

If you mean me, I didn't forget them at all.

 

[BlueMonday]

I'm a realist, not a head in the clouds optimist. So forgive me for saying that we should keep them around. Nuclear weapons are one of those things that once you have them, there is absolutely no going back. There is always going to be someone who has them, and there will always be someone who might actually be dumb enough to use them. No matter what happens I like the idea that if someone does get really stupid, we can have them and everyone they've ever met vaporized in a matter of an hour.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by knowltok2


If you mean me, I didn't forget them at all.

I was speaking metaphorically, old chap!

 

[dannyevilcat]

Without nukes, we would have a world like the 1930's and 1940's
with nations facing off with vast armies and bullying each other
with conventional warfare...geopolitics and mass destruction.

I don't know if it's so much a catch-22, or a matter of opinion. The main question posed here is whether the relative stability nuclear weapons have provided is worth the living in fear of it's awesome power.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by BlueMonday
No matter what happens I like the idea that if someone does get really stupid, we can have them and everyone they've ever met vaporized in a matter of an hour.

It's unfortunate that we and everyone else gets vapourised too.
That's called massive counterassault...
But that's the breaks, we made the damn things now we
have to live with them...

Nuke are not big, and they're not clever, but they stop world wars.

:crazyeyes

 

[dannyevilcat]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


It's unfortunate that we and everyone else gets vapourised too.
That's called massive counterassault...
But that's the breaks, we made the damn things now we
have to live with them...

Nuke are not big, and they're not clever, but they stop world wars.

:crazyeyes

They only stop wars when reasonble men and women feel what they stand to lose is greater than what they stand to gain.

Should a terrorist get a hold of such weapons, he would not hesitate to use it. So they have stopped World War 3 from happening so far, will this always be the case?

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


I was speaking metaphorically, old chap!

Just making sure. I was wondering when someone would point out the other WMDs. There are a couple of ways of looking at this hypothetical, and I don't think it is an automatic.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by dannyevilcat



They only stop wars when reasonble men and women feel what they stand to lose is greater than what they stand to gain.

Should a terrorist get a hold of such weapons, he would not hesitate to use it. So they have stopped World War 3 from happening so far, will this always be the case?

Obviously, a terrorist in this day and age can make commercial
air transport into a weapon, as I pointed out.

It's a dangerous situation...

I was speaking in terms of nation vs nation standoffs.
Terrorist lunatics and their sick agendas bring the nuke question
into totally new territory.

I agree, that the world is becoming less safe.

 

[Hitro]

Interesting question

Hard to answer though. There are different perspectives, some already mentioned.
First, what about the other weapons of mass destruction?
Well, I'd probably agree to andycapp, if you would have the chance to eliminate such weapons (and even if it's just the A, not B or C), you should take it. The mere existence of B and C doesn't imply a need for A, if you know what I mean.

Another thing is the indirect contribution to peace that nukes have had and maybe still have.
It was good that they (and other weapons of mass destruction) existed during the cold war, otherwise it probably wouldn't have stayed cold. Again I think, eliminating A wouldn't have changed so much, as B and C would still be there and should have been enough to prevent WW3. (Of course all that needs these weapon on both sides of a confrontation)

Now how about today? Eliminating nukes would still be "okay" in the sense of not threathening peace, as long as the other weapons would still remain on all relevant sides. It might be arguable if nuke are more effective in preventing all out war then B and C weapons but I'd think modern weapons of that kind would probably have the same effect.

But what if you could eliminate ALL weapons of mass destruction? Would that make war more likely to break out? I'd say yes.
Would it take away a hue threat also considering terrorism? I'd also say yes.
So what weighs more? It's a hard decision, but I would eliminate all weapons of mass destruction if possible. The threat would definetely be solved then, and war wouldn't definetely break out. That would be the decisive factor for me.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

Keep them!
Love them!
Appreciate them!
>gets so worked up he leaps out of seat<
Mein Fuhrer! I CAN WALK!!!!!!

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade

Mein Fuhrer! I CAN WALK!!!!!!

Talking to yourself again, eh Simon?

 

[Juize]

Originally posted by CurtSibling
(..)Nukes are not the only weapon available, as we have been
shown, a madman can make a passenger jet into a tool of
damned terrorism.

Yeah, but with passenger jets you couldn't make any serious damage to any country.

Chemical and Biological weapons, well... they are not nice.

 

[sgrig]

Without nukes, there would probably have been another world war just a few years after WW2 finished, so ironically, I think we've got to thank nuclear weapons for that the cold war did not turn into a real world war.

Currently nuclear weapons are still a restraining factor all over the world.

Just some examples:
1)India - Pakistan confrontation: do you think they would still be at peace if neither of them had nukes?
2)Middle East: imo, there would have been at least a few more all-out Arab-Israeli wars since 1973 had Israel not acquired nuclear weapons. Israel's nuclear weapons, although they irritate the Arab neighbours, they stop Arab countries from going to war with Israel.

In any case, nuclear weapons make countries stop and think before declaring war on each other.

Personally, I don't think it's realistic that terrorists can pose a potent nuclear threat to the West. Even if they somehow (very unlikely) do acquire nuclear material or already made nuclear weapon, they've still got to deliver that weapon to its destination. I somehow think it would be quite hard to smuggle a nuclear weapon to USA or Western Europe from somewhere like Iraq or Afghanistan! (If anyone has any ideas how to do that, don't share your ideas with others, in case there are some terrorists lurking here! )

Of course CBW are another issue...

 

[ComradeDavo]

Get rid off the Nukes, they are weapons of mass destruction that would kill millions, if I had a chance to remove them forever then I would most definetly sieze upon it. Peace and love to all etc etc:yinyang::love2:

 

[VoodooAce]

Seems to me the gist of the question is being ignored.

It wasn't if 'we' get rid of them, meaning the U.S. or the west. It was what if ALL nukes were, pardon the expression, magically eliminated. For whatever reason, we couldn't explode a nuclear weapon.

So the argument that someone else might still use them is invalid. Curt's mention of chemical and biological weaponry was valid. But let's not forget that there isn't any guarantee that any nuclear exchange would be limited. They are, after all, capable of ending us as a species. Hello.

Regardless, its easy to say they 'serve a purpose' until a couple of hydrogen bad boys go off over a couple of the world's more populous cities and take out as many as might die in a world war anyway.

IMHO, the obvious answer would be, "Of course. Get rid of them!".

It would be ridiculous to keep the potential tools of our extinction handy for any....ANY reason at all.

 

[CurtSibling]

Originally posted by Juize


Yeah, but with passenger jets you couldn't make any serious damage to any country.

Chemical and Biological weapons, well... they are not nice.

As I have said,
Twice.

 

[Sparrowhawk]

I'm one of the No votes, but I suppose in retrospect I should really be in the "It Depends" category.

I would support getting rid of all Nuclear weapons, provided that didn't mean giving up nuclear explosives. In other words, I'm all for not using nukes as weapons, but their potential usefulness as engineering tools would keep me from getting rid of them. I mean, how else are we suppposed to start shifting asteroids around for industrial purposes? And of course there's always the "killer asteroid - need nukes to save the planet" scenario.

I say we keep nuclear explosives, but grow up and stop pointing them at other people.