Nuclear Weapons
 

Would you be willing to give up America's nuclear arsenal in exchange for a nuclear weapons free world? Is this something worth striving for?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Nuclear free world? :laughing2

Like the Russians would ever give up their nukes. The only people who have ever given them up are the South Africans. Everyone else is trying to get their hands on them.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

That is a great idea if you want Americia to become a weak nation while others build nuks. Funny thing while Obama was talking about a Nuk free world North Koria was firing off a test rocket. So I'd say now might not be the best time to distroy our nuk's unless you don't mind North Koria pushing us around in 10 years.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

If you are asking in a purely esoteric "Would you want a pony?" mode: Sure. If it guarranteed a nuclear weapon free world, I would be glad to be rid of our nuclear weapons. Even without nuclear weapons, the US has the most powerful military in the world by a large margin (I believe this to be true - further, without nukes, we could divert those expenses into strengthening our conventional forces even more).

As a practical matter, it's just not going to happen b/c no such guarrantee could ever be given.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;544175]If you are asking in a purely esoteric "Would you want a pony?" mode: Sure. If it guarranteed a nuclear weapon free world, I would be glad to be rid of our nuclear weapons. Even without nuclear weapons, the US has the most powerful military in the world by a large margin (I believe this to be true - further, without nukes, we could divert those expenses into strengthening our conventional forces even more).

As a practical matter, it's just not going to happen b/c no such guarrantee could ever be given.[/quote]

I agree totally.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;544175]If you are asking in a purely esoteric "Would you want a pony?" mode: Sure. If it guarranteed a nuclear weapon free world, I would be glad to be rid of our nuclear weapons. Even without nuclear weapons, the US has the most powerful military in the world by a large margin (I believe this to be true - further, without nukes, we could divert those expenses into strengthening our conventional forces even more).

As a practical matter, it's just not going to happen b/c no such guarrantee could ever be given.[/quote]

What he said, with the added comment that as a practical matter this question is absurd.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

How would we destroy those incoming asteroids?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Schneed10;544177]What he said, with the added comment that as a practical matter this question is absurd.[/quote]

I don't know that the question is absurd but the actual pursuit of such an idealistic endeavor is a colossal waste of time. It simply isn't something that is ever going to happen. Along with eliminating nuclear weapons we'd have to eliminate a vast amount of crazy people who don't follow rules. Or rather we'd have to first figure out how to change basic human nature. In a world where nuclear weapons have not only been thought of, they've been mass produced and even used you can't simply wrangle that genie and stick it back in the bottle when human nature is always going to lead some ne'er-do-well somewhere to break the rules.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544183]How would we destroy those incoming asteroids?[/quote]

Well Bruce Willis has gotten a little old anyways. I don't think he's got the juice to make that happen anymore.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;544175]If you are asking in a purely esoteric "Would you want a pony?" mode: Sure. If it guarranteed a nuclear weapon free world, I would be glad to be rid of our nuclear weapons. Even without nuclear weapons, the US has the most powerful military in the world by a large margin (I believe this to be true - further, without nukes, we could divert those expenses into strengthening our conventional forces even more).

As a practical matter, it's just not going to happen b/c no such guarrantee could ever be given.[/quote]
I'm not 100% positive but I don't think we are actually building more nuks so our only cost now is keeping up the ones we allready have. I belive more money is spent on finding way to distroy nukes fired at us rather tan build new ones.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Well, let's see in the Nuclear free world that included trench warfare of WW1 and firebombing of Dresden in WW2. Nuclear free does not mean war free, and it also means there is no BIG stick to prevent conflicts from escalating. I think it could be debated that the fact that India and Pakistan both have nuclear capabilities has prevented many border skirmishes from escalating.

So I guess that kinda means I am [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_assured_destruction"]MAD[/URL]

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

who wouldn't? but this is one thing we will never see, at least in our lifetime. still way too much bullying going on. hell, we cant even sit down and talk to some of the countries that possess nuclear capabilities

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=FRPLG;544190]I don't know that the question is absurd but the actual pursuit of such an idealistic endeavor is a colossal waste of time. It simply isn't something that is ever going to happen. Along with eliminating nuclear weapons we'd have to eliminate a vast amount of crazy people who don't follow rules. Or rather we'd have to first figure out how to change basic human nature. In a world where nuclear weapons have not only been thought of, they've been mass produced and even used you can't simply wrangle that genie and stick it back in the bottle when human nature is always going to lead some ne'er-do-well somewhere to break the rules.[/quote]

Which is exactly what I meant. From a practical standpoint it's impossible and not worth the time considering.

