1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are you for or against world Nuclear weapon control?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by yaddoe, Aug 5, 2012.

  1. yaddoe

    yaddoe Kyle Adams

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +42
    Should every country have the right to bare nuclear weapons?
    If some countries can not be trusted with nuclear weapons who is going to
    regulate it? How do you expect to do this without a world government?
    If all countries but those deemed unworthy of nuclear weapons had access of nuclear weapons would these weapons not be readily available, if so are not the bad guys going
    To get them anyway? What about using them? Is this not a path to disaster?

    My body is a government of cells working to gether as well as that of
    each other human body in existance. Parellel to the nuclear to bomb is the gun
    an instrament that can be used to quickly and easily end the lives of 50 people. (50 other countries/ governments) should not my views on gun control be the same as nuclear control?
     
  2. Shuddhasattva

    Shuddhasattva Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    Messages:
    2,543
    Ratings:
    +297
    Yergh, tough questions.

    In a (more) perfect world, I would support complete disarmament. As it stands, I support disarmament to the point needed to maintain an effective and credible deterrent - a definition open to much interpretation, with the winning interpretations likely to be the ones most extravagantly lobbied from within and without the MIC.

    Mutually assured destruction is pretty insane, but the obvious alternative is even more insane.

    As far as the international community selecting who can and who can't have nuclear arms, I think this is largely arbitrary, and there is no international community outside effective perception management of the intent of special interests which project themselves under a banner of global legitimacy and through the imprimatur of powerful nations.

    Again, the principles of MAD hold true, as schizophrenic as they are - and they are.

    The thing that worries me is not rogue states with nuclear weapons, but rogue organizations whose actions can pit states against one another.
     
  3. Sleeppy

    Sleeppy Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    5,758
    Ratings:
    +406
    No country should have the right for nuclear weapons.
     
  4. waitasec

    waitasec Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    21,038
    Ratings:
    +475
    how come?
     
  5. Shermana

    Shermana Heretic

    Joined:
    May 15, 2011
    Messages:
    10,814
    Ratings:
    +327
    How would you enforce that?
     
  6. idav

    idav Being
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    18,986
    Ratings:
    +3,302
    Religion:
    Pantheist
    Well I think for obvious reasons, not just anyone should be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. People are enough of a threat without weapons.
     
  7. yaddoe

    yaddoe Kyle Adams

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +42
    So do you feel no person should be allowed to carry guns?
     
  8. Sleeppy

    Sleeppy Fatalist. Christian. Pacifist.

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    Messages:
    5,758
    Ratings:
    +406
    That'd be nice too.
     
  9. yaddoe

    yaddoe Kyle Adams

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +42
    Wow, I am not used to so many people agreeing with me on gun control. In Utah I feel like a total outsider when I try to share my beliefs on the subject. All these Republicans seem to be very comunist-aphobic fearing such an act would turn the United States communist. *rolling my eyes*
     
  10. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,998
    Ratings:
    +593
    I believe that all countries should abandon violent means. I do not believe that this end should be achieved through the exercise of force by any single governmental organization. Any entity considered external to the organic whole will only seek to control it to a tyrannical end. The reduction of the potential for mass destruction must be brought about by the willful consciousness raising of individuals seeking to transcend the status quo. It requires many small changes in the lives of individuals that culminate into a revolutionarily new way of being on the collective level. We are that potential ready to realize itself.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Kerr

    Kerr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    6,630
    Ratings:
    +349
    I think nuclear weapon control is a good thing. In all honesty I think the world would be better of without nuclear weapons. But since we have them we need control over them.
     
  12. Kerr

    Kerr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    6,630
    Ratings:
    +349
    No matter how many guns a lunatic buy, he cannot make an entire city burn and reduce the population to dust. If he had a nuke, on the other hand... A weapon of mass destruction simply cannot be compared to a gun :no:.
     
  13. yaddoe

    yaddoe Kyle Adams

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +42
    I think you are missing the perspective.
    A nuclear weapon can turn a city to dust and devastate an entire country.
    My opening statement said that every person's body is a government of cells working together. Every man is his own country and a gun in that man's hands is a nuclear weapon to the individual governments of every person.
    Many people say, oh well I could kill someone with a rock, which may very well be true, but how easy would it be to kill someone with a rock? Do you ever hear of someone walking into a theater with a backpack full of rocks and killing 50 people (individual governments) I don't think so. Guns make killing individual governments (people's bodies) easy. Nuclear weapons make killing peoples countries something easy. Are you catching the parallel?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Kerr

    Kerr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    Messages:
    6,630
    Ratings:
    +349
    Not really. Are you saying that because you can make a theoretical comparisment between a person being shot (a nation of cells devastated by a weapon) and a country getting nuked (a nation of people devastated by a weapon) that gun control and nuclear control are similar? Or are you asking if that should be the case? Or have I misunderstood?
     
  15. TheKnight

    TheKnight Guardian of Life

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2009
    Messages:
    3,100
    Ratings:
    +195
    Religion:
    Judaism
    I long for a world without violence, but the world I long for does not exist. We don't live in should-land. What should be isn't. If it were we wouldn't designate it with should.


