Do Nuclear Weapons Make the World More or Less Safe?

Posted by DipNote Bloggers
December 5, 2008
Ghauri Missile Launch

In recent months, there has been talk of Iran’s nuclear capability. So much of our diplomacy centers on the acquisition of nuclear technology.

Do nuclear weapons make the world more or less safe?

Comments

Comments

Zharkov
|
United States
December 5, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

Have nuclear weapons made Israel or Iran safe? Iran's first reactor was American-made. We invited Iran to investigate nuclear power and now they have, so why are we pretending they have gone to far? The Koran's view of infidels was a complete mystery to the State Department? We knew the consequence of atomic reactors operated by dictators when we had commandos sink Hitler's shipment of Deuterium during WW2.

The argument that it stopped the Soviets from expanding into Europe is fallacious. The Soviet Army already occupied the portion of Europe that Stalin wanted to occupy. Our atomic bombs made no difference to him.

American nukes did not deter atom bomb testing in Russia, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea or Israel. U.S. nukes did not stop North Korea from invading South Korea, North Vietnam from invading South Vietnam, or stop China from invading Tibet or firing artillery at Taiwan nightly in the 1950's. Israel has suffered thousands of armed attacks since 1946, some almost daily. It still occurs, so there is no deterrance from their nuclear arsenal.

America's nuclear arsenal failed to deter the Cubans from seizing Grenada, failed to stop the attack on 9/11 and the attempt in 1993 against the World Trade Center. In Serbia, neither Milosevic nor Albanian invaders were sufficiently impressed by our atomic arsenal. Somali pirates remain undisturbed by thoughts of nuclear attack.

The so-called fear of Russian nukes failed to stop our blockade of Cuba in the 1950's, failed to win the Soviet war in Afghanistan, failed to stop the invasion of Iraq in 1990 and failed to stop us in Afghanistan. Nukes did not prevent assassination of President Kennedy or the attempts against Ford and Reagan. If nukes make the world safer, one wouldn't know the difference from the record of wars Americans have fought.

U.S. nuclear weapons had been lost and were buried by accident around the world, off the coast of Spain, in a swamp in America's South, off the coast of Greenland, and elsewhere, and the residents living near ground zero are hardly "safe".

Do we not see Congress to be a gang of hand-wringing-parasites fearful of losing their money-for-nothing palace positions? Would you trust any of them with nuclear weapons?

The fact remains that nuclear weapons are too dangerous to use anywhere in the modern world because they poison entire regions with radiation, fallout, and incredibly dangerous isotopes that enter the food chain, the water table, and sea life, producing the current epidemic of cancer around the world. Much of the population of America born before 1970 now carries Strontium 90 in their bones and most will eventually die of cancer. How safe is that?

Einstein, Teller, and others who worked on the Manhattan project later deeply regretted what they had done, to the point of begging a succession of presidents to abandon nuclear weapons forever. The communities which built atomic weapons are poisoned by radioactive waste products which cannot be made safe and can only be stored until some future technology, if any, can render them harmless.

We are still using depleted Uranium (DU) weapons in small guerrilla wars that have poisoned the soldiers who fired these weapons and poisoned people whose ground was poisoned with DU debris. We have made a radioactive mess in every country in which we fought, and it is time we stop. If America is to be a leader in anything, it should be to lead the world away from nuclear bombs. As long as a single nuclear weapon exists, humanity is not safe.

Jonathan
|
Texas, USA
December 5, 2008

Jonathan in Texas writes:

Nuclear weapons put the world in danger. I feel nuclear weapons should not be developed in any country, not even the U.S. It has been proven, that nuclear weapons have dangerous radiation levels after they hit the ground it will contaminate a wide area. They can wipe out civilization with a single disagreement between conflicting countries. They can destroy wide areas in an instant and radiation will destroy that area for years after that. I don't think that these countries having nuclear weapons determine who has the most power in the world because they have the most power to ruin the world.

Recently, there has been nuclear testing in remote areas and it is unacceptable to conduct testing and affecting the people around that area. Children with no limbs, cancer, it is pretty sad to read or hear stories about this.

