On the Use of Nuclear Weaponry

[nastypass]

Can someone remind me why the Us is allowe to decide who can have nuclear weapons and not tia

I don't know really. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we invented them (for the most part at least, iirc) and have more of them than most countries? *shrugs*

can't we just abolish weaponry altogether

BUT THEN THE REDS WIN!!

 

[Tarvos]

thats good I always wanted a red flag

 

[opaltiger]

I don't know really. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we invented them (for the most part at least, iirc) and have more of them than most countries? *shrugs*

This is a misconception. Russia actually has quite a lot more than the US.

 

[Dannichu]

Yeah, but given both the US and Russia have the capabilities to destroy the entire world multiple times (which I still find darkly amusing), it doesn't really matter who has more, no?

 

[goldenquagsire]

@VPLJ and Ruby: I'm not in favour of nuclear weapons. As I said, they're pointless and aren't actually any good at defending your country. However, if you get rid of *all* of a country's military infrastructure and weaponry (stuff like non-nuclear missiles, tanks, soldiers etc.), what exactly are you going to do when Hitler's great-great-great-grandnephew decides to invade?

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Nothing because he won't have anything to invade us with.
And there are some countries that don't have armed forces and they're doing okay?

 

[goldenquagsire]

Nothing because he won't have anything to invade us with.

hint: yes he will.

remember the inter-war years? full disarmament means nothing unless everyone is forced to. and that is not likely to happen.

And there are some countries that don't have armed forces and they're doing okay?

said countries are:
a) too insignificant to bother invading
b) not near any particularly warlike countries
c) near a bigger country with a military that will protect them

 

[Vladimir Putin's LJ]

Well if there aren't any weapons (not things like tanks and stuff I mean) what's he supposed to do, ride in on a horse.

Some of said countries have their friend NATO, true, but some really don't have anything to defend themselves with. Countries like Japan, who isn't allowed to have an offensive military since WWII, are doing pretty dandy.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Well if there aren't any weapons (not things like tanks and stuff I mean) what's he supposed to do, ride in on a horse.

wait we need to clear something up.

are you saying "no military whatsoever" or "no planet-killing weapons".

 

[Tarvos]

attack with a kitchen knife

I'm in favour of no military whatsoever

 

[goldenquagsire]

attack with a kitchen knife

i'm pretty sure that even if the world disarmed to this level, one country would still gain a tactical advantage over the other by attaching their kitchen knives to brooms.

 

[Music Dragon]

Getting rid of all weapons is a bad idea - you can't expect people to be good-natured enough for it to work. Someone's going to take advantage of the situation sooner or later.

 

[Ruby]

@VPLJ and Ruby: I'm not in favour of nuclear weapons. As I said, they're pointless and aren't actually any good at defending your country. However, if you get rid of *all* of a country's military infrastructure and weaponry (stuff like non-nuclear missiles, tanks, soldiers etc.), what exactly are you going to do when Hitler's great-great-great-grandnephew decides to invade?

In my other post, the machine-guns were a metaphor specifically for nuclear weapons. I'm not sure about getting rid of all weapons altogether.

 

[Jason-Kun]

I say get rid of all world destroying weapons. They're just too adngerous to have around. Other less dangerous weapons like say guns and regular bombs however should be perfectly allowed to stay.

 

[Crazy Linoone]

It's quite interesting how the US and Russia can destroy the whole world right now if they feel like it.

Hmm... I wonder what this red button does. Oops. The world just got destroyed.

Nukes are way too dangerous. One or two is fine, really, but a whole lot of them is just not right. I agree with the destroy-all-weapons thing, even though it's not going to work. If we destroy all weapons, then people will be forced to fight each other with fists and sharp sticks, which kills way less innocent people than machine guns and bombs.