Should We Have Nuclear Weapons?

[TGNxHarry]

Subject: Should we have Nuclear Weapons? ​

My Opinion: I think nuclear weapons are almost essential to modern day life. They protect us. But, and this is a big but, they need to be kept in the right hands.
North Korea has huge nuclear capabilities. Ok, fair enough. But they are a country run under tyranny and by a mad leader. He's out of his mind. The nuclear weapons the country posses are not safe to be in his hands. He could press a button and we could all be dead any minute now. But he won't. Why? Because we have nukes too. Lot's of them.
This is why I think we should have them. To protect us. But, every single year, the US nuclear weapon department spends over 52 billion $. 52 billion $ ! Every year! That's a massive amount. Too much. So, here's what I think we should do, we should just stop producing new nukes. Just keep the ones we are using now, of course still spend money on them to make sure they work etc. But just don't try and develop them further. They are already developed enough, they will do what we want them to do. Blow up huge areas of land! Kill millions upon millions of people. Perfect. It would make huge savings which could be spent on other things (e.g. Infrastructure, educating the Chinese government on how to be responsible with their new emerging Super Power etc.)

Summary: Keep Nukes we have at the moment. Look after them. We're all good, with extra money.


Feel Free to object / discuss.

 

[HamJam]

North Korea has huge nuclear capabilities. Ok, fair enough. But they are a country run under tyranny and by a mad leader. He's out of his mind. The nuclear weapons the country posses are not safe to be in his hands. He could press a button and we could all be dead any minute now. But he won't. Why? Because we have nukes too. Lot's of them.

I highlighted what I thought was slightly more opinionated in the whole statement.

I'll be honest I'm totally against the use/possession of Nuclear Weapons. It all started back in 1945 when America retaliated against Japan for the attack against Pearl Harbour. The use of it started a whole era called the "Cold War", and the "Arms Race" between America and Russia. Due to the sole reason that one or the other wanted to posses the power of these weapons and as a result become a "Superpower". This obviously evolved into many other countries having the Atomic Bomb, as they developed it too. ( countries such as North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and India)
This being the case and some "crazy" individuals running these countries (Kim Jon-il, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Asif Ali Zardari) it is seen as unsafe that such weapons of mass destruction are in their hands. After saying this; this happened because America used the Atomic Bomb 65 years ago, fair enough they probably couldn't have predicted what would happen in the future but as a result of their mis-use of it, they caused the Modern Warfare that is now.

 

[Itz Me]

I highlighted what I thought was slightly more opinionated in the whole statement.

This is going to be an opinion based thread. 'Should' implies opinions.

ex. Should we do stem cell research?
Student 1's answer: Yes
Student 2's answer: no

Both are opinions.

/OT

I believe we should have them. Why? Because even if we don't, others will, whether it be a terrorist organization or a government.

 

[HamJam]

This is going to be an opinion based thread. 'Should' implies opinions.

ex. Should we do stem cell research?
Student 1's answer: Yes
Student 2's answer: no

Both are opinions.

/OT

I believe we should have them. Why? Because even if we don't, others will, whether it be a terrorist organization or a government.

Opinions can be backed up with facts, however I felt the statement which he made (that I made bold) wasn't backed with facts which support his argument and as a result it lacks reliability and becomes too strongly opinionated.

 

[TGNxHarry]

Opinions can be backed up with facts, however I felt the statement which he made (that I made bold) wasn't backed with facts which support his argument and as a result it lacks reliability and becomes too strongly opinionated.

So, are you saying that Kim Jong-il isn't crazy? Once again, my opinion, but I think he certainly is crazy. Why? He has banned all American influences in North Korea. Ridiculous, I'm saying this as a brit
And to overcome this crazy rule, he's made his own crazy sandwich.Kim Jong Il created some new non-Western food by himself. North Korean newspaper Minju Joson reported that Kim Jong Il invented a new sandwich called “double bread with meat” in an attempt to provide “quality” food to university students. He then built a plant capable of mass hamburger production to feed his students and teachers, despite the fact that the majority of his citizens battle famine on a daily basis.

Even though a huge amount of his country are starving, he decides to make a new meat sandwich for uni students. How thoughtful.
Another reason why he's mad = Communist.

 

[slay blad3]

Irrelevant.

 

[oblivion9032]

i'd like it if no one had nuclear weapons but right now, we need them to keep us safe as a deterrent against attacks from the wackos in North Korea and Iran

 

[Trinity19]

So, are you saying that Kim Jong-il isn't crazy? Once again, my opinion, but I think he certainly is crazy. Why? He has banned all American influences in North Korea. Ridiculous, I'm saying this as a brit
And to overcome this crazy rule, he's made his own crazy sandwich.Kim Jong Il created some new non-Western food by himself. North Korean newspaper Minju Joson reported that Kim Jong Il invented a new sandwich called “double bread with meat” in an attempt to provide “quality” food to university students. He then built a plant capable of mass hamburger production to feed his students and teachers, despite the fact that the majority of his citizens battle famine on a daily basis.

