Nuclear Weapons: Should countries be allowed to have them?

[Electricbluewolf]

Ok, after having some lessons on nuclear weapons at school, I was wondering if countries really need them. Like did you know that the U.K has 30 nuclear sub-mariens in the waters, 'for guarding and testing'. And when will there be a war where we really, really need them? Or do we need them on stand-by?

Go ahead discuss!

 

[raichu2626]

I don't think anyone should have them since they really don't bring anything to positive but its kind of hard to stop countries since the UN has about as much power as my dog does at convincing the big countries.
I just don't get what the plan would be for all the nukes, like are we actually planning on using them all? I really have to think that wouldn't work out too well.

 

[BlazeShadow]

In a way, yes. If at least one country has nukes the others will want them too.

It doesn't really matter as long as they aren't used, though. Which they shouldn't be.

 

[CSolarstorm]

Ideally, we should consider nuclear technology itself the enemy, because 1) there are nuclear weapons that can obliviate us, 2) the presense of nuclear technology mandates us to have our own nuclear weapons to "get" the other country before they "get us".

Nuclear technology is an advancement that's really holding us at gunpoint. It's a philosophical matter. A single paranoid fiasco could obviate half the world...

On the other hand, I suppose the threat of death being closer, the "doomsday clock" being closer to midnight forces world powers to try to act in a more civilized fashion in order to woo each other into you know, not destroying everything, making the world a nicer place.

That's why we take all these preemptive strikes, because the superpowers of the world are trying to be proactive in preventing future war, which would probably use nuclear weapons, creating a horrible, fractured and diseased, sterile world.

The threat of apocalypse could psyche the world into doing anything...it's rather scary, either we all die or we try to initiate an absolute utopia to keep ourselves from dying, and that idea itself could bring the world closer to using our nuclear arsenals. The more actions we take motivated by the threat of nuclear weapons...the more we'll eventually be driven to use them.

Really tests mankind's faith in the Christian doctrine, "turn the other cheek", doesn't it?

 

[Tim the turtle]

It really is an all or nothing thing with nukes. If no one has them then there is of course no problem, so long as you can effectively ensure that no one has any in secret and that no one will ever be able and willing to produce them at some point.

However if one nation does have them then other nations need them too. Nukes are simply too powerful to ignore, they are capable of destruction on such a massive scale that they can make the use of conventional armies almost useless. Thus the only real deterrant to a nation with nukes is... more nukes. MAD is a good thing, it prevents the use of nuclear weapons by pretty much all nations. (there may always be some rogue states that just don't give a **** but overall at least) The only other thing stopping the use of nukes is the moral consideration. To put it simply, most people, even those with access to nukes, do not want to use them. Generally speaking no one wants to cause a genocide or to affect the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals. A nuke is always going to be a last resort for most nations, and as the deterrents that they are they do a sterling job.

 

[charizard987]

Keeping nukes is sort of a warning. Like a sign saying there are attack dogs on the property. Most countries with nukes aren't going to want to use them,but keep them to scare other countries. And really,none of them will even consider getting rid of their nukes,becuase they can't know if other countries will get rid of theirs. A kind of prisoners dilemma, I think.

 

[Shiny hunter Reece]

Countries often have them as a warning, and as a last resort for self defence. They rarely need to be used, but it's better to have them ready in case of extreme emergency.

 

[AlanL]

Nuclear weapons technology exists whether the actual weapons do or not, and if somehow, magically, all the world's nukes vanished... I would say, almost immediately, someone's going to try and build an arsenal of nukes all over again, because the weapon's power not just as a weapon directly, but as a tool of political leverage can shift the course of the entire world.

Not to mention, having them doesn't mean we'll be using them. As pointed out earlier:

MAD is a good thing, it prevents the use of nuclear weapons by pretty much all nations. (there may always be some rogue states that just don't give a **** but overall at least) The only other thing stopping the use of nukes is the moral consideration. To put it simply, most people, even those with access to nukes, do not want to use them. Generally speaking no one wants to cause a genocide or to affect the deaths of hundreds of thousands of individuals. A nuke is always going to be a last resort for most nations, and as the deterrents that they are they do a sterling job.

