Nuclear Weapons: A necessary evil?

Assassin™ · 01-16-2009, 05:53 AM

What are your thoughts on nuclear weaponry and other WMD? Should it be a privilege of only a select few 'trustworthy' world powers? Should the use of weapons of such great magnitude be completely eradicated? More importantly, should certain countries, or a group of countries (The U.N.) have authority over other countries' weapons and self defense systems?

I think it's an interesting question. Since the U.S. dropped the first WMD on Japan some 60 years ago, war, combat, and the diplomacy surrounding such issues has never been the same. It has changed the face of international conflict--I think for the better. I'm not saying I'm an advocate of mass destruction, but I think it's the threat of such, and the potential for such, that has kept us out of World War 3 (no, not the WCW pay-per-view
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
). I think countries have actually tried not to step on the toes of one another (for the most part) since Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But this just makes me question the current state of foreign affairs. If a certain country (oh...idk, how about the United States) decides to become paranoid that another country (oh, idk....how about Iraq or Iran) is trying to develop nuclear weapons or other WMD, it feels justified in preemptively attacking said country--just to make sure.

So that leads me to the conclusion that these type of weapons that cause large scale destruction and death have only proliferated the arms race between....everyone, and has made the international community overall a more hostile environment. It's like everyone has got a gun pointed at someone else's head, but they're scared to pull the trigger because they've got a gun pointed at their head as well. It's really like a bad Hollywood action movie, imo. Yeah, no one is getting shot, but eventually someone's finger is going to slip....and it will cause a chain reaction.

Discuss.

Dakstang · 01-16-2009, 03:40 PM

I really don't see how the U.S. can say only certain countries can have Nuclear weapons. We really don't have say over what other countries do. We should never take pre-emptive measures (see Iraq) because we 'think' they have nuclear weapons and might use them.

unn0129 · 01-17-2009, 06:56 PM

Why not everyone get rid of their nuclear weapons, and we can all hate each other, but at least co-exist in peace?

I HATE how the American government has abused the military.

living dead girl · 01-17-2009, 07:01 PM

We could all be peace loving hippies but then there'd be some asshole who had to be bigger and better. So I think we'll always need them if for nothing more than a gigantic flashing billboard saying "don't fuck with us".
I also think it's a lil bit shit that anyone, primarily the US, can tell other countries what kinda weapons they can or can't have. No one is telling us shit....we need to follow that lead

Magnum Seven · 01-26-2009, 12:07 PM

1. Who is to decide just who is trustworthy and who is not?
2. What does trustworthy behaviour amount to? Does dropping two nukes on Japan and threatening to do the same to China, and almost doing the same to Eygpt in '67 equate to responsible use of nuclear (not nucular) weapons?
3. Isn't the only way to responsibly use nuclear weapons to not use them at all?

Zar · 01-26-2009, 08:28 PM

We need superman to throw it all into the sun.

Am I the only one that wishes things were much more simple in regards to weapons in general. Fuck guns, lets get the cavalry back on horses.

DanTheChiller · 01-26-2009, 09:00 PM

Nuclear war is intrinsically evil because you're hurting innocent individuals, not just the intended.

Suffy · 01-26-2009, 09:16 PM

That happens in every war and unless we wish to kill off people while they are growing up that show extreme signs of aggression it's going to keep happening.