Even though a huge amount of his country are starving, he decides to make a new meat sandwich for uni students. How thoughtful.
Another reason why he's mad = Communist.

Well if the reason he's crazy is because he banned all American influences then i don't see how that is a very strong supporting argument considering its a common practice for a leader to hinder the flow of an opposing force's ideals within there area.
(Also i don't see how he's crazy because he's helping his university students, yes there are other problems but this was a simple one and lets face it: University attendants= Higher success rate than say a poorer family)
And communism eh....each to ones own. No form of government is good it only is a little bit better if you agree with the ideals.

Back to the original topic though, Yes we should have nuclear weapons. (Although I'm sure that a good percentage of that 52 Billion is put more into research than development) You are correct they a very good deterrent for conflict. Now whether or not they're in the "right" hands will depend on what that person intends to do with them or how they plan to utilize them.

Most leaders aren't the "right" hands because they have no idea, no plan for them they just let them sit there and use them as a bargaining chip when they can, while a leader like let's say, Hitler would be the "right" hands for them to be because in the way he would use them would be exactly what you would expect him for. He would realize that these are weapons and there main function is to kill, thus using them perfectly to an advantage by executing the strengths.

In the end, we need some form of a military advantage. If we don't someone else will.
Best analogy i can think of is this:
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"- Ghandi, Yeah but if we have a midevil knights full helm and an 8 foot long lance (IE eyepoker) then I'm pretty sure 1.) People are gonna think twice about trying to take our eyes and 2.) We can take out others easier.

Also a quick little side note, does anyone else find it funny how the recipe for coke is kept under more secrecy than the nuclear secrets were? Russians can steal our weapons but FUCKIN HELL IF WERE GONNA LET EM HAVE OUR SODA!

 

[TGNxHarry]

Yes we should have nuclear weapons. (Although I'm sure that a good percentage of that 52 Billion is put more into research than development).

Yes, I'm sure that is true, but, why can't we just keep the one's we have now? As I said, they will do the job perfectly well, & for a fraction of the price. We don't need them to get better & better.

E.g. Which situation would be more scary?
1. Being threatened to be shot in the head by a WW2 Thompson Machine Gun.
2. Being threatened to be shot in the head by a modern day FAMAS ?

You would die in both situations, so it really doesn't matter on which gun is better, as long as it's powerful enough to do the jobs (like our nukes are today) then we can stop developing them, in order to save money.

 

[Trinity19]

Yes, I'm sure that is true, but, why can't we just keep the one's we have now? As I said, they will do the job perfectly well, & for a fraction of the price. We don't need them to get better & better.

E.g. Which situation would be more scary?
1. Being threatened to be shot in the head by a WW2 Thompson Machine Gun.
2. Being threatened to be shot in the head by a modern day FAMAS ?

You would die in both situations, so it really doesn't matter on which gun is better, as long as it's powerful enough to do the jobs (like our nukes are today) then we can stop developing them, in order to save money.

Yes your correct about the severity levels being the same on a "personal" level. But, in a mass populated society the situation changes.

An example being:
1.) A bomb that kills 500 people at maximum and that's all.
2.) A bomb that kills 500 people but at a minimum and after the explosion radiates the entire area so its completely unusable for 20 years.

So yes both killed 500 people, but the range of destruction for the more advanced bomb is much larger and the additive of the radiation makes it even worse. So maybe i can agree with you with the production of constantly similar nukes but I would probably have to change my opinion towards nukes that are more advanced through technology.

 

[davidh93]

we dont need something that can practically wipe a town out existence to protect us.. It is overkill and unnecessary. Also IF we do use these weapons for protection, over countries will follow in our path and retaliate with destruction of the same caliber. This will cause mass unneeded destruction. Aren't guns enough?

 

[Ogame4]

Nuclear weapon must be only for defending us of big asteroids that can crash one earth, for all other is death for us.. If only one country lounch nuclear weapon on other this is the end of the world, all of us would die

 

This is going to be an opinion based thread. 'Should' implies opinions.

No, 'should' implies a value judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment

This is not the same thing as an opinion. Although he has stated he is making a statement of opinion; which isn't really allowed in this forum.

Subject: Should we have Nuclear Weapons? ​

I'll start by saying that you don't define the 'we' in your statement, nor by what standard you are asking this question.

 

[Guides R Us]

I believe as a nation the United States needs them to keep from other countries threatening us with theirs.

If we didn't have any at all then other countries like North Korea could just come and threaten us with bombing the US if we didn't follow their orders.