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
December 5, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

What is safe about nuclear arms?

The United States has been the only country in the world that has actually used them and tell other countries NOT to have them!

How many billions of dollars have been spent by taxpayers on making these type of weapons?

I believe that Nuclear Weapons is very dangerous and in the wrong hands they can be a disaster for mankind.

Syrian P.
|
Syria
December 6, 2008

SNP in Syria writes:

The world was not safe when the U.S. was the only country in possession of nuclear weapons. It made immediate horrific use of it when completed by Teller. Thanks to a very smart and honorable man Oppenheimer, others learned how to build the bomb. Since then the world has been very safely living with huge arsenal under the premise of MAD. Therefore, it is dangerous regionally and globally to have only one power in position of nukes, while the other equating power does not. In the Middle East, Israel is illegally in position of 402 bombs, neither this nuclear arsenal nor it is peaceful use installations has ever been monitored by any international body, while Iran is not only a member of regulating treaty NPT, but fully under supervision as well.

The imbalance of power in the Middle East is obvious, it led to three wars and will likely lead to few more unless Iran hurry up and obtain some nuke. That said, in no way should be relied on as the end mean, a panacea for security, as Israel wrongfully did.

Iran possession of nuclear technologies will only serve to rectify the strategic armament imbalance in the region to live safely under MAD. But this will not solve any of the problems facing the Middle East in general and Iran in particular. For Iran to rely solely on securing nuclear technology to enhance its strategic position in the Middle East will be a seriously flawed strategy. Likewise, for Israel to rely on nuclear arsenal is equally flawed. A horde of 10 millions machine gun yielding army on Israel border is far more of a strategic threat to Israel than Iranian owned nukes. A rouge group of 3 men with cash and position of WMD is far worse to Israel security than Iran position of 3 nukes. So it is all relative, it is not hard edged, have and have not, that create a superior strategic position.

SNP view the whole Middle East as one big socially explosive Nuke that will blow up in everyone face sometime between 2012 and no later than 2025 when the population doubles in number, if we made it that far, doubtfully. It will be a social explosion driven by unemployment, corruption, injustices, inequality hat will drive the majority 70% of its population, the youth under 21, into rebellion and that is a far worse security to the world and Israel than Iran possession of nuke arsenal

Diplomats and Strategists should focus on the real serious threat that is pending and not on the one that is irrelevant. Iran or other (say Syria) Middle Eastern county position of nuclear technology is not a threat to Israel or the World security in anyway. Syria and Iran population explosion in 2 decades will pose that serious threat and yet no one introducing solutions that can avert the impending outcome.

John
|
Greece
December 6, 2008

John in Greece writes:

America has proved all these decades that can administrate nuclear weapons in a wise and democratic way. Even in Hiroshima, U.S.A. used nuclear weapons just IN ORDER to save the rest of the world.

And it succeeded, ending the WW2. That's why, today we are free! Besides, after this great victory, America never used this power of the "winner" to invade or occupy Japan. I think that this is clear and simple for us in order to stop saying that "The United States has been the only country in the world that has actually used them and tell other countries NOT to have them!". Sorry Donald in VA, but we strongly disagree on this point.

Everybody is against nuclear weapons! Probably even the first one who invented them. However, this concept-statement (We are against) does not answer today's real depth of the question. It just makes it "begin".

According to my opinion, this VITAL QUESTION of the week is much more complicated than it seems to be and it must be analyzed into 3 more parts, 3 sub questions-thesis statements:

1. The priority sub-question is who "freeze and drops" first?
2. Eric in New Mexico wrote the other days how much fearing is living in an area that is a No1 target of a probable terrorist attack when they will try to hit existing nuclear bases. He is right! And this complicates things more. We have to encounter the terrorism parameter too.
3. "In the wrong hands they can be a disaster for mankind". Yes! I totally agree. So let's analyze what wrong hands are or may be -- certainly not the American ones though.

That's why Zharkov I disagree with your idea of "If America is to be a leader in anything, it should be to lead the world away from nuclear bombs.". Plus the fact that America is a leader in almost everything -- not anything!