Nuclear weapons actually promote peace by scaring people out of attacking. This is shown in the numbers, conflicts between powerful nations have declined dramatically in the modern day. During the cold war, the United States and Russia seldom ever engaged in direct combat, hence the 'cold' in cold war.

Finally... is it really our right to tell countries whether they can or can't build nukes? It's their country, land and resources. If they want to spend their resources on nukes, that's their choice. To make an analogy, if I decided to put a cannon on my front yard, and I hadn't agreed to any contract or bound myself to any law preventing it, then what right does someone have to tell me to get rid of it?

 

[ironknight42]

Nuclear weapons should be given a Nobel Peace Prize, they have done more to prevent wars then any person I can think of since their invention, it has prevented large scale wars overall. Beside unless man lost all knowledge of nuclear technology it would be quickly rediscovered, through the study of atoms. So do we need nukes no, but the cat is out of the bag, it was bound to happan eventually the trick is keeping them out of the wrong hands so as to insure mutual destruction that keeps peace.

 

[Kutie Pie]

Unless the country is abusing their nuclear power out of spite and needs them removed immediately, each country has the right to own nuclear weapons to protect themselves. However, these weapons should only be used sparingly and when they really don't have any other option.

 

[lugia*master]

Countries often have them as a warning, and as a last resort for self defence. They rarely need to be used, but it's better to have them ready in case of extreme emergency.

My view exactly.

 

[newmoon island]

Unless the country is abusing their nuclear power out of spite and needs them removed immediately, each country has the right to own nuclear weapons to protect themselves. However, these weapons should only be used sparingly and when they really don't have any other option.

My views exactly.

 

[Jb]

heck no danm terrorist blowing up the other countries

 

[clone1]

Countries often have them as a warning, and as a last resort for self defence. They rarely need to be used, but it's better to have them ready in case of extreme emergency.

I agree with this. When countires are armed with nuclear weapons they wouldn't do meaningless things like blowing up the world. Most likely they would use them as threats to defend ,or to set out and try to imperialize.

 

[_Skippy_]

Seeing as they're only used as a last resort and for scaring other contries away, i have no problem with them

 

[Electricbluewolf]

Ok, loads of people are saying countries uses them for a last resort, but what about the bomb in hiroshima? Even though they were fighting the americans, hiroshima only got bombed because the bomb that they dropped was a test bomb. And also another city in japan got bombed because the city they planned to bomb had heavy clouds over! They didnt want to bomb germany, just incase they got there hands on the ingredients to make a nuclear bomb from the bomb they dropped...

 

[ShinyPichu4Ever]

If the UN had it their way the countries wouldn't. But once one country has them, all the other countries want to get them to balance out the power.

 

[BigLutz]

Ok, loads of people are saying countries uses them for a last resort, but what about the bomb in hiroshima? Even though they were fighting the americans, hiroshima only got bombed because the bomb that they dropped was a test bomb. And also another city in japan got bombed because the city they planned to bomb had heavy clouds over! They didnt want to bomb germany, just incase they got there hands on the ingredients to make a nuclear bomb from the bomb they dropped...

They didn't bomb Germany because they didn't have the bomb fully prepared yet. They bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a last resort, after a very bloody and prolonged conflict the White House and Military believed that a invasion of Japan would have a death toll of US Soldiers anywhere between 100,000 and 1 million, with the Japanese people suffering even more. The Nuclear Bomb was a last resort, the only other option involved people dying by the millions in a prolonged invasion.

 

[darkjigglypuff]

How do you "not allow" a country to have nuclear bombs? Go to war with them?

heck no danm terrorist blowing up the other countries

[IMG200]http://www.wvah.com/programs/kingofthehill/boomhauer.jpg[/IMG200]
I tellyouwhatman that dang ol' middle east and dang ol' nuclear bombs man, dang.