The world is safer with nuclear weapons.

[Probe]

It is a double-edged sword but my reasoning is that:

At least for the developed world, countries will tend to avoid large scale conflicts for fear of MAD.

Countries who are nuclear powers but are not necessarily economic or military powers can somewhat keep the big countries in check (it stabilized superpower relations in the twentieth century).

The first and second war occurred less than 50 years between each other and there hasn't been a world war now for a while.

Do you agree with this statement?

And if not do you think there are even some advantages that came from the development of nuclear devices with regards to world security?

[Panzerbear]

the more nukes, the less actual wars. sure as hell helped India and Pakistan and Israel and Russia to maintain their territorial intergrity.

the world is actually much safer without small arms.

[attilavolciak07]

If we have nuclear weapons, conventional warfare would be more dominant. Like Russia or America won't go to war because they both have nukes. In a way, nuclear weapons prevent war.

PS, here come the bad tags.

[Probe]

If we have nuclear weapons, conventional warfare would be more dominant. Like Russia or America won't go to war because they both have nukes. In a way, nuclear weapons prevent war.

Right, thats exactly my point. Nuclear weapons prevent large conflicts from starting between two nuclear powers.

[bleach]

But you guys are assuming that just because two countries have nukes, they would use them in open war against each other. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't mean that the countries would never go to war with each other. It means they would never use nuclear weapons on each other. It is unwise, I think, to assume anything more than that.

Even total defeat and dissolution of your country is better than being annihilated in a nuclear counterattack.

Meanwhile, WW2 proved that in modern war, a country (or several of them) can be decimated without ever launching an ICBM.

I think that even with nukes out of the equation, world powers have plenty of reason to be cautious.

[Applesmack]

But you guys are assuming that just because two countries have nukes, they would use them in open war against each other. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't mean that the countries would never go to war with each other. It means they would never use nuclear weapons on each other. It is unwise, I think, to assume anything more than that.

Even total defeat and dissolution of your country is better than being annihilated in a nuclear counterattack.

Meanwhile, WW2 proved that in modern war, a country (or several of them) can be decimated without ever launching an ICBM.

I think that even with nukes out of the equation, world powers have plenty of reason to be cautious.

Not at all...America and Russia would NEVER let themselves be occupied and have said countless times they will use nucleur weapons if neccesary..World War Two proved that yes..To an extent since the Americans did nuke Japan...However, a third world war would be much more horrific than a second World War because of technological advancements and manpower. Think about 3 times as worse..Iraq is proving right now that its very difficult to occupy even a small tiny country. Imagine occupying Russia

[bleach]

Not at all...America and Russia would NEVER let themselves be occupied and have said countless times they will use nucleur weapons if neccesary..

Countless times huh? Name some.

World War Two proved that yes..To an extent since the Americans did nuke Japan...However, a third world war would be much more horrific than a second World War because of technological advancements and manpower. Think about 3 times as worse..

So you are basically agreeing with me then, that there were and are plenty of other world war deterrents beside nuclear bombs.

Iraq is proving right now that its very difficult to occupy even a small tiny country. Imagine occupying Russia

Or the U.S. for that matter.

[Panzerbear]

Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't mean that the countries would never go to war with each other. It means they would never use nuclear weapons on each other. It is unwise, I think, to assume anything more than that.

how utopian of you.

[bleach]

how utopian of you.

I'm the least utopian person arguing here.

[attilavolciak07]

We should send this thread to those "Greens".



Off-topic, 2000 POSTS!!!!

[Wheelchair]

We should send this thread to those "Greens".



Off-topic, 2000 POSTS!!!!

Congratulations! Please call 555-5555 to receive a free plane!

No for real, awesome

[Markas]

I would prefer far less nukes in the world but it's better to have them than not. They are a deterrant. The assumption by some CND supporters I've spoken to that if we didn't have them it would stop war I find fairly ridiculous.

[phowa]

I agree as everybody know even if you do launch a conventional war against a nuclear power if you get to the point where its hopeless for the loser there gonna use nukes but if a terrorist even manages to get the fuel for a nuke or anything then it starts to get worrying

[Roger II]

Sadly, I do believe that nukes have prevented a WW3. But will some small country someday decide to use one on its neighbor? I would hate to see what happens then.

[Applesmack]

Nukes definately help prevent war between civilized countries...However, if maniacs like Osama Bin Ladin gets them, then we have a very serious problem on our hands don't we

[Applesmack]

Sadly, I do believe that nukes have prevented a WW3. But will some small country someday decide to use one on its neighbor? I would hate to see what happens then.

Never happen. If they did they would be immediately destroyed for such an action and the whole world will be screaming for the leader's head..

[clandestino]

Yes, cause we gotta nuke them and we gotta nuke them now!!! I'm advocating nuke per capita politics in the world, everybody should have at least one nuke,and mad persons should have two cause they will probably waste one of them.

[Applesmack]

Yes, cause we gotta nuke them and we gotta nuke them now!!! I'm advocating nuke per capita politics in the world, everybody should have at least one nuke,and mad persons should have two cause they will probably waste one of them.

Great idea! Lets give every country a nuke, including North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Georgia, etc and lets see what happens to the world

[Ishoss]

Yes, cause we gotta nuke them and we gotta nuke them now!!! I'm advocating nuke per capita politics in the world, everybody should have at least one nuke,and mad persons should have two cause they will probably waste one of them.

+rep!

[James Cook]

I would have to say NO I dont belevie in any circumstanses. that the world is
or ever will be a safer place with WMD.