The question Z is who "drops his weapon" first in order for us to be sure that the last one won't use the gun "from the leg". I wouldn't dare to think myself in the shoes of any future President of the U.S.A. taking the risk to "abandon" nuclear weapons wishing that (for example) Russians and Chinese will do the same after my "first move". You see, Eric is right in his deeper concept: it's a nuclear chess! Nevertheless, it can become a dead chess too!

And the worst, Russians and Chinese always hide things. How can we be so sure that they will not keep some nuclear products hidden? Please don't say me about international committees and this kind of utopias! If they want to hide, they can. How can you trust them?

And this fear exists for Israel too. I wouldn't dare to think myself in the shoes of a future Israeli Administration taking the risk to "abandon" nuclear weapons wishing that (for example) Syria and Iran will do the same after Israel's "first move". You see, they (Iran) have stated that they want to "rub them out" of the map.

For now, I will leave the other two questions for further commenting by the other bloggers, but if you want my overall -- cruel, but I think real -- view: As Eric in NM has written, "do not begin something if you cannot finish it". Unfortunately, this nuclear "game" -- nightmare -- begun by people who did not consider the fact that they cannot "finish it", as long as they decided to begin it back then!

Kirk
|
Kentucky, USA
December 6, 2008

Kirk in Kentucky writes:

Do Nuclear Weapons Make the World More or Less Safe?

Depends on what part of the world you are talking about. If it's a part of the world that possess a nuclear weapon -- then yes. If not, I'd say less so.

So there's been some talk that Iran's nuclear capability. Let's see some proof. The technical requirements for creating and arming a nuclear warhead are immense. It's doubtful Iran will have that capability for quite some time. Even if they did have it, where is the proof that they would actually use it? Sounds like scaremongering to me.

"When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing more to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader."

~Plato

Let's be frank, arms control is about monopolizing the choice weapons for ourselves and limiting access for everyone else.

JOHN O.
|
Nigeria
December 6, 2008

John in Nigeria writes:

Indeed the issue of nuclear weapons and missiles is realy a global problem as no body would like to die or to kill somebody but the Bible say that the people should obey the govt beacaue it is the govt that uses such weapons in other to subdue the enemy even the global jihads and terrorist, who wants to distroye the American nations, to destroyed the internet and the global, this time of the global government. Here in Nigeria the President Yaradua has order the closing of alot of things as it affects the USA internationals here in Nigeria when the relationship between USA and Nigeria is not maintained then which way to go.

JOHN O.
|
Nigeria
December 6, 2008

John in Nigeria writes:

So I wish that the USA should endeavour to keep the things that makes remain as a people remember the Vietnam War, the war with Italy, and the war led by John from Italy on behalf of United States during the reign of President Washington following the printing of USA currency and coins. However the weapons are secret and must be kept secret and confidential and must be used to eat down the enemy nations only the process of wars.

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
December 6, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

6 December 08

SAND BAG THE ENEMY! (CHUCKLE) (CHUCKLE)!!!

All the trillons of dollars spent on missiles, weapons, guns, gun dealers, arms dealers, contractors, and something as simple as Sand. You know sand bagging would be far cheaper than any Nuclear weapons and it doesn't leave radiation residue.

It's actually environmentally safe! All the lead and future lead poison in Afghanistan and Iraq from all the shellings, bombings and devices going off, can anyone drink the water there? I would think doubtful!

Where does it say in any war doctrine YOU cannot use sand in war?

The biggest problem in war is SOMEONE is being rewarded with big contracts to build more weapons, and sell more arms, but only to destroy YES more LIVES.

In the end its the Arms Dealers and Contractors who made billions upon billions of dollars in war. The true propaganda is showing how there building schools and rebuilding the society. The fact is how many of our Billions have already been spent in Afghanstan, and yet they want more and more?

What in the world is in Afghanistan that has cost this many Billions of dollars? Did we have enough back in the 60's with that country but only to continue spending upwards of more billions more in the 21th Century!

