Should We Have Nuclear Weapons?

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.

But you're not part of the criminals doing business as 'the government', and even if you were, you wouldn't have access to the nuclear weapons. Probably the same 5 psychopaths that presided over the last half dozen wars have sole access. The only thing that surprises me is that we're not all burning in fission inferno right now.

 

[perf]

TL;DR whole thread.

My answer is No. But that is only because they way I think the world should be. Most people would disagree with me, but I'll speak my opinion anyways.

They way I think the world should be, is very simple. Take us back about a Thousand years or so. To when the vikings roamed supreme. Kill for your food, and kill for your life. Survival of the fittest, all the way. I think we should live solo, or in clans/packs. No one should have more power just because of their job, or because they are said to be. I think the stronger, or just who ever can prove they have more power, should have more power. There would be more chances of myself dieing, but who cares? We all die sometime, and might as well enjoy life while living.

 

[Noire.]

Kill for your food, and kill for your life. Survival of the fittest, all the way.

Are you advocating that humanity should revert to more barbaric means of gaining power, influence, and affluence? Murder is murder, whether by atomic obliteration or primitive weaponry.

No one should have more power just because of their job, or because they are said to be. I think the stronger, or just who ever can prove they have more power, should have more power.

So you think that power should be held by those with more physical finesse as opposed to those with other attributes such as wisdom, benevolence, and equivalence?

 

[goku usa]

52 billion is a lot?
You know how much we spend on keeping small time non-violent drug dealers behind bars? 184 billion a year.

 

[Trinity19]

But you're not part of the criminals doing business as 'the government', and even if you were, you wouldn't have access to the nuclear weapons. Probably the same 5 psychopaths that presided over the last half dozen wars have sole access. The only thing that surprises me is that we're not all burning in fission inferno right now.

I said the government that a person is apart of. A civilian is a small part of this but is still involved.
Eh psychopath is a lil bit of an overstatement, you would have to give me some backup to that for me to understand.

 

[Noire.]

I said the government that a person is apart of. A civilian is a small part of this but is still involved.

I don't see myself as involved with the government in any way but rather they send me their bills and coerce me to pay "my share" for "public infrastructure" that I "use". On the same token, no civilian has any clout in the use of nuclear weaponry.

Eh psychopath is a lil bit of an overstatement, you would have to give me some backup to that for me to understand.

This is a quick definition I managed to grab:

[Psychopath is a term used for a person] characterized by an abnormal lack of empathy combined with strongly amoral conduct but masked by an ability to appear outwardly normal.

Using this definition, I stand by Sythe's assessment of those who hold the keys to nuclear weaponry as psychopathic.

 

[perf]

Are you advocating that humanity should revert to more barbaric means of gaining power, influence, and affluence? Murder is murder, whether by atomic obliteration or primitive weaponry.



So you think that power should be held by those with more physical finesse as opposed to those with other attributes such as wisdom, benevolence, and equivalence?

Murder is murder, but it depends what society you live in for the meaning and consequences to bet set for murder. Yes I'm saying we should live in barbaric means and times.


Wisdom is a very good power, and yes I think that should give some society power, along with strongest. But if we lived back then, if you can't defend, you're probably gonna get killed.

 

[TGNxHarry]

They way I think the world should be, is very simple. Take us back about a Thousand years or so. To when the vikings roamed supreme. Kill for your food, and kill for your life. Survival of the fittest, all the way. I think we should live solo, or in clans/packs. No one should have more power just because of their job, or because they are said to be. I think the stronger, or just who ever can prove they have more power, should have more power. There would be more chances of myself dieing, but who cares? We all die sometime, and might as well enjoy life while living.

Having Nukes is part of survival of the fittest. The person with the biggest stick is the fittest.

 

[Guillaumevdv]

The only thing that surprises me is that we're not all burning in fission inferno right now.

I totally agree. If there are people capable of killing thousand of inocent civilians then why didn't one of those destroy an entire country yet.

If you have no problems with pounding some planes into towers then why would you hesitate using small WMD's.

Why has noone took an entire city as hostage ? We only see it on tv. But why isn't it reality. if I were fighting for my greater cause and would be cruel
I'd threaten whole communities with WMD's. Like release my fellow fighters or say byebye to city a or b.

 

[Trinity19]

I don't see myself as involved with the government in any way but rather they send me their bills and coerce me to pay "my share" for "public infrastructure" that I "use". On the same token, no civilian has any clout in the use of nuclear weaponry.



This is a quick definition I managed to grab:



Using this definition, I stand by Sythe's assessment of those who hold the keys to nuclear weaponry as psychopathic.

Whether or not you see yourself as involved is of little importance as you are. Coerce you to pay? You should pay considering your living in the country. If you don't like helping then leave? Either way that's a different topic.

Also your description of a psychopath is incredibly vague, who decides what is moral? if morality is a personal choice then how can one act amoral unless they're going against their own beliefs. Also the appear to be "normal" i must ask again, who decides what is normal?
So i must disagree with you and sythe, sythe because i did not fully understand his original statement and you because your argument was vague and did not include enough supporting information.

 

I said the government that a person is apart of. A civilian is a small part of this but is still involved.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you get to "vote"; the suggestion box for slaves.

Eh psychopath is a lil bit of an overstatement, you would have to give me some backup to that for me to understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#DSM

 

[Noire.]

Whether or not you see yourself as involved is of little importance as you are. Coerce you to pay?

My question is: why do I have to pay for these weapons capable of heinous destruction?

You should pay considering your living in the country. If you don't like helping then leave?

Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate certain values of my country, but by no means does that condone bureaucrats and government lackeys to have the power of wiping out humanity.

 

[DtheK]

Hmm.. reminds me of a thread I made in here a while back ^_^

I have a lot to say so I'll just keep it at a minimum:

We should keep nuclear weapons because 1) total disarmament or verification of total disarmament is impossible 2) the knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons is ineradicable whether we like it or not so even if we get rid of nukes states are able to re-arm

 

[0belisk]

lol we should all have nuclear weapons... doesnt sound smart to me, could you imagine some badass epic hacker, hacked into the place that had control over the nuclear weapons and launched them all, (preferably to somewhere like africa)

win?

 

[zbygniewas]

I think we don't need nuclearn weapons, cause it can make ALOT of damage, instead of benefit.

PEACE!

 

I think we need to have them just in case, but I don't think any country would have the guts to use them.