Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Channex757 wrote:Nukes are a genie that will never go back into the bottle until something like the antimatter bomb comes along that is bigger in yield and relatively small.
It just isn't possible to uninvent the hydrogen bomb. Signatory nations can always store components to reassemble in times of conflict. It isn't the bombs themselves that are the issue, it's the knowledge of how to make them. That is something that can't be prohibited or abolished.
NLCFFX wrote:Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.
petertenthije wrote:Every permanent member of the UN security council has nuclear weapons, and has veto rights on UN decisions. How long do you think it will take for the veto to come down? Minutes or hours?
mjoelnir wrote:Some people sometimes forget that there is a treaty in existence, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. It has been ratified by most countries in the world, excluding India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan and North Korea has withdrawn.
The central bargain: the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals
You can judge how well the recognised nuclear states have fulfilled the disarmament bargain and how much pressure is put on all countries having not joined or withdrawn, too give up their nuclear weapons.
So it seems that most countries had already agreed to do what this resolution wants, just not when.
KFLLCFII wrote:NLCFFX wrote:Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.
Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.
Dutchy wrote:KFLLCFII wrote:NLCFFX wrote:Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.
Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.
So we should nothing?
petertenthije wrote:Every permanent member of the UN security council has nuclear weapons, and has veto rights on UN decisions. How long do you think it will take for the veto to come down? Minutes or hours?
KFLLCFII wrote:Dutchy wrote:KFLLCFII wrote:
Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.
So we should nothing?
You tell me...Should we tie our hands and, in effect, give all the cards to those who choose not to restrain themselves?
Dutchy wrote:KFLLCFII wrote:Dutchy wrote:
So we should nothing?
You tell me...Should we tie our hands and, in effect, give all the cards to those who choose not to restrain themselves?
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons, their normal military will be maintained. What do you think what will be changed?
Dutchy wrote:Or a bit more realistically, what if all the world's nuclear powers restrict themselves to 250 bombs, no more.
Dutchy wrote:So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...
KFLLCFII wrote:Dutchy wrote:KFLLCFII wrote:
You tell me...Should we tie our hands and, in effect, give all the cards to those who choose not to restrain themselves?
So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons, their normal military will be maintained. What do you think what will be changed?
Is that a serious question?
How about deterrent of nefarious countries from being wiped off the face of the Earth in a retaliatory strike?
KFLLCFII wrote:Dutchy wrote:Or a bit more realistically, what if all the world's nuclear powers restrict themselves to 250 bombs, no more.
Sounds like a far-less deterrent than, say, 2,500...or 25,000.
Phosphorus wrote:Dutchy wrote:So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons...
Well, we (Ukrainians) got rid of our nuclear weapons, and are now paying the price for that.
Planeflyer wrote:While I don't see a way to end war, it seems to me nukes are a major impediment to world wars.
I think nukes have a done a lot more than the UN ever has or will to keep the peace.
Don't get me wrong, I wish it was different.
Dutchy wrote:KFLLCFII wrote:NLCFFX wrote:Great, if only he world was that simple, only when Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, India, and ISIS all sign it, it may be worth something. The greatest risk comes not from the USA, Russia, or China but from countries either seeking wider conflict or with dictatorial leadership that will preserve their position at ANY cost.
Just like calls for gun/weapons bans and restrictions...The risk is not from those who would abide by it, but from those who wouldn't.
So we should nothing?
Dutchy wrote:So imagine a world were normal countries - yes I am including the US in this - got rid of nuclear weapons, their normal military will be maintained. What do you think what will be changed? Or a bit more realistically, what if all the world's nuclear powers restrict themselves to 250 bombs, no more.
aviationaware wrote:UN diplomats wasting millions to make pointless decisions like this one is what's wrong with the system. Time to cut UN funding by 50%.
Mortyman wrote:aviationaware wrote:UN diplomats wasting millions to make pointless decisions like this one is what's wrong with the system. Time to cut UN funding by 50%.
Yes because cutting funding is gonna make the UN more effective ?? The UN was set up when the world was very different and it needs to have some changes made to it to make it more capable to deal with todays situtations. The question is if the members of the UN are willing to make those changes. I'm guessing there would be changes to the Security councel for instance .... Maybe no Security councel at all. Maybe adittional members With veto Powers etc ....
It is not the UN as such that is the problem, but rather the members that make up the UN. The UN can only be as good as it's member states and sadly many UN members, certainly the veto Powers are more interested in what gains their specific country rather than the world as a whole.