The United States should of rooted out the Terrorists when usama bin laden made his first threats against our Nation. I still don't understand why President Bill Clinton didn't take a more firm approach to getting Usama back then. Think about it, had he did, "Maybe we might not have had a 9/11 in the United States"! We might not have had our Pentagon attacked if President Bill Clinton was more agressive towards getting Usama bin laden in the first place! Sorry if I step on some toes, but I call em like I see it. The world would of been safer had he been caught. It was in the late 90's when this all started with, the Africa embassy attacks! That would of been the time to have found Usama Bin Laden and brought to Justice!

I heard President Bill Clintons speech on the news regarding how he couldn't find Usama Bin laden. Looking back now, I bet he wished he did, it might have been the greatest prevention of war. He might of actually saved over 3,000 or more lives but then I guess will never know.

God Bless and hopefully one day will all have Peace on Earth without Nuclear Devices!

joe
|
Tennessee, USA
December 6, 2008

Joe in Tennessee writes:

The obvious answer comes from the old question: Why make them if we aren't going to use them?

What has happened is a developed standard that represents an absolute for any government that needs a last resort to remain sovereign...if you have one, you have the power to keep your government and have leverage.

As far as safer: No, not today. The original use was to end war, not mankind. The dangers are now compounded as those with little due diligence have control over such weapons.

The only solution is to establish a new set of Standards for humanity. It is obvious we are in the developing stages now. Hopefully, democracy will prevail for all.

Until then, it is a necessary evil and must be realistically viewed.

Zharkov
|
United States
December 6, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

In reply to John in Greece:

The idea of demolishing the Berlin Wall was only a dream until Reagan and Gorbachev made it happen. World nuclear disarmament is in the same catagory -- impossible until it is made to happen. Americans are far less afraid of terrorists than the frightened little people in our government who show their fear to the enemy and do not represent the average American.

See: THIS IS NOT THE AMERICA I KNEW http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/05/bush-fear-terrorism-...

1. The U.S. should lead the way by making arrangements with the IAE to verify that we have frozen our nuke production and dismantled our atomic weapons production facilities. Simultaneously, we replace all DU ammunition with Tungsten or other kinds armour-piercing rounds and the Pentagon knows about alternatives and how they are made.

2. As our nuclear weapons become too old and deteriorated, we remove and destroy them, converting them into reactor fuel if economically feasible. This will take decades to complete so nobody needs to worry about nuclear blackmail occuring because by the time we are done, the other nations of the world will find such weapons useless as well.

3. We do this unilaterally, just as South Africa, Libya, and other nations have done -- as they survive without nukes, so shall we.

How can the Swiss go skiing without nuclear weapons?
How do Luxembourg hotels function without nuclear weapons?
How did France sell wine so long without hydrogen bombs?

First, ask yourselves, who are the real enemies in a war? Are not governments the enemies of each other? Which governments are the enemies of Switzerland or Luxembourg?

Think about it. Nations without enemies have no use for nuclear weapons.

Whatever Switzerland is doing, let us do the same because they clearly are solvent and peaceful, and we are not.

We should copy what works, and if Libya can exist without a nuclear arsenal, that's worth a try.

America was once a neutral power. Japan knocked us off that fence but if we stay off the neutrality fence then the Axis Powers have won. Let's get back to what worked for the past 150 years and become a neutral power again, like Switzerland or Luxembourg. If we want to change the world for the better, let's lead other nations into political neutrality and non-aggression. This might not end all war for all time, but it might end the possibility of total human extinction by atomic war.

Most people today have never seen the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Each was the result of tiny A-bombs with a small fraction of the power we have today. Mass human extinction is now entirely possible even without U.S. participation. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is far more important than anything else our government has to do, but bombing Iran isn't going to make that happen.

My guess is, that if Israel bombs Iran, Iran will begin making atomic weapons to defend itself. So an Israeli attack will produce an opposite, unintended consequence.

The ideal way to end production to atomic weapons is to lead the way down the path ourselves. If we won't do it, why should anyone else try?