I'm one of those types that can't see the point in debating the purely hypothetical.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=dmek25;544199]who wouldn't? but this is one thing we will never see, at least in our lifetime. still way too much bullying going on. hell, we cant even sit down and talk to some of the countries that possess nuclear capabilities[/quote]
Thats old news now that Obama is in office. I heard he is going to sit down with Iran and he is at Best Buy picking out a gift to take.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544165]Would you be willing to give up America's nuclear arsenal in exchange for a nuclear weapons free world? Is this something worth striving for?[/quote]

No. You can't trust nations like Iran, North Korea, China, the new Soviet Union, Cuba, Venezuela and any nation where militant Islams reside (ex: Taliban) that can sway/intimidate Governments.

The President's hope is a noble one, in a perfect world it would be great.

However, it's naive and unrealistic. If our nuclear arsenal is dismantled, we're all going to die, guaranteed.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

On the peaceful side, would you be willing to invest heavily in new reactors, if it meant we could eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

How would you go about persuading others from developing nuclear weapons and more importantly insure that they don't get into the wrong hands?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=firstdown;544203]Thats old news now that Obama is in office. I heard he is going to [B]sit down with Iran[/B] and he is at Best Buy picking out a gift to take.[/quote]
im glad you had brought this up. do you see a problem with sitting down, and talking to these countries? i do not. if you don't have dialogue, how can you figure out what makes these guys tick, and how to solve problems?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Come on firstdown and dmek25, chill.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Interesting article on fusion research [url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20090408/sc_space/friendlydeathstarlasertorecreatesunspower]Friendly 'Death Star' Laser to Recreate Sun's Power[/url]

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544220]Come on firstdown and dmek25, chill.[/quote]
Chill what?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

i guess he wants us to stay on topic

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Why would you want to get rid of nuclear weapons? We haven't had another World War since the last one was used?

"Thank God for the bomb."
Ozzy Osbourne: The Ultimate Sin Album

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=dmek25;544230]i guess he wants us to stay on topic[/quote]
The two really go hand in hand and now to answer your question. I think when Obama says he wants to meet with these third world dictators it makes them look like they have more power in the eyes of their people so that is not good. I think the way Obama is going around saying all this stuff about Cuba, not really saying any thing to N Koria, and now saying he wants to sit down with Iran is making Obama look like a weak leader. It like he is making the concessions to meet with them and not the other way around. We are the world power and we need to act like a world power to the little third world nations that are a threat to the world.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

There's no going back. You may as well hope for a world free from fire or the wheel.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

With this economy are you kidding? Why would you want to put so many people out of work just to rid the planet from possible mutual destruction?

But on a serious note saden1, I think that us having nukes is a poker chip that our political heros have grown too cozy with having. Like someone already has stated about the genie being out of the bottle, there is no putting her back in.

And in case you were wondering, I'm glad as hell that we dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII. I would be very interested to hear what your take is on that topic.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Dwight D. Eisenhower on dropping the atomic bomb:

[B]"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."[/B]

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=4mrusmc;544259]With this economy are you kidding? Why would you want to put so many people out of work just to rid the planet from possible mutual destruction?

But on a serious note saden1, I think that us having nukes is a poker chip that our political heros have grown too cozy with having. Like someone already has stated about the genie being out of the bottle, there is no putting her back in.

[B]And in case you were wondering, I'm glad as hell that we dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII. I would be very interested to hear what your take is on that topic.[/B][/quote]

Using nukes is the ultimate moral dilemma. I'm I GLAD AS HELL we dropped two bombs on civilians? No. Would I have done the same? I would if I was down to my last option.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Beemnseven;544260]Dwight D. Eisenhower on dropping the atomic bomb:

[B]"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender, and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon."[/B][/quote]

If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544296]If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
[B]They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.[/B][/quote]

As are we are all. As is anyone who plays videogames or likes porn. As am I because I run through J-broads like I'm original Tecmo Bowl Bo Jackson going against the Broncos D.

Trample is basically right. You would have preferred that the US dropped the first bomb on a non-civilian target but they definitely weren't about to surrender. Nevertheless, it was a lot of grandmas and kids who died in Hiroshima, so I'm not sure "glad" is the most appropriate way to describe one's feelings about the bombing.