    I'd like to believe a time will come where mankind will grow past a need for nuclear weapons and for guns. However, we don't yet live in such a time. For that reason I support owning weapons (firearms even) for protection.

    As far as nuclear weapons go, I think that they are extremely destructive and ultimately unnecessary. It is a shame to me, that we fund nuclear weapons programs as much as we do when if the same funds went to the funding of scientific efforts to expand nuclear energy in non-weaponized ways, we probably would have long solved our impending energy crisis.

    I think the US is uniquely positioned in that we could greatly influence disarmament. How you ask? By disarming ourselves. If we ended our nuclear weapons programs, and disarmed our nuclear arsenal I think much of the world would follow suit.

    "What about those people who would nuke us? We wouldn't be able to nuke them back!?"

    To that I have to responses:

    1. So what? What would nuking them back accomplish?
    2. If we get nuked because we don't have a nuclear arsenal, then let us be wiped off the face of the Earth and into the history books as the nation that stood by a principle of believing in peace and advancing peace to the point that we rid ourselves of weapons of mass destruction. Let us fade away into the history books as those who took the first major step towards total nuclear disarmament. Let us be forever known as the nation whose enemies destroyed it, so that the children of our enemies might become aware of the horror wrought by their fathers and, in a more modern and developed world, follow the example we set.
     
  16. crocusj

    crocusj Active Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    Messages:
    778
    Ratings:
    +30
    At first glance, possibly. Both guns and nuclear weapons are held by countries and individuals ostensibly for self defense. And yet countless, murdered, bullet ridden bodies pile up and nuclear bombs have been used twice before. Not to mention that all nations that have these game ending weapons have said that they would use them and are happily constructing smaller tactical versions to make this a more prudent idea. So, no individuals can be trusted to carry guns and no nations can be trusted to hold nuclear weapons. But it's not about trust, is it? It is the lack of trust in our fellow individuals and other countries that make guns and bombs attractive. When the food and the oil and the water all run out, we might have to re-evaluate our take on who the good guys are, remembering that those who use/want the most resources have the biggest weapons. I'm glad I'm old. I do see where you are coming from though, and you should not let the pessimism of the aged dampen your ideas or ideals. Alternatively, we're all doomed Capt. Mainwaring...doomed.
     
  17. yaddoe

    yaddoe Kyle Adams

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2011
    Messages:
    2,279
    Ratings:
    +42
    That is why the majority of the citizens need to choose to give up the right to bare arms and not have the government do so without the majority of the people's consent.
     
  18. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,998
    Ratings:
    +593
    Our power has expanded expotentially and yet the wisdom to wield it appropriately is still severely lacking.
     
  19. Sir Doom

    Sir Doom Cooler than most of you

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    Messages:
    3,304
    Ratings:
    +637
    Religion:
    Incomplete
    I'm a little split on this one, to be honest. I think the world has more or less outgrown the usefulness of nuclear weapons. They are a horrible offensive weapon. They basically only hold appeal for dyed-in-the-wool madmen who only want to see burning bodies and smoking ruins because it gets their willy hard. Even in the case of a totalitarian super-conqueror trying to subjugate the globe, whatever you nuke becomes useless. That defeats the entire purpose. Now we have smart missiles, specter gunships, and HALO-jumping spec-ops teams. All of these are so much better at the job. What can you pillage from a smoking ruin? How much oil can you pump out of a glass parking lot? Not much at all, really.

    On the other hand, as a defensive weapon it makes a lot of sense. Considering the world conqueror again, what reasonable expectation could they have of victory if nuclear death may suddenly be falling from the sky on their headquarters? Its an undeniable deterrent. Not just for other nukes as is often used to justify them, but for just about any kind of WWIII scenario you can think of. Everyone just stays in their nice little corners and plays the economic and political games instead of the 'who has the biggest army' game.

    It stands to reason that those countries who have them already frown upon anyone else joining their ranks. Playing fair means the 'bad guys' can win, too. We don't want 'bad guys' to win so we don't play fair. It could be argued that we have no right to say who is the 'bad guys' and who isn't, but we do have the power to get our way. So, its really a moot point. When push comes to shove, I'm glad its worked out the way it has. The nations that have nukes seem to be somewhat responsible with them (we've more or less completely stopped testing them), so why press our luck by letting everyone else give it a shot? Sooner or later, if you let everyone have nukes, some nutball is going to get one and we'll really regret our sense of fair play.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Straw Dog

    Straw Dog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,998
    Ratings:
    +593
    This assumes that there aren't any "nutballs" already living in the developed nations with access to nuclear weapons. I doubt security is so tight at all the facilities that one or more WMDs cannot be stolen, or perhaps a fanatical fundamentalist neo-con working at the Pentagon believes he must start a nuclear war in order to play his part in Armageddon because of how he interprets the Book of Revelation. As long as these weapons exist, there will be the potential for them to be used. I think gradual and equal reduction of weapons among nations is one of the only viable solutions to avoid potential disaster on a mass scale.
     
Loading...