Ron
|
New York, USA
December 6, 2008

Ron in New York writes:

The idea that Nuclear Weapons has been a concern for the past several months is pretty scary in and of itself....Iran's Nuclear desires are only a reflection of the high geo-political value placed on them by the USG. This Nuclear obsession is also a reflection of our addiction to the political-economic paradigm...Don't you have any shame in asking such a question?...Nuclear Weapons are making the world totally unsafe. They are the omnipresent doom in out fragile world.

John
|
Greece
December 7, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- You compare the Amazon (America) to a small tributary river (Switzerland)! What the models of the chocolate country and Luxemburg have to do with U.S.A.?

How can America follow these examples you are referring to?

1. Switzerland and Luxemburg are not "countries". They are "banks".
2. They do not even have a common language. They have 4 official languages plus the dialects.
3. Switzerland's economy is based only on "laundry business" and banking -- plus the chocolates -- and Luxemburg would be economically out of the map if E.U. did not use this little country to house all the E.U. fed offices and services.
4. Do they have an ideology? No! I've never heard of a Swiss ideology that will help or save the world. Except if you mean the "ideology of gold". Sorry, I won't buy!
5. Do they run international programs concerning terrorism, human trafficking, drugs, illegal gun emporium etc. No, as always they are expecting everything from the others.
6. Did they ever engaged in a war? No! If the United States had not fight for all of them, now they would be Hitler's protectorates.
7. They even did not have a Constitution until recently.

I won't go any further, but I could write more for hours.

America does not need to follow any model. It has its unique, democratic, free and humanitarian ideology and system that probably all the others should adopt. U.S.A. has its own NEW WORLD model! The best in the world!

It's not a personal attack, but I think that your way of thinking is extremely money oriented. I feel that if it was up to you, you would open up America's doors, stop any military development and defense system, while you would not care about any other global problem or country, enjoying your big new car and a huge flat TV. And then "others" would "come" and you'd loose both the car and the flat TV you think that you can enjoy without sacrifices and "fighting".

Of course Switzerland would never come to help you.

Anyway, I think we are out of subject now!

Onur
|
Turkey
December 7, 2008

Onur in Turkey writes:

In the middle of 20th century The United States developed Nuclear weapons and it was followed by the USSR as well as other permanent members of the UN and Pakistan and India. Thus,on the one hand, proliferation has preserved peace by deterring others but on the other hand it has generated unprecedented dangerous for the our unique world. To illustrate, A possible war between Pakistan and India with nuclear weapons would generate destructive results. More important that some rough states such as Iran can reach the nuclear information easily with the spreading of nuclear proloferation.

Iran is not a usual state, they have proved links between terrorist organizations such as heazbullah. furthermore they are distorting the assets of the Islam and taking leadership of the discrimination among the civilaziton that was mentioned Samuel Huntington article namely Clash of the Civilazition. Consequently nuclear weapons have both benefits and dangers, this is shaped by the states that have nuclear weapons.

Ron
|
New York, USA
December 7, 2008

Ron in New York writes:

Nuclear Weapons: For a Safer World?....NOT!

1984: Freedom is Slavery......

Remove all Nuclear Weapons Now.

Remove all representations of war from state seals, flags, emblems and other official materials.

Zharkov
|
United States
December 8, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

The U.S. has had nuclear weapons now for over 60 years, and none of us feel safer today than we did 60 years ago.

Russia obviously doesn't feel safe either, or else they would not be so worried about NATO and US nukes and missile shields.

India did not feel safe after Pakistan got the bomb, and Israel doesn't feel safe with Iran's nuclear research.

North Korea doesn't feel safe in a nuclear world, and Brazil is thinking along the same lines. Perhaps it won't be long before Venezuela decides to join the nuclear club, along with Iran.

China never felt safe with Russian nukes in their backyard, and France distrusted the U.S. nuclear capability so much they built their own H-bombs.

So are we feeling safer yet?

I am not.

Greece has no nukes that we know of, but how long before they decide that if Turkey is going nuclear, Greece will have no choice?

There is no end to this madness. It is for us to be a leader and show others how to rid themselves of atomic weapons or else we will become a spectator to a horrible nightmare someday.