Getting back to the main discussion, I'm yes on nukes for the reasons already outlined, although national missile defense is a load of dung.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544262]Using nukes is the ultimate moral dilemma. I'm I GLAD AS HELL we dropped two bombs on civilians? No. Would I have done the same? I would if I was down to my last option.[/quote]
Back in those days that was the way we fought wars. Have you never seen the clips of planes flying over Europe just unloading a full cargo of bombs on civilians. Its not like todays wars where we have bombs that we cab guide to a target back then you just dumped your load and hoped to hit a target but wiped out entire blocks while doing so.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=4mrusmc;544259]With this economy are you kidding? Why would you want to put so many people out of work just to rid the planet from possible mutual destruction?

But on a serious note saden1, I think that us having nukes is a poker chip that our political heros have grown too cozy with having. Like someone already has stated about the genie being out of the bottle, there is no putting her back in.

And in case you were wondering, I'm glad as hell that we dropped those two bombs on Japan to end WWII. I would be very interested to hear what your take is on that topic.[/quote]
Grown too cozy with? By having these weapons it makes any nation think twice about coming after us and I'm glade we have that power in our back pocket.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544262]Using nukes is the ultimate moral dilemma. I'm I GLAD AS HELL we dropped two bombs on civilians? No. Would I have done the same? I would if I was down to my last option.[/quote]

Something we can agree on for sure.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

Everyone answered the first question but it seems no one is willing to tackle the second question?

[quote=saden1;544215]How would you go about persuading others from developing nuclear weapons and more importantly insure that they don't get into the wrong hands?[/quote]

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544215]How would you go about persuading others from developing nuclear weapons and more importantly insure that they don't get into the wrong hands?[/quote]
There is no way to do this. Countries/terrorist groups who want nukes want to enforce their will on others. They will only keep taking in negotiations until they have what they want. They will never negotiate in good faith. Unfortuantely there is, has been, and always will be evil people in the world. They won't be dissuaded by sitting down and "reasoning" or "trying to understand their point of view". The only thing that keeps them at bay is the threat of a "bigger stick" and someone who will use it if necessary.

To your second point, there is no way to do this either because countries cannot police each other's territory. If some sort of treaty was signed at the UN only the countries who weren't going to pursue nuclear weapons would allow inspectors, others would thumb their noses at the UN (Iraq, N. Korea, Iran).

I know liberals think the world can have a group hug and everyone can sing "Cumbaya". It will never work that way and all the U.S. does by approaching negotiations with rogue/terrorist states is weaken it's position and endanger lives, if not immediately, definitely in the future.

"You see, there's three types of people, d**ks, p*ssies and assholes......."

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=saden1;544393]Everyone answered the first question but it seems no one is willing to tackle the second question?[/quote]

You don't. There's your answer.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544296]If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. [B]All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off.[/B] He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.[/quote]

Was this really necessary?

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544296] All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.[/quote]
Not necessarily the best way to phrase your point, but my parents were born in the '30s and the anti-Japanese sentiment ran very deep for many who grew up or lived through WWII. I had a half-Japanese fiancee (was stationed at Yokota AB for 3 years) it was 1989-90 timeframe. Needless to say, my parents were less than pleased. Fortunately, the relationship fell apart.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Mattyk72;544419]Was this really necessary?[/quote]
My grandfather also faught in WWII and it took him along time to get over his hate for the Japanese. I think what he said is still real for alot of our elders who fought and watch as their friends die around them. They also remember the day they attacked us on our own soil so the hate is still real for some of them. Many have moved on like my grandfather but some still hold that hate and always will. I wonder how these people with this hate go shopping when everything now comes from Japan.

Re: Nuclear Weapons
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;544296][B]If they had been ready to surrender than it wouldn't have taken two. [/B]The Japanese are lucky my grandfather or great uncle weren't the President. They would've dropped eight of them, surrender or not. All you had to do was to say Jap and my uncle was ready to take your head off. He went balistic even when he was 80.
They're lucky, very lucky that there is still such a thing as Japan.[/quote]

Really? You don't think the government would drop them just because they could? You don't believe we weren't trying to send a subtle message to the Soviet Union, saying, "hey, look what we can do?"

Do you think Eisenhower was wrong in his assessment?