Nuclear Weapons- Who should have them and why?

[Dawnofhope]

I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity. A number of countries have them and some aspire to have them. Its been 74 years since the last nuclear bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. As international relationships often become volatile the threat of the use of such weapons rears its head again. So who should have nuclear weapons at all and why?

I believe there’s a moral imperative not to have them at all, though all nations would need to agree to disarm simultaneously. Its a matter my own faith has a lot to say about. When Bahá’u’lláh rather boldly wrote to the Monarchs and rulers of the earth in the 1870s He declared:

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful. (Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188)

The Baha’is often advocate for for disarmament which in turn strengthens development.

The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Maybe a better question is who should decide who should have nuclear weapons.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Maybe a better question is who should decide who should have nuclear weapons.

I think its an excellent question.

 

[Dawnofhope]

So for some background, despite significant reductions in US, Russian, French and British nuclear forces compared with Cold War levels, all the nuclear weapon states continue to modernise their remaining nuclear forces and appear committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.

Nine of the world’s 200+ countries now possess nuclear weapons: The United States, Russia, The United Kingdom, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Iran is widely thought to be aspiring member number ten in the nuclear club.

So another question is who decided that these countries should have nuclear weapons in the first place? Clearly each sovereign nation independently decided they should have nuclear weapons for a variety of historical reasons.

 

[Nimos]

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

Not sure, If nuclear weapons prevent the big countries from going to war with each other due to the threat, that is at least something positive. On the other side it also allow countries like North Korea to treat their people like crap, while no one is really able to do anything about it. I don't think religion have a lot to say in this, not meant in a negative way, but honestly I don't think a lot of things can change how it is. None of the countries that have nuclear weapons are going to give them up for good, regardless of how much people protest.

I think the only way to get rid of them, would be if they could somehow be made obsolete, which is probably not going to happen anytime soon Since that is not going to happen I think we should just work towards keeping it with those countries that have them now and work towards not allowing anymore to get them.

 

[74x12]

I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity. A number of countries have them and some aspire to have them. Its been 74 years since the last nuclear bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. As international relationships often become volatile the threat of the use of such weapons rears its head again. So who should have nuclear weapons at all and why?

I believe there’s a moral imperative not to have them at all, though all nations would need to agree to disarm simultaneously. Its a matter my own faith has a lot to say about. When Bahá’u’lláh rather boldly wrote to the Monarchs and rulers of the earth in the 1870s He declared:

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful. (Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188)

The Baha’is often advocate for for disarmament which in turn strengthens development.

The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

I think no one should have them but that is an impossible pipe dream.

As for who I think should have them realistically. I think any country should have them who wants to defend themselves. I think they should be kept out of the hands of terrorists and dangerous dictator types as much as possible.

I'm all for the USA modernizing it's arsenal. A necessary evil because if we don't then we could expect a preemptive attack the minute our enemies are satisfied that they can actually get away with it. The concept of the "nuclear deterrent" only works to keep the peace so long as both sides consider the other side's ability to retaliate as a significant threat. If one side can gain such an advantage that it no longer respects the other side's ability to react quickly enough; then it may strike at any time.

 

[Vinayaka]

I think there should be a slow disarmament to right the wrongs of building it up in the first place.

My faith teaches ahimsa, but is also prepared to protect that right. Three of the traditional 4 caste/varnas can remain peaceful only provided the fourth group (kshatriya) ensures it. Meek societies (and meek people) just get run over like doormats when this system isn't in place. Many peace loving meek societies have been wiped out because they didn't recognise the visitors as conquerors. The main reason my faith is alive today is because of a few very brave kshatriyas who rightfully stood up to conquerors. During the Muslim invasions, as many as 150 000 people were slaughtered on a single day. We're lucky, and grateful to still be around.

Don't let strangers into your house until you really know them.

As for disarmament, the big guys can set an example.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity. A number of countries have them and some aspire to have them. Its been 74 years since the last nuclear bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. As international relationships often become volatile the threat of the use of such weapons rears its head again. So who should have nuclear weapons at all and why?

I believe there’s a moral imperative not to have them at all, though all nations would need to agree to disarm simultaneously. Its a matter my own faith has a lot to say about. When Bahá’u’lláh rather boldly wrote to the Monarchs and rulers of the earth in the 1870s He declared:

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful. (Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188)

The Baha’is often advocate for for disarmament which in turn strengthens development.