Susan
|
Florida, USA
December 9, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

Why would anyone, or any country, feel safer with nuclear warheads directed at them?! I remember in high school having a history teacher who put up a map of the east coast and he showed us the cities that would be eliminated first if we had a nuclear war. Since we all lived very close to New York City we realized that we too would be the first to go. It made quite an impression on us. How does living under the threat of nuclear war make anyone feel safer??

Mary-Ann
|
Arkansas, USA
December 9, 2008

Mary-Ann in Arkansas writes:

I think nuclear weapons make us much less safe. I don't want hotheaded countries to have the ability to cause that much devastation with the push of a button.

John
|
Greece
December 9, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Zharkov in U.S.A. -- My dear Z, I don?t want to be misunderstood. Otherwise, I want my 1$ (chuckle)! Generally, I am against nuclear weapons (Period, but only generally).

However, it's not that simple!

If you want my opinion, don't follow this path of thinking, wondering if Greece is a "N club" member, or Turkey will become? etc. I don't buy this ethnical confusion you are attempting to create in my thoughts. Because, I try to think globally. Everybody are "members"! Nuclear power is a "domino club"! Ex.: If Syria "N-attack" Israel and Israel "N-attack" Syria, Cyprus will be "attacked" too. And then, the wind will fetch all the nuclear poison to Greece and Turkey and Italy! And it goes the "nuclear way"! Chernobyl -- energy parameter, but good example -- "attacked" Greece, when Greece did not have a nuclear power unit. Still does not. Turkey will have...

So, this has nothing to do with countries and geo.

N is everywhere!

Nevertheless, SECURITY of ideas and people is extremely important too! Maybe more important than to predict or fear a "probable" nuclear "problem".

All of which means: Who is the first to start, being sure that the last one won't keep on doing it. If I was an American, I would prefer to be the last one in order to be sure about who this last "one" will be. After all (read my posts) AMERICA has given the exam with an A+. And the most important is that the New World is far away from the... "wind". "Others" are close -- enough.
So, I would choose to be the "boss": the last one to close the door in order ensure that my nation and ideas are safe!

Robert
|
North Carolina, USA
December 9, 2008

Robert in North Carolina writes:

Nuclear weapons should be controlled at all costs. Countries seeking nuclear power should be allowed for energy but not for weapons!

RANDRIAMAMPIONONA S.
|
Madagascar
December 10, 2008

Solomon in Madagascar writes:

Dear blog of u.s dep of State, Mr president of the United State of the america. Mr president to be us corespondence have sabotage and gafe also I not can write god in monday, I not stop looking for the terrorism premier rensponsability sabotage us corespondence and gafe us projec.When I exist ,I contact you and U.S defence. Mr President and command of the Air force ans usa Army Thank for your mesage send for me and Thank for your give strong and efort for me, to be my security and defence my country are waranty because I acompany of the protection very powerfull wich strategy of war high precision. Mr copeartion to be us high strategy of war U.S 009 are already Build use for we renforcement us target and acelerate us atack and for economise us buidget depense of war. But I not can send us Project in web and mail because there is secret defence us U.S Air force.and the terrorism never stop sabotage and spy us corespondence. For the question in week: us work protect of rigth of man are have all action use for execution the democracy and participle renforcement the all action development along time ago and peaces in the world wich Peaces world. I hope you are the hope and future for generation people in the world on peaces and democracy. I need apointment of Mr president and command of Air force before 31 december 2008 your coperation I need your help and suport on buidget and material of comunication. thank very much The God us protege your copeartion and society.

Zharkov
|
United States
December 10, 2008

Zharkov in U.S.A. writes:

There are at least two groups of people in the world who seek to destroy most of humanity -- Muslim extremists who want only their group to survive, and a second group of ultra-rich extremists, the ones who fund genetic weapons and genetic engineering, who expect their group to surivive and the world population to not exceed 500 million -- their explicit goal.
Neither group regrets the attack on America on 9/11, and both are working, separately, for even bigger disasters.

