View Poll Results: Are Nuclear Weapons A Lesser of Two Evils?

**The Earl Of Grey** · 25-10-2009, 06:24 PM

Nuclear Weapons and two questions I would like to discuss.

Most of us would agree that a if a country had the power to completely obliterate the entire world in the touch of a button it would be the most concerning and worrying thing. Most of us would then agree that two country's that have a history of suspicious and dislike for each other , that continued this power would be even more worrying. Furthermore most of us would agree that with a complex world of affair, alliances and other country's with nuclear weapons that we are in a grave danger.

So we all see the danger. But I am sad to say we all wont act, we all wont act on are folly and dismantle. But some of you are sitting there thinking but we are, the amount since the cold war has reduced. So........? Russia and USA could still destroy the whole world, it's just a case of Russia not being able to do so three times over now.

When you have one or more country's challenging a superpower, it will do it utmost to stay at the top. The USA will never retire it nuclear weapons. Why? Because with China and Russia and North Korea with there huge army's, the USA need to keep some way of remaining top dog. And of course Russia will match that, and now we China coming into the race to with it 40 IBM's. And while more reductions are one the way these powers will not rely on conversational warfare to keep them near or at the top, for the simple reason they cant, especially the USA. No one country has such power without these weapons.

But there are some of you out there who will be thinking....hang on....nuclear weapons are a deterrent. They stop wars. And I can see this view, and I find it both interesting, but also off putting. I see the logic, that it could seem another major world war will break out, because all the major powers would know it would mean the end of the world. I see that a country would to say the least think a lot about attacking a country with nuclear weapon. So yes a deterrent I see the point.

But can this idea of a deterrent justify nuclear weapons?
Do nuclear weapons actually make the world a safer place?

These two question are the two I want to discuss. And the are good reasoning on both sides. So before you commit your self to a view, just be a bit open minded, and see both sides, because If you do not, you will be commenting in utter ignorance.

**flash** · 25-10-2009, 07:08 PM

Nuclear weapons are a fact. That little devil is already out of the box. There are hundreds of thousands of GIs that were damn glad we nuke the Japs during WWII. I also suspect that saved the lives of millions of Japanese.

The question is not are we going to turn back the clock because that ain't gonna happen.

The real question is how are you going to manage the nuclear weapons.

I want my country to keep enough to kill anybody that ever screws with us.

**Opinionated** · 25-10-2009, 07:30 PM

Are nuclear weapons lesser of two evils? My answer depends on what the other evil is. If as I have presumed it is the destruction of the world with conventional weaponry then I do not accept the premise. Clearly the fact there hasn't been a nuclear weapon used against another State since the end of war with Japan implies that either they do act as a deterrent or nobody has been mad enough to actually deploy one (yet).

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I favour unilateral disarmament, the whole principle of deterrant seems flawed and stupid to me. If MAD (mutual assured destruction) wasn't about keeeping up with the Jonskies during the cold war then why would we (NATO) have enough weaponry to destroy the world six times over, surely once is enough?

**Barry** · 25-10-2009, 07:33 PM

I am not too worried about the USA and Russia having the ability to destroy the world. They have had that ability for many years, but have chosen not to do so.
M.A.D. was a deterrent in itself.

Of course the best ideal would be to never have any nuclear weapons, but it is not possible to turn the clock back.
Remember that only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons in theatre.

Now the major threat is of nuclear weapons being used in war as a first strike.

Iran are a major threat against Israel and Saudi Arabia.
North Korea, with a tad more development will be able to launch against Alaska and the West coast of the USA, hitting L.A. and major cities.
The Taliban are in battles in Pakistan, as our fingers tap on our keyboards, trying to gain control of the area where their nuclear weapons are stored. If they get hold of those weapons, they will be able to threaten the world.
That is a major concern.

**flash** · 25-10-2009, 08:06 PM

Originally Posted by Opinionated

It will come as no surprise to anyone that I favour unilateral disarmament,

That will work out really well if some other country decides to nuke the UK, won't it?

Japan didn't have a nuclear deterent in 1945 and look where it got them. Two of their cities were nuked.

Once somebody else has nukes then you better have them. The world is not a rosy place and there are assholes out there than may try to take advantage of that situation.

Peace through superior firepower is always the best option.