The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

To me it appears that the threat of nukes is a fear that is likely to keep nukes viable and in production, but they are not as worthwhile as they once were -- not as strategic. With smaller arms you can accomplish more. The armies of the world seem to already be developing different weapons that can replace big ballistic nukes with equivalent bombs and smaller nuclear explosives. Its the threat that matters, and smaller bombs actually pose a larger threat.

Big nukes are expensive, an inflexible solution and also difficult to maintain. That is what to stress in order to get rid of them, not their battle capabilities. They are an expense, and they can never practically be used nor are they easy to move about. It is much more cost effective to have jet plane and carriers and a space force. You make the carriers and planes resistant against electromagnetics and if someone launches a nuke that country can still be counter attacked. We don't need to immediately counterattack with ballistic nukes from silos. We can do it with other means. Our main interest should be in missiles which shoot down ballistic missiles, and we have those.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Not sure, If nuclear weapons prevent the big countries from going to war with each other due to the threat, that is at least something positive. On the other side it also allow countries like North Korea to treat their people like crap, while no one is really able to do anything about it. I don't think religion have a lot to say in this, not meant in a negative way, but honestly I don't think a lot of things can change how it is. None of the countries that have nuclear weapons are going to give them up for good, regardless of how much people protest.

I think the only way to get rid of them, would be if they could somehow be made obsolete, which is probably not going to happen anytime soon Since that is not going to happen I think we should just work towards keeping it with those countries that have them now and work towards not allowing anymore to get them.

The nuclear deterrent argument is certainly the main justification for continuing with such weapons of mass destruction. We haven’t had the use of nuclear weapons since 1945 but we’ve certainly come close. I suspect when we inevitably do have nuclear weapons used again the deterrent argument will be weakened and serious reconsideration be given to disarmament.

Nuclear deterrents of course do nothing to stop tyranny and rulers exploiting their people and power. You don’t necessarily have to live in North Korea to be so afflicted.

Religion however you view it can be a powerful motivator.

The problem for now is limiting their proliferation. North Korea has them and Iran will likely join the club.

 

[Wandering Monk]

As bad as nukes are, I fear biological weapons far more.

 

[leov]

I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity. A number of countries have them and some aspire to have them. Its been 74 years since the last nuclear bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. As international relationships often become volatile the threat of the use of such weapons rears its head again. So who should have nuclear weapons at all and why?

I believe there’s a moral imperative not to have them at all, though all nations would need to agree to disarm simultaneously. Its a matter my own faith has a lot to say about. When Bahá’u’lláh rather boldly wrote to the Monarchs and rulers of the earth in the 1870s He declared:

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful. (Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188)

The Baha’is often advocate for for disarmament which in turn strengthens development.

The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

US used DU in Iraq, Serbia.

 

[Nakosis]

I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity. A number of countries have them and some aspire to have them. Its been 74 years since the last nuclear bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. As international relationships often become volatile the threat of the use of such weapons rears its head again. So who should have nuclear weapons at all and why?

I believe there’s a moral imperative not to have them at all, though all nations would need to agree to disarm simultaneously. Its a matter my own faith has a lot to say about. When Bahá’u’lláh rather boldly wrote to the Monarchs and rulers of the earth in the 1870s He declared:

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful. (Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188)

The Baha’is often advocate for for disarmament which in turn strengthens development.

The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

Whomever can protect/enforce their right to build them.

 

[Nakosis]

So for some background, despite significant reductions in US, Russian, French and British nuclear forces compared with Cold War levels, all the nuclear weapon states continue to modernise their remaining nuclear forces and appear committed to retaining nuclear weapons for the indefinite future.

Nine of the world’s 200+ countries now possess nuclear weapons: The United States, Russia, The United Kingdom, China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Iran is widely thought to be aspiring member number ten in the nuclear club.

So another question is who decided that these countries should have nuclear weapons in the first place? Clearly each sovereign nation independently decided they should have nuclear weapons for a variety of historical reasons.

I don't think there was any decision involved. Just the capability. If a technology can be produced and there is a will to produce it, it gets produced.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Its probably a useful to provide a brief inventory and estimate of how many nuclear warheads are owned by what nations with a little history.