In India for example, thousands of farmers have committed suicide after their genetically-engineered crops had failed. Are Americans dying slowly from eating gentically-modified foods -- perhaps a slow-kill weapon that even pigs won't eat? Cancer, obesity, and other food-related illnesses are killing us. So which group would you trust with hydrogen bombs?

For America to waste time and "be boss" enough to tell others what to do, we need credibility. As you can see for yourself, people in other nations dislike taking orders issued from our government, and most nations no longer trust what U.S. leaders say. This is why the U.S. State Dept. questions whether America has lost influence in the world, and they are truly the last to learn.

Leading by command is much more difficult than leading by example. When other nations see tangible benefits of nuclear disarmament, such as, a smaller defense budget and slightly more prosperous America, they will want nuclear disarmament for their economic advantage.

America has other enemies, many of whom we reward by election to public office, but these two groups are the most dangerous. Eventually, a member of one of these two groups may be elected president of our nation if this has not already occurred. To say that we should wait to end nuclear weapons is to say we should wait until the next atomic war. Nuclear war will surely happen unless we lead the way to end the means for that eventuality.

CharlesHW
|
United Kingdom
December 10, 2008

Charles in England writes:

There seems to be an abundant amount of lower educational level replys for some reson. One person has is correct and a rather decent summary....

Joe in Tennessee writes:

The obvious answer comes from the old question: Why make them if we aren't going to use them?

What has happened is a developed standard that represents an absolute for any government that needs a last resort to remain sovereign...if you have one, you have the power to keep your government and have leverage.

As far as safer: No, not today. The original use was to end war, not mankind. The dangers are now compounded as those with little due diligence have control over such weapons.

The only solution is to establish a new set of Standards for humanity. It is obvious we are in the developing stages now. Hopefully, democracy will prevail for all.

Until then, it is a necessary evil and must be realistically viewed.

Susan
|
Florida, USA
December 10, 2008

Susan in Florida writes:

@ Charles in England -- Actually, Charles, the atomic bomb was developed in response to Germany's desire to create the ultimate weapon, NOT to end World War II, but so that Germany could conquer the world. We, the U.S., just happened to develop it first. Good thing we did or you would not be in a free England.

Pyle
|
Serbia
December 10, 2008

Pyle in Serbia writes:

Is this really a question? Nuclear weapons are not only used as deterrents, just ask the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. As long as one exists, there is always the danger (opposite of safe) that it will be used, either by Government or rogue elements.

If the doctrine of MAD is correct, and I am skeptical, then we might as well get rid of all of the nukes, because either way, we're never going to use them... That way we don't fear them getting into the wrong hands (as if there were 'right' hands to handle Nukes).

Jonathan
|
Texas, USA
December 10, 2008

Jonathan in Texas writes:

I guess people's opinions and interpretation of history are lower level to some people. Let's keep the conversation on the question.

@ Susan in Florida -- Great point about the atomic bomb. Their intention was not to end war but to have an upper hand.

I agree 100% with having an agreement between all nuclear countries to dismantle nukes. I feel the U.S. should be the first country to lead the way but to political official if we dismantle our nukes first and other countries have them, we would not be safer. I feel that it should be like everyone does it at the same time. That way there is not trust broken between countries. There can also be an agreement to have representatives inspect those other countries to make sure there are no nuclear weapons. Just by typing that I am wondering how they would regulate that but with an agreement they can do so. The thing that these agreements will get rid of is how will we know that all the countries will dismantle their nukes and how will other countries know that the U.S. will dismantle their nukes. This can be taken care of by that agreement made within all nuclear countries.

Oh how I wish sometimes.

John
|
Greece
December 10, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Susan in sunny Florida -- You are absolutely right. A slight "added value" clarification if you don't mind: U.S.A. never used this power (we developed it first) to exploit the Globe.

America (U.S.A.) had the power to "destroy" or "conquer" the world, but never used this power! That's why I say AN A+!

So, Jonathan in TX: Your view of "Their intention was not to end war but to have an upper hand." is absolutely childish.

And, Pyle in Serbia: You write "just ask the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki"

Do you suggest us to ask them about Pearl Harbor, Hitler and their scope back then?