Planeflyer wrote:Yes, cutting the funding would force the UN to do those limited tasks of which they can play a constructive role.
Zkpilot wrote:I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).
We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).
The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.
It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.
Zkpilot wrote:I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).
We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).
The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.
It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.
Dutchy wrote:Nukes don't work in space and aliens are way too smart if they have come over here, so we can agree that we don't need nukes .
mjoelnir wrote:As the current situation is with overkill by nuclear weapons, with both the USA or Russia being able to detonate their weapons at home and than the world dies, including Antarctica, and having this possibility about twice over, it seems to me that their are quite a few nukes to many around.
tommy1808 wrote:Dutchy wrote:Nukes don't work in space and aliens are way too smart if they have come over here, so we can agree that we don't need nukes .
Of course nukes work in Space. They are even pretty good at the kill everyone, but don´t damage stuff to much mission. But if you want to blow something apart, you do need to do some digging.
best regards
Thomas
Planeflyer wrote:Look it is a crummy deal that it takes nukes to keep the peace but given that we are capable of producing Hitler types I'll live w it.
Dutchy wrote:Zkpilot wrote:I think there should still be a nuke reduction plan in place but don't think they should be eliminated entirely (especially for the main countries - the likes of Nth Korea/Iran/Pakistan should get rid of theirs however).
We never know when we may need nukes to protect the planet from space (be it asteroids or aliens).
The threat of MAD or at least Significant AD has probably prevented a lot of conventional wars in the first place as the chance of them escalating is too dangerous.
It also makes sense in the context of uneven powers. - An example would be that without nukes there is little Russia could do to stop China invading and taking half their country due to the sheer numbers of military personnel that China can field.
Nukes don't work in space and aliens are way too smart if they have come over here, so we can agree that we don't need nukes
What I don't understand your logic, it is ok for Russia to have nukes to even the uneven powers in China and Russia, but it is not ok to even the uneven powers in America and North Korea. How do you feel about India having nuclear bombs? Or Israel - as we all know has hem? And you name Pakistan as the country which needs to get rid of theirs, although much can be said that Pakistan that nukes are even the playing field with India.
BTW Iran has no nukes, don't know where you get that from.
Planeflyer wrote:Tommy1808,
Never suspected you as a Hitler or a Tojo fan.
Btw, in your haste to argue you made my point when you stated that the Nazis never deployed chem/bio weapons. The only reason they didn't was because B17 and Lancaster's would have responded in kind. You see how deterrence works against Hitler( read megalomaniacs ) types? Not moving too fast I hope.
Planeflyer wrote:Ozair, Hitler had no compunctions about using gas in ww2. Keep in mind, he gassed millions of defenseless people.
Planeflyer wrote:Deterrence works, even against the worst sorts.
mjoelnir wrote:As the current situation is with overkill by nuclear weapons, with both the USA or Russia being able to detonate their weapons at home and than the world dies, including Antarctica, and having this possibility about twice over, it seems to me that their are quite a few nukes to many around.
Planeflyer wrote:Btw, in your haste to argue you made my point when you stated that the Nazis never deployed chem/bio weapons. The only reason they didn't was because B17 and Lancaster's would have responded in kind. You see how deterrence works against Hitler( read megalomaniacs ) types? Not moving too fast I hope.
Planeflyer wrote:Ozair, Hitler had no compunctions about using gas in ww2. Keep in mind, he gassed millions of defenseless people..
Planeflyer wrote:The Nazi's knew all too well their victims were people which is why they used gas in the first place and then tried to their best to hide their crimes. You see, even the most ardent of Nazis found it difficult to kill as many people as was required for the final solution. Gas was employed to automate the mass murder.
Ozair wrote:Certainly not arguing against that, I also agree that deterrence has worked and continues to work, especially from the maintenance of nuclear arsenals.
Planeflyer wrote:Tommy, the agreed upon # of nazi murders is 11 million. Given your knowledge of Captain Fritzsch you know as well as I that a few million as bad as this is significantly understates the magnitude of the crime.
The fact that he used it in concentration camps proved he had no compunction against its use.
It seems reasonable to assume the only reason he didn't use it on the allies was he knew the consequences. This is deterrence. And I'm sure his experience sitting out Lancaster and B17 raids in bunkers played the primary role.
And those raids didn't start on day 1. They started after the war was started. Now since you seem to be a nazi and no doubt a Bushido expert remind us all who did start it.
I'll agree w u that deterrence comes w significant costs. But nukes played a significant role is civilizing two of the most barbarous societies that ever existed.
Tough shit on both of them.