At the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon, but the secrets and the technology for making nuclear weapons soon spread. The United States conducted its first nuclear test explosion in July 1945 and dropped two atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. Just four years later, the Soviet Union conducted its first nuclear test explosion. The United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964) followed. Seeking to prevent the nuclear weapon ranks from expanding further, the United States and other like-minded states negotiated the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968 and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) in 1996.

India, Israel, and Pakistan never signed the NPT and possess nuclear arsenals. Iraq initiated a secret nuclear program under Saddam Hussein before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT in January 2003 and has tested nuclear devices since that time. Iran and Libya have pursued secret nuclear activities in violation of the treaty’s terms, and Syria is suspected of having done the same. Still, nuclear nonproliferation successes outnumber failures and dire forecasts decades ago that the world would be home to dozens of states armed with nuclear weapons have not come to pass.

At the time the NPT was concluded, the nuclear stockpiles of both the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia numbered in the tens of thousands. Beginning in the 1970s, U.S. and Soviet/Russian leaders negotiated a series of bilateral arms control agreements and initiatives that limited, and later helped to reduce, the size of their nuclear arsenals. Today, the United States and Russia each deploy roughly 1,400 strategic warheads on several hundred bombers and missiles, and are modernizing their nuclear delivery systems.

China, India, and Pakistan are all pursuing new ballistic missile, cruise missile, and sea-based nuclear delivery systems. In addition, Pakistan has lowered the threshold for nuclear weapons use by developing tactical nuclear weapons capabilities to counter perceived Indian conventional military threats. North Korea continues its nuclear pursuits in violation of its earlier denuclearization pledges.

Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance | Arms Control Association

 

[Dawnofhope]

Whomever can protect/enforce their right to build them.

So survival of the fittest and the law of the jungle applies?

I don't think there was any decision involved. Just the capability. If a technology can be produced and there is a will to produce it, it gets produced.

Governments make conscious decisions to develop nuclear weapons based on perceived need and economics.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think there should be a slow disarmament to right the wrongs of building it up in the first place.

My faith teaches ahimsa, but is also prepared to protect that right. Three of the traditional 4 caste/varnas can remain peaceful only provided the fourth group (kshatriya) ensures it. Meek societies (and meek people) just get run over like doormats when this system isn't in place. Many peace loving meek societies have been wiped out because they didn't recognise the visitors as conquerors. The main reason my faith is alive today is because of a few very brave kshatriyas who rightfully stood up to conquerors. During the Muslim invasions, as many as 150 000 people were slaughtered on a single day. We're lucky, and grateful to still be around.

Don't let strangers into your house until you really know them.

As for disarmament, the big guys can set an example.

Makes total sense. Why risk being invaded and having some of your territories colonised when measures can be taken to prevent such an outcome. Of course its costly having the nuclear deterrent option in all sorts of ways. I wonder if it will take another international crisis like WW I and II for the necessary steps for all nations to disarm.

 

[JJ50]

No one should have nuclear weapons!

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think no one should have them but that is an impossible pipe dream.

As for who I think should have them realistically. I think any country should have them who wants to defend themselves. I think they should be kept out of the hands of terrorists and dangerous dictator types as much as possible.

I'm all for the USA modernizing it's arsenal. A necessary evil because if we don't then we could expect a preemptive attack the minute our enemies are satisfied that they can actually get away with it. The concept of the "nuclear deterrent" only works to keep the peace so long as both sides consider the other side's ability to retaliate as a significant threat. If one side can gain such an advantage that it no longer respects the other side's ability to react quickly enough; then it may strike at any time.

You sound very Americanised, like the right to bear arms on an international level. Everyone should do it. But, hey, we Americans will do it better than the rest of you. I’m amazed we haven’t had a war with nuclear weapons yet. Maybe the pipe dream is believing it will last.

 

[JJ50]

The US in particular should not be permitted to have them, as they are the only country to have actually used them. Especially now that dangerous idiot, Trump, is at the helm.

 

[leov]

The US in particular should not be permitted to have them, as they are the only country to have actually used them. Especially now that danger idiot, Trump, is at the helm.

Trump or any others, POTUS is a puppet.