OK we will -- as long as you will ask Josip what really happened to Serbia?

Jonathan
|
Texas, USA
December 11, 2008

Jonathan in Texas writes:

@ John in Greece -- "America (U.S.A.) had the power to "destroy" or "conquer" the world, but never used this power! That's why I say AN A+!"----It was used as a threat. We have them you don't. We can wipe you out, you can't.

Why is it good that they developed them in the first place? To have an upper hand to the rest of the world. I don't see how that is childish because having them still poses a threat. We probably all know that the U.S. wouldn't use them but posing that threat of a great military power and nuclear holder is there. I'm sorry I know this sounds a bit crazy bit it just seems this way. Why have them and not use them? Why do countries have nuclear weapons then? That's billions or maybe even trillions of dollars spent on our dollar to have something we don't use. Why is it ok to the general public for the U.S. to have nukes but to step in and regulate other countries that have them? They don't just condemn the countries that pose as terrorist threats.

John
|
Greece
December 11, 2008

John in Greece writes:

@ Jonathan in Texas -- Let's face the truth: If America would like to use its power and take advantage of the world would have done it back then, when it had both the power and the "advantage" to use the "historical climate".

However, first of all I would like to apologize for the word "childish". What I tried to say was "poor argumentation", concerning the thesis statement that everything has/d to do with the "upper hand". Of course it is vital for a country to be strong, but as long as everybody want to have this "upper hand", U.S.A. acted the best way to keep this "upper hand" for America. You cannot blame this strategy. Otherwise, "others" would or will have this "upper hand". Anyway, I apologize for the term. It was not personal and for sure just only the fact that you contribute in this forum proves that you are not a "child". I sincerely apologize again for my "term" Jonathan.

I won't take more of your time guys. That's why I will say it "the childish way", which sometimes seems simple, but really descriptive:

1. America (U.S.A.) ended the WW2
2. It was THE ABSOLUTE winner, and
3. it had NOT ONLY THE UPPER HAND, BUT ALSO THE STRONGEST WEAPON (Ns); others did not have back then. America could become a "next Hitler" WITH THE AMENITY that no one would or could react at this historical time.

NEVER DID IT though! Never attempted to take advantage of the Globe! By the way, Russians did it? They "conquered" and occupied half of Europe! without the strongest weapon...

THAT?S WHY THE A+ WITH HONORS GOES TO U.S.A.!!!

And that's why I only trust U.S.A. to be the last gatekeeper, the last one to close the door ensuring that the "room is empty". Only America has proved that can safely keep the "N keys".

Donald
|
Virginia, USA
December 11, 2008

Donald in Virginia writes:

11 Dec 08

In my most humble opinion on the matter is the following:

I believe the current Nuclear Power Plants can emerge into a brand new type of energy. We have the technology to move foward not backwards with new types of fuels. It has been proven over and over again with alternative types of fuels WILL NOT harm people.

I would never say we should close Nuclear Power plants but to enhance them with a brand new type of energy. This way people can keep the jobs and the environment is safer and cleaner for the people.

A world disband of Nuclear Weapons is a wonderful idea if all countries can agree. I would equally say that the United States should not disband if other countries are not prepared to disband. We always SHOULD have the ability to defend our country if other countries continue making, producing Nuclear Arms. I just think the world would be safer without Nuclear Arms.

I think we all know how truly dangerous Nuclear weapons are and what they can do if in the WRONG HANDS!

WARS ON EARTH SHOULD BE KEPT TO CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS

"Havn't we done enough to this earth already, with pollution and testing things that God and nature dis-approves and wonder why we have so many cancer problems in the United States."

The concept to Peace on Earth takes on a whole new responsibility... When all countries around the world can disband equally and safely... removing the Nuclear threats from all Nations, and preventing loss of life in Nuclear accidents or careless handling procedures. How many victims have already perished from these types of weapons?

PEACE ON EARTH AND GOODWILL TO MANKIND!!! HAPPY HOLIDAYS!!!

Pages

.

Latest Stories

Pages