**Opinionated** · 25-10-2009, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by flash

That will work out really well if some other country decides to nuke the UK, won't it?

However if some mad man launches weapons at us we are already destroyed regardless of whether we return fire in retaliation or not!

Japan didn't have a nuclear deterent in 1945 and look where it got them. Two of their cities were nuked.

I'm not convinced Truman wouldn't have ordered the dropping of little boy anyway, we had no idea at that point of how terrible the consequences actually were did we?

Once somebody else has nukes then you better have them. The world is not a rosy place and there are assholes out there than may try to take advantage of that situation.

Assuming you believe that MAD works, I only believe it may have worked, but as soon as there is a leader in the ME who is mad enough not to give a damn about retaliation it becomes a moot point.

Peace through superior firepower is always the best option.

Surely peace without any firepower would ultimately be the best option. I know it's idealist (read stupid in your translation) territory, but to quote George Bernard Shaw "You see things as they are and ask, "Why?" I dream things as that never were and ask, "Why not?"!

**Kiwi 1691** · 26-10-2009, 01:39 AM

Originally Posted by Barry

I am not too worried about the USA and Russia having the ability to destroy the world. They have had that ability for many years, but have chosen not to do so.
M.A.D. was a deterrent in itself.

Of course the best ideal would be to never have any nuclear weapons, but it is not possible to turn the clock back.
Remember that only one country in the world has ever used nuclear weapons in theatre.

Now the major threat is of nuclear weapons being used in war as a first strike.

Iran are a major threat against Israel and Saudi Arabia.
North Korea, with a tad more development will be able to launch against Alaska and the West coast of the USA, hitting L.A. and major cities.
The Taliban are in battles in Pakistan, as our fingers tap on our keyboards, trying to gain control of the area where their nuclear weapons are stored. If they get hold of those weapons, they will be able to threaten the world.
That is a major concern.

Israel and France are the biggest threat to peace in regards to nukes. Both would have no problems in pushing the button.

Americas war in Afghanistan has pushed the Taliban into Pakistan. Pakistan has many nukes sitting there and if the Pakistani army is unable to stop them, they may be able to get to Pakistan's nukes. That would be scary for all. The Taliban now controls alot of land there.

North Korea is testing nukes, but they have no way of transporting them. The rockets available to North Korea have a very short range. They are no where near the ICBM technology that the US and Russia operate.

There is little or no evidence that Iran has intentions to build the bomb. Even if they do, staying out of it is the best thing. There is alot of anger amongst the middle classes about the Iranian Govt. They are showing their frustration in massed protest. If the West does anything it will weaken the causes of those opposed to the Iranian govt.

**flash** · 26-10-2009, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I'm not convinced Truman wouldn't have ordered the dropping of little boy anyway, we had no idea at that point of how terrible the consequences actually were did we?

I think it didn't take too much to understand that a quick end to the war was in everybody's interest. The nuclear weapons allowed that to happen over a period of three days instead of another year or so.

More Japanese were killed in the conventional bombing of Japan than with the nuclear weapons by the way.

A lot more Japs would have died had the war continued than died from the two bombs.

Once The Japs decided to attack the US they were destined to have many of their people die. The nuclear weapons probably shorten the number by a couple of million of Japs and probably a hundred thousand Americans. No telling how many more Brits would have died had the war continued. They were allied with the US to defeat Japan.

DC · 26-10-2009, 08:28 AM

IMO Nukes are the ultimate safeguard of sovereignty, which I suspect is why the North Koreans wanted them so bad. While they do not stop wars, they do limit them. I don't think they're bad unless they're in the hands of bad people, hence why we don't let al Qaeda or Iran get them

**Opinionated** · 26-10-2009, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by flash

I think it didn't take too much to understand that a quick end to the war was in everybody's interest. The nuclear weapons allowed that to happen over a period of three days instead of another year or so.

More Japanese were killed in the conventional bombing of Japan than with the nuclear weapons by the way.

A lot more Japs would have died had the war continued than died from the two bombs.

Once The Japs decided to attack the US they were destined to have many of their people die. The nuclear weapons probably shorten the number by a couple of million of Japs and probably a hundred thousand Americans. No telling how many more Brits would have died had the war continued. They were allied with the US to defeat Japan.

