Will we ever throw the ring into Mt. Doom?

S

Sultan Bhargash

Trickster Reincarnated
Joined
Nov 15, 2001
Messages
7,608
Location
Missing The Harem
Philosophical question for you, as we learn of North Korea's ability to fire nuclear missiles at our west coast, and India today testing a missile that could reach major cities in Pakistan, and the usual rigamarole about Iran and Iraq...

Will the world ever be rid of nuclear weapons? Should this be a goal? If so, how could that goal be reached?

It is obvious in today's climate at least that a peaceful path to universal disarmament isn't going to be followed (although I can envision the circumstances under which it would happen). Is it possible to use military or economic means to disarm places like North Korea - and eventually "less dangerous" threats like India, Israel, Russia, or the United States?

In a recent documentary about the Lord of the Rings movies, Kate Blanchette offers up the question at the story's core- a great evil has come into the world? Do we have the will to unmake it?
 
Well, my guess is it will prbably happen, but only because we'll invent something better. Everyday I hope someone will use a "Nannite Diffuser" a la Civ CTP for any of you who are familiar with it. But realistically, probably only if we make something more destructive.

And I wouldnt list Russia as a world threat. They've made the switch from agressive to not-so-much, and should be ok. Right now they're just a country trying to keep itself together.
 
Originally posted by Padma
The genie is out of the bottle, and cannot be put back in.
Click to expand...
what if you rub it the right way??? :D

I think nukes are something we'll take to our extinction. Whether it causes it or not.
 
While I admire your idea, I'm not sure the analogy works. There isn't just one ring now. There are many. Those that have them are afraid to fight each other because they know they can't fight the rings of power, even with their own. So despite the fact that they are tools of war and evil, they actually seem to bring peace.
Though, I guess the question is, for how long? Would it have been worth it for the world to have continued to be in on-again off-again devastating conventional war for the last 50 odd years to eliminate the threat of our total anihillation? Depends entirely on whether we can keep that anihillation from ever coming to pass. So far we seem to be doing ok, but can we keep it up forever? Forever is a long time. Who can say?
 
If you think about it, no weapon is ever truly discarded. They are only improved upon. Maybe someday someone will make a 'clean nuke' (yes, I know about neutron bombs), and those will replace the current nukes, but they're still nukes.

So no, we will never be rid of weapons of mass destruction, because that is the easiest way to 'guarantee' your own survival.
 
I'm sure this has already been said, but the ring is not allegorical to nukes. Tolkien was against allegory.

Nuclear weapons will never be discarded, neither will other WMD. Even if Saddam agrees on giving them up (if he has them), the US would never give up their nukes for "reasons of self defense".

btw, is your current avatar taken from the movie Lagaan, Sultan?
 
Test specimen, yes it is from Lagaan! (Great film).

What I see about nuclear disarmament for the world is that it is a cause worth working towards, one I'd love to see the United States push on the United Nations with the old "or be irrelevant" tag. When I am president I will actually organize multinational citizen's brigades to march about watching the missiles dismantled. And as I've always said, if a police helicoptor can spot a basement gro-light from the air, there is no excuse for being "surprised" that nuclear weapons suddenly appear somewhere. Of course, the United States (maybe one or two others) would retain a few missiles to lob at incoming asteroids and protect our hegemony, just as smallpox that could have been eradicated is kept alive in labs in case the population ever gets unruly.

But I think the analogy holds; it is no accident that the "Ring of Power" in the Civ2 LOTR scenario is a nuclear missile.
 
It will take very long, until arms are reduced. Forever forgotten: never.


I think this world could be a better place, if more movies like Lagaan were made or more people watched them. Lagaan was the longest movie I ever watched, that seemed to last only half an hour.
 
As much as I'd love to see a world without nuclear weapons I don't think we will see it.

We don't have one "ring" we have many and we would have to destroy them all and make shure that no one ever forges a new one - both problems didn't exist in the LOTR.

