Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to No Mercy 4 Life. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Are you for FULL nuclear disarmament?
Yes 4 (50%)
No 4 (50%)
Total Votes: 8
Do we need full nuclear disarmament?
Topic Started: Apr 17 2010, 03:54 PM (401 Views)
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Given the nuclear forum that happened last week and in light of the words of presidents who have desired zero nuclear weapons, should the United States seek a short or medium-term goal of full nuclear disarmament? (I leave out long-term because if the whole world unites in miraculous prosperous peace in the future we could get rid of all weapons but I don't want that argument)

----

I personally say No, I simply don't think it's a likely worldwide possibility. While there's no current nuclear threat from any individual state, that doesn't mean this will always be the case. You can look at India and Pakistan as an example of spontaneous nuclear development independent of anything America did (besides invent the bomb that is). I'm for reducing the numbers because the fewer nukes, the less likely a terrorist group can acquire one, so I appreciate what happened this week at the nuclear forum. That being said, I think China has written the script for responsible nuclear use, as they only have around 180 warheads compared to the US/Russia's 2000 or so apiece. This is enough to serve as a deterrent without destroying the world again and again and again. Further they have zero weapons on high alert while we and Russia still do. There's really no point to have them on high alert, and taking them off would reduce the chances of an accidental launch, not that one's likely, and improving diplomatic ties. Improved diplomacy would allow us, Russia, China, and all the other nuclear states to collectively improve security and safety standards, making uranium transfer to a terrorist much more difficult.

I imagine that this static environment of a small number of non-high-alert nukes that still suffices as a deterrent can be non-threatening to non-nuclear states if adopted as a global standard and partnered with uranium protection. Then once we get to that super-happy world of peace we can shoot them bastards at the sun and watch the pretty colors.
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
El Creepo H
Member Avatar
Smackdown Board President
Without nukes, how will we be able to defend against the aliens of Independence day?
"Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CanadianCrippler
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
Do we 'need' full nuclear disarmament? I would say yes, because the existence of just one armed nuke is one more than the world needs.

'Should' we explore the idea of full nuclear disarmament? I would say no, not at this moment. There are too many corners of the world unaccounted for. The disarmament of one or more superpower would give the advantage to the cave dwelling anarchist, or whoever is hiding a stash somewhere.

El Creepo H
Apr 18 2010, 01:12 PM
Independence day?

TURRIBLE MOVIE JUSSSS TURRRRIBLE
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Silo
Member Avatar
NM Legend
Yes, but it will never happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
El Creepo H
Member Avatar
Smackdown Board President
We don't need nukes when we have Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum
"Those who matter don't mind and those who mind don't matter"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
USCHAMP
Member Avatar
Has no zazz
I voted "yes" because 59 years ago Klaatu said we had to or else feel the wrath of space robot enforcers that would destroy Earth.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
capeda
Member Avatar
NM Champ
[ *  *  *  * ]
Would 'full' nuclear disarmament imply getting rid of nuclear power sources as well? Because I think fusion reactors would be remarkably clean and efficient if we ever get around to finishing the technology.

As far as weaponry... Yeah in an ideal state of affairs, completely zilching the world's supply of WMDs would be awesome. Realistically though, you don't want to be the hated nation that disarms when other nations would have the weapons and the same attitudes. So I would definitely hold off, at least until we get rid of religion and the world flies under one flag.
CAPED A ZOMFG?!?!!?!??!?!!!?!???!
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TheEyebrow
Member Avatar
NM Headliner
I intentionally excluded nuclear energy. If the world ever builds fast nuclear reprocessing centers, all the used fuel would stay internal and not have to be stored or at risk of theft.
Posted Image-----The Eyebrow-----Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
« Previous Topic · News & Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply