4 ms·

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where all governments had zero nuclear weapons each? A nuclear bomb serves no other purpose than killing huge numbers of ci

Wouldn't you rather live in a world where all governments had zero nuclear weapons each? A nuclear bomb serves no other purpose than killing huge numbers of civilians in a short period of time. Shouldn't we strive for a world where nobody has that capability? Not to mention that in the United States, one man has unilateral and final authority to launch a nuclear first strike. Edit: countries -> governments

jtmarmon 9y ago
Yes, I would. Please sign me up when you figure out how to do this
mantas 9y ago
The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. If all countries claim to destroy their nuclear bombs and never ever make a new one, would you trust all of them?
- vkou 9y ago
  > The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. Why is a handful of countries having nuclear bombs the best way to ensure that? Why not two dozen countries having nuclear bombs? Neither Ukraine nor Iraq would have been invaded if they were nuclear-armed. It's incredibly self-serving of nuclear powers to claim that they can have these weapons, because they will be responsible with them, but nobody else can. (And then they go ahead and start wars.)
  - mantas 9y ago
    I don't see much difference between handful and a dozen or two. Or maybe my English as second language is failing me.. It'd be definitely interesting to see Ukraine and Iraq conflicts unfold while they had nuclear weapons. I'd be all for giving nuclear weapons to every single country if that'd stop wars in the future. But I'm afraid some asshats would start blackmailing others and those would bend over. And we'd be back at square 1.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Because superpowers are more likely to fight proxy wars or use indirect methods, while smaller countries are more likely to fight with real boots on real territory supported by real explosions. The reality is that if a superpower wanted to launch a sneak nuclear attack on another superpower, it could be done to great effect without missiles or bombers, and without necessarily giving away the identity of the aggressor. The fact that it hasn't been done either suggests lack of imagination or lack of willingness - or perhaps both. As for small countries - it's debatable if nukes would have saved Iraq or the Ukraine, because any small country using nukes on a superpower is likely to do more damage to itself than the superpower. But this is largely a sideshow in 2017. As we're currently discovering, infowar and weaponised social media are a much cheaper and more efficient way to wage proxy war than nukes or terrorism are. Nukes are almost obsolete now that it's so ridiculously easy to persuade a country to destroy its own political stability and self-confidence with covert funding of fringe extremism, supported by weaponised social media. And if that's not enough to do the job, direct hacking of infrastructure remains an option. The West is well behind the curve on defending against both. As and when the next war starts - if it hasn't already - the reliance on nukes as a deterrent is going to become one of those "And this is what they were doing on until the new reality hit" chapters in future history books.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > And, currently, a handful of [governments] having them is the best way to ensure that. Until it isn't. But then it's too late to try anything different. > If all [governments] claim to destroy their nuclear bombs and never ever make a new one, would you trust all of them? I don't trust statements from governments, as a general rule.
  - mantas 9y ago
    > Until it isn't. But then it's too late to try anything different. We had that for a brief period of time. US was the only one with the nuclear bomb. Would they have used it on Japan if they had a chance to retaliate? > I don't trust statements from governments, as a general rule. I guess we agree governmental disarmament agreements wouldn't work..
    - goialoq 9y ago
      > Would they have used it on Japan if they had a chance to retaliate? Of course. Japan's army was bent on total annihilation. If Japan had a chance to retaliate, they would have struck first.
solotronics 9y ago
actually they can be very useful as well but they have a public image problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare artifical lakes, mining, terraforming, diverting asteroids, propulsion for extremely large spaceships, fighting intergalactic invaders etc.

jtmarmon 9y ago

Yes, I would. Please sign me up when you figure out how to do this

mantas 9y ago

The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. If all countries claim to destroy their nuclear bombs and never ever make a new one, would you trust all of them?

vkou 9y ago
> The main purpose of nuclear bomb is to deter nuclear attack by ensuring MAD. We should strive for a world where nobody has a chance to use nuclear bomb. And, currently, a handful of countries having them is the best way to ensure that. Why is a handful of countries having nuclear bombs the best way to ensure that? Why not two dozen countries having nuclear bombs? Neither Ukraine nor Iraq would have been invaded if they were nuclear-armed. It's incredibly self-serving of nuclear powers to claim that they can have these weapons, because they will be responsible with them, but nobody else can. (And then they go ahead and start wars.)
- mantas 9y ago
  I don't see much difference between handful and a dozen or two. Or maybe my English as second language is failing me.. It'd be definitely interesting to see Ukraine and Iraq conflicts unfold while they had nuclear weapons. I'd be all for giving nuclear weapons to every single country if that'd stop wars in the future. But I'm afraid some asshats would start blackmailing others and those would bend over. And we'd be back at square 1.
- TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
  Because superpowers are more likely to fight proxy wars or use indirect methods, while smaller countries are more likely to fight with real boots on real territory supported by real explosions. The reality is that if a superpower wanted to launch a sneak nuclear attack on another superpower, it could be done to great effect without missiles or bombers, and without necessarily giving away the identity of the aggressor. The fact that it hasn't been done either suggests lack of imagination or lack of willingness - or perhaps both. As for small countries - it's debatable if nukes would have saved Iraq or the Ukraine, because any small country using nukes on a superpower is likely to do more damage to itself than the superpower. But this is largely a sideshow in 2017. As we're currently discovering, infowar and weaponised social media are a much cheaper and more efficient way to wage proxy war than nukes or terrorism are. Nukes are almost obsolete now that it's so ridiculously easy to persuade a country to destroy its own political stability and self-confidence with covert funding of fringe extremism, supported by weaponised social media. And if that's not enough to do the job, direct hacking of infrastructure remains an option. The West is well behind the curve on defending against both. As and when the next war starts - if it hasn't already - the reliance on nukes as a deterrent is going to become one of those "And this is what they were doing on until the new reality hit" chapters in future history books.
clarkmoody 9y ago
> And, currently, a handful of [governments] having them is the best way to ensure that. Until it isn't. But then it's too late to try anything different. > If all [governments] claim to destroy their nuclear bombs and never ever make a new one, would you trust all of them? I don't trust statements from governments, as a general rule.
- mantas 9y ago
  > Until it isn't. But then it's too late to try anything different. We had that for a brief period of time. US was the only one with the nuclear bomb. Would they have used it on Japan if they had a chance to retaliate? > I don't trust statements from governments, as a general rule. I guess we agree governmental disarmament agreements wouldn't work..
  - goialoq 9y ago
    > Would they have used it on Japan if they had a chance to retaliate? Of course. Japan's army was bent on total annihilation. If Japan had a chance to retaliate, they would have struck first.

solotronics 9y ago

actually they can be very useful as well but they have a public image problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare artifical lakes, mining, terraforming, diverting asteroids, propulsion for extremely large spaceships, fighting intergalactic invaders etc.