I wasn't really questioning Truman's motives and of course your argument that it may have saved lives in the long run is valid, it's still conjecture though.
Please though answer the point that we would be safer if there were no weapons with the capacity to destroy the world, as it is likely that the one and only time they will be used is by a mad man who doesn't care that he will also be destroyed - the ultimate suicide bomber!

**flash** · 26-10-2009, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I wasn't really questioning Truman's motives and of course your argument that it may have saved lives in the long run is valid, it's still conjecture though.
Please though answer the point that we would be safer if there were no weapons with the capacity to destroy the world, as it is likely that the one and only time they will be used is by a mad man who doesn't care that he will also be destroyed - the ultimate suicide bomber!

The world was safer in 1945 because the US had and used nuclear weapons. It brought a quick end to a long and brutal war.

Would the world be safer with zero nuclear weapons? I am not sure.

The problem is that we will never return to an era with zero nuclear weapons unless there is a total breakdown in technology.

The world is always in danger of madmen. Madmen do irrational things. Nuclear weapons will enable a madman to do really irrational things. If you think that some kind of unilateral disarment of the UK and the US is going to stop some future madman then you are very naive. In fact it may be that countries like the US and the UK having nuclear weapons is what deter or stop some future madman.

**Midas** · 11-11-2009, 11:39 AM

This thread has got seriously off-topic, so I've moved all the recent posts which deal with the Israel/Hamas dispute to the http://www.politic.co.uk/israel-hama...rpetrator.html thread.

Can we keep this thread for the discussion concerning Nuclear Proliferation & WMDs and its associated poll please.

Borg Hunter · 24-11-2009, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Israel and France are the biggest threat to peace in regards to nukes. Both would have no problems in pushing the button.

erm, so why haven't they?

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

There is little or no evidence that Iran has intentions to build the bomb.

So why are they trying so hard to enrich uranium secretly? If it's for power stations many countries have already offered to enrich it for them.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

There is alot of anger amongst the middle classes about the Iranian Govt. They are showing their frustration in massed protest.

Your having a laugh if you think that the public can change anything by themselves in the middle east.
Basij Anti Riot Police Shooting at Iranian Protesters in Tehran | NowPublic Video Archives

Forgot about Neda?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76W-0GVjNEc

**Kiwi 1691** · 25-11-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by Borg Hunter

erm, so why haven't they?

Because no-one has provoked them. Don't forget that the previous french president did put the threat of nuclear attack on the table.

Originally Posted by Borg Hunter

So why are they trying so hard to enrich uranium secretly? If it's for power stations many countries have already offered to enrich it for them.

Because they want to.

Originally Posted by Borg Hunter

Your having a laugh if you think that the public can change anything by themselves in the middle east.
Basij Anti Riot Police Shooting at Iranian Protesters in Tehran | NowPublic Video Archives

Forgot about Neda?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76W-0GVjNEc

Yes, they can. The regime loses support every day.

**longriver** · 27-11-2009, 05:44 AM

I would say that the proliferation of nuclear weapon is one of the biggest threat to the world security and people. Those countries who are so eager to be powerful and to be equipped with nuclear weapons would do their best to develop such fatal and destructive things so as to gain ground in negotiation with other countries.

Below is link about the 50 facts of the US nuclear weapons, hope you will like it.[Sharing] 50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons - Global Times Forum--Discuss China,Discuss the world--The Most Open and Objective Forum in China

**Barry** · 27-11-2009, 08:05 PM

Originally Posted by longriver

Below is link about the 50 facts of the US nuclear weapons, hope you will like it.

Do you have similar 50 facts about nuclear weapons for China, longriver?

**longriver** · 30-11-2009, 07:01 AM

Originally Posted by Barry

Do you have similar 50 facts about nuclear weapons for China, longriver?

Of course there are and there might be more.

**Barry** · 30-11-2009, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by longriver

Of course there are and there might be more.

Get quoting them then, or you might be shown up to being rather partisan!
We couldn't have that, could we?

**longriver** · 10-12-2009, 06:13 AM

Originally Posted by Barry

Get quoting them then, or you might be shown up to being rather partisan!
We couldn't have that, could we?

I'm not partisan but you know the censorship of Chinese military. I can't not get much information on that but I have something about the missile information about China's second artillery forces, hope you can find it useful.

http://img1.qq.com/news/pics/9461/9461499.jpg