nuclear weapons

[Afterburner]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought[DK]

People quote nuclear weapons as a saviour of life, yet somehow thousands of people have now died in Iraq in order to remove these peace-keeping gizmoes. Surely, if nuclear wepons were such a blessing for humanity, nobody would object to all countries having them.

It's about trust. A gun can be used to deter crime in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. In thge hands of a criminal it can be used to take lives.

And note, I would much rather NO ONE have nukes then everyone, but I don't fail to acknowledge the fact they have saved lives.

[Lukeh]

I don't think nukes will ever be used. The people who are crazy enough to use them don't have the technology and bigger countries like the United States and China are afraid to use them.

[Roaming East]

Nukes serve only to keep major military powers from engaging in war with one another. That alone justifies their existance. If Iran had nukes tomorrow every plan to ever attack that country would evaporate over night. Thats why countries WANT them, it guarantees them safety from belligerent nations who arent above bullying to get their way.

On a second note, the only reason WW3 didnt happen between the Russians and the Americans was because of nuclear deterrant. Europe should be happy they didnt become a battleground in THAT possible conflict.

[Mr. Matt]

Originally Posted by Dreadnought[DK]

People quote nuclear weapons as a saviour of life, yet somehow thousands of people have now died in Iraq in order to remove these peace-keeping gizmoes. Surely, if nuclear wepons were such a blessing for humanity, nobody would object to all countries having them.

People quote nuclear weapons as saviours of life because they're probably the only things that prevented the two superpowers of the 20th century from turning a cold war into a very hot one. As for Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, well, that's another kettle of fish entirely. Having a nuclear monopoly over countries gives America & co the supposed ability to push them around and dicate policy, which is why they're so keen to prolong that monopoly for as long as they can. Had Iraq actually had nuclear weapons with long-range deployment capabilities, I doubt any troops would have disturbed the sand at all...

Another point I meant to make earlier but forgot to do so:

In the future however, I see globalisation and free trade becoming even greater factors in keeping global peace. Already we are seeing highly inter-dependent economies, with a veritable ecosystem now taking hold. Generally speaking, any war between two major powers would pretty much cripple the global economy, and that is the main reason I often cite for the unlikelihood of China and America ever going to war.

After all if there's one thing that humans like more than destruction, it's greed baby!

[Fez Boy]

If everyone had a nuclear weapon, we'd have a Mexican standoff.

Which is a good thing, from the perspective that nobody actually gets shot.

[Mr. Matt]

Unless somebody sneezes...

[Fez Boy]

Hmm. What would the international-incident equivalent to a sneeze be?

[Emperor Norton I]

^an angry group of middle eastern people?

[Roaming East]

pssht, they dont count. you gotta have INFLUENCE to matter in foreign policy

[Fez Boy]

Originally Posted by Roaming East

pssht, they dont count. you gotta have INFLUENCE to matter in foreign policy

To be fair, all you need is big weapons. That lends you influence.