Nations will insist on having such weapons for reasons of defence - defence against such weapons owned by others, legally or not. Perfect surveillance of the whole world in order to avoid the possession of contraband nukes is not a way to go as well, for civil rights reason as well as for the technical impossibility. Control of uranium? Very difficult.

Only a defensive system that could completely neutralize the effects of a nuclear weapon would help imho, but technically I see no way how it could work.
 
No, until something more devestating is discovered, nuclear weapons have the sole position of deterrence in weapons.
 
Yes, Immortal, I see what a great detterent they have been ;)
 
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
Yes, Immortal, I see what a great detterent they have been ;)
Click to expand...
Not sure if you're being cheeky here, but I must agree that they have been a deterrent, not only to nuclear wars, but also conventional ones. Since India and Pakistan have obtained nuclear weapons, they have militarily backed away from eachother (yes, I know they are not friends).

The exceptions to my thinking are 1) Israel was attacked by Syria at a time when they had nuclear weapons; 2) the USA was attacked by terrorists (this is a little more vague).

Nuclear weapons are not a deterrant to war (as evidenced by the fact that the US and Russia are constantly in armed conflicts), but it is a significant deterrant to having your home invaded.
 
We've had more conventional wars since the nuclear bomb was developed than all of recorded history before that.
 
A few semi-random points, since previous posters have already given some pretty good reasons for why nukes will likely not be eliminated:

1. John Mearsheimer (I think it was him) floated the idea a few years ago that the solution to world peace would be to give nuclear weapons to every nation on Earth. That way, every nation would be equally under the threat of such weapons, and therefore would be deathly afraid of engaging in offensive war.

2. Even if Mearsheimer was on the right track (and the great majority think he wasn'), the rise of non-state actors (i.e. terrorists) generates some immunity from the deterrent nature of such weapons. This is part of the current crisis over WMD, of course.

3. I'd arbitrarily place the chances of a continental European war having happened since WWII at about, say, 50% had nukes not been around. Perhaps even higher, since without nukes the relative advantage the superpowers have had over the rest of the world would have been reduced.

4. With the threat of annhiliation gone, there would be less of an incentive for otherwise rival nations (such as, say, Greece and Turkey) to hold the line against the USSR.

5. Nuclear weapons guarantee security like little else. There's a reason why Israel hasn't been invaded by an Arab neighbor since '73, and the US has to proceed extremely cautiously against North Korea where it doesn't have to (yet) with Iraq.
 
We've had more conventional wars since the nuclear bomb was developed than all of recorded history before that.
Click to expand...

Just noticed this, and couldn't let it pass.

What, exactly, do you mean? 50 years vs. 6000 years (or whatever your definition of recorded history is) seems pretty huge to me.

Even if you are correct (with respect to peripheral wars, ethnic conflicts, separatist movements, and so on adding up the total numbers of "wars"), there have been very few wars between great powers since the nuclear weapon was developed.
 
I was totally making it up, though I am sure it is close to the truth by casualties if nothing else.
 
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
We've had more conventional wars since the nuclear bomb was developed than all of recorded history before that.
Click to expand...
Originally posted by Sultan Bhargash
I was totally making it up, though I am sure it is close to the truth by casualties if nothing else.
Click to expand...
It was obvious you were making it up, because there is no way it is anything close to true! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Civlike game idea randomly ejected into cyberspace
Replies
10
Views
782
zuzim
Z
Aiken_Drumn
The end of Religion is inevitable?
15 16 17
Replies
323
Views
16K
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Klaus Hergersheimer
Drugs and the US market
4 5 6
Replies
112
Views
5K
Hygro
Hygro
Nikas Kunitz
What if we just remake this mod anew?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
Nikas Kunitz
Nikas Kunitz
Hickman888
The Greece Thread
Replies
5
Views
1K
trexeric
trexeric
Back
Top Bottom