Do I think we should spend as much money as we do on nuclear weapons ?
Simply put, no. Too many things are of importance this day and age and since we already have nuclear weapons why do we need more?
We need more money for things that threaten us a whole, diseases and the such.

 

[TGNxHarry]

I'll start by saying that you don't define the 'we' in your statement, nor by what standard you are asking this question.

I mean we, by the western world. In particular the US UK alliance. Just by saying that, another question comes into my head, if, for example, the UK was nuked by Russia, would America retaliate? Would they nuke Russia?
Just an idea.

 

I mean we, by the western world. In particular the US UK alliance.

That doesn't explain who 'we' is, unless of course you are asking if 400 million individual human beings should own nuclear weapons. To which my response would be morally, no.

What I suspect you are actually asking is "should the same group of psychopaths responsible for 200 million deaths last century have unlimited access to the most destructive and powerful force mankind has ever discovered?" To which the answer is completely obvious.

 

[Karl]

I think nuclear weapons are almost essential to modern day life. They protect us. But, and this is a big but, they need to be kept in the right hands.

Who and what determines the "Right Hands" ?

North Korea has huge nuclear capabilities. Ok, fair enough. But they are a country run under tyranny and by a mad leader. He's out of his mind. The nuclear weapons the country posses are not safe to be in his hands. He could press a button and we could all be dead any minute now. But he won't. Why? Because we have nukes too. Lot's of them.

Doesn't matter HOW many nukes you have, as soon as he pressed the button you've signed the your own deathwish, hence why its actually why its more likely he'd attack, the more nukes The government has control of

This is why I think we should have them. To protect us. But, every single year, the US nuclear weapon department spends over 52 billion $. 52 billion $ ! Every year! That's a massive amount. Too much. So, here's what I think we should do, we should just stop producing new nukes. Just keep the ones we are using now,

Using now? The last two nukes used in military tactics were 65 years ago, why is it necessary to keep them, there'll never be a nuclear war.. Unless the government continues the production of them and the protection against them.. Makes no sense? because you're pushing the opponent, if the americans forwarded the idea to build a missile defence shield in europe, What will the russians/north korean/eastern countries have to lose? That'd grant the americans ability to shoot nukes whenever they wanted. If it went through, I'd expect there'd be a more like full forced attack.

of course still spend money on them to make sure they work etc. But just don't try and develop them further. They are already developed enough, they will do what we want them to do. Blow up huge areas of land! Kill millions upon millions of people. Perfect. It would make huge savings which could be spent on other things (e.g. Infrastructure, educating the Chinese government on how to be responsible with their new emerging Super Power etc.)

I agree with this mostly.. but why should we educate the chinese government, you do know they have a much Higher IQ average than yourself, right? I would find it offensive and rude if someone tried to tell me (if i was a leader) when or how i should use my military weapons.

Summary: Keep Nukes we have at the moment. Look after them. We're all good, with extra money.

Summary; Disarm thousands of nukes keep some, you can't undo a mistake entirely because it'd be dangerous to.

 

[kill dank]

Nukes are bad to have around because people argue too much. Stuff happens and all of a sudden the world is a wasteland, you know? If everyone could get along, having nukes around wouldn't be such a bad thing. Nukes can be used if we need to defend ourselves from an alien invasion or for blowing stuff up in space.

 

[Trinity19]

That doesn't explain who 'we' is, unless of course you are asking if 400 million individual human beings should own nuclear weapons. To which my response would be morally, no.

What I suspect you are actually asking is "should the same group of psychopaths responsible for 200 million deaths last century have unlimited access to the most destructive and powerful force mankind has ever discovered?" To which the answer is completely obvious.

Obviously it's intended for the person reading to apply themselves as apart of the government which they are involved in. Is it vague? yes but it doesn't have to be precise as this is more a free thought area.

Nukes are bad to have around because people argue too much. Stuff happens and all of a sudden the world is a wasteland, you know? If everyone could get along, having nukes around wouldn't be such a bad thing. Nukes can be used if we need to defend ourselves from an alien invasion or for blowing stuff up in space.

What your implying is a sense of peace, which is impossible. (Yes people, we want peace but it is almost completely impossible.)
The reasons nukes work so well are because of pure human nature. Human's strive for self preservation and greed. If attacking another country will have a complete certainty of the destruction of yourself and your source of sustenance for your greed then you will be more cautious with how you deal with situations.

If we only had guns this gives a much larger probability that you may survive. Thus why a weapon that can destroy large areas with very little effort is necessary.

 

[Itz Me]

No, 'should' implies a value judgment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_judgment

This is not the same thing as an opinion. Although he has stated he is making a statement of opinion; which isn't really allowed in this forum.

Thank you, I guess I didn't fully understand that.