Nuclear Weapons- Who should have them and why?

[Dawnofhope]

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.

So you think there is a greater risk of nuclear weapons being depending on the nation and government.

 

[JJ50]

So you think there is a greater risk of nuclear weapons being depending on the nation and government.

Possibly, especially as that sick cretin in the White House keeps threatening other countries with the things. However, it would be far better if no country had nuclear weapons

 

[ChristineM]

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?

Like with political power, those who desire nuclear weapons should automatically be bared from having them.

 

[Vinayaka]

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.

I have no idea what will happen. Just hope cool heads prevail, as they say.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Like with political power, those who desire nuclear weapons should automatically be bared from having them.

Its certainly my biggest concern with egotistical and unstable personalities along with tyrannical regimes and their dictators and despots. Future generations may look back at this era in history and wonder how we could let it happen.

 

[ChristineM]

It certainly my biggest concern with egotistical and unstable personalities along with tyrannical regimes and their dictators and despots. Future generations may look back at this era in history and wonder how we could let it happen.

Assuming we survive to produce future generations.

That is not meant to be a project fear statement. But the possibility exists that some nut job pushes a button and retaliation follows.

 

[sealchan]

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?

Having grown up during the final years of the Cold War and having heard Carl Sagan evaluate the entire human species as being in its adolescence, the only mature use of nuclear weaponry is as a deterrent to insanity. They were a "necessity" born of the insanity of dictators in their one and only use. Now they are seen as a political bargaining chip.

As Carl Sagan would say, "Will humanity survive its adolescence and not choose a path where it will destroy itself?" This for me is the question that is relevant. Will we choose not to have another "internal dispute" and get so suicidally irrational that we end up destroying much much more than a more mature attitude would ever justify? Whether the deployment of such weapons is a crisis that any intelligent species comes to is yet to be known, but think of the profound tragedy if it turned out that the most promising species in an entire galaxy snuffed itself and it's beautiful planet out. What a waste.

I've said elsewhere that prophecies such as that of Revelation are now in a position of being easily disproved should we, as a species, choose any number of self-destructive paths forward.

Human beings have so much more in common than they have in differences, but it is, perhaps, our continued inability to address historical wrongs and make amends for our death-dealing that leaves us in a perpetual fear of desperate retaliation.

Perhaps those that argue that the past is in the past or that taking responsibility for how a people have been historically treated is not our responsibility should look again at the story in Genesis where a brother once said to God, "Am I my brother's keeper?" after having just murdered them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

'Merica, Israel, France, UK, yes!

The rest of the club should unilaterally disarm.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity..

Actually? Not as grave as all that-- even if everyone who has them, used them? It would not end life as we know it-- geology demonstrates that life is far more resilient than that.

Oh, civilization would collapse, without a doubt-- it's simply too fragile, and areas made comfortable with electricity, would be uninhabitable without, for a lack of water if nothing else. And the making and distribution of electricity is fragile indeed. Look how many decades it took to slowly build it up to it's present day...

But humans? They'd be around here or there, I am quite certain. Sure, the birthrate would go down (radiation poisoning), and the majority of the population would starve, but there would be pockets of survivors pretty much on every continent. Life would go on---just not as we know it.

Some folk, see that as a Planetary Cleansing. A curbing of the gross overpopulation that is the human animal.

Not I-- I like Civilization.

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. <snip>

The problem with Moral Imperatives? Is who gets to create them, and who enforces them and who's Morals do we use?

But. The problem is worse than you can imagine: The Knowledge is Out There. That ship has sailed-- that Genie was released decades ago.

I know, for example, how to construct a basic "Little Boy" (sliding cannon) device that would easily rival Hiroshima's destructive capability. That knowledge is readily available to anyone with a pocket phone, or a Library Card. Even the complex requirement to separate isotope 232 from 238 is Out There. Anyone, with the money and the will could do it, too-- no complex engineering required-- gather enough fissionable into one solid lump? Mamma Nature (or physics) does the rest....

Worse: Uranium based bombs are not the only bombs possible. Plutonium? Has been demonstrated countless times, and creating plutonium from uranium is also not that hard to do. A Fat Man type bomb would be much easier to do, today, than in 1945... we have modern ultra-fast computers in the palm of our hands... Even worse: neither of these metals is the only way to make a Big Boom. Other trans-uranic isotopes are certainly possible, and would likely explode, given the right conditions.

Knowledge won't simply Go Away, just because a bunch of Big Bully governments or Self-Important Religions declare it so.

The harder you push to hide it? The more that knowledge squirts through Big Bully fingers into the little guys who are desperate to get out from under such things.

A more Sane approach? Would be to encourage Civilized Thought, that does not need or require Such Things-- you are NOT going to get there with RELIGION.

Religion has had it's Chance: 4000+ years, and humans STILL squabble and scratch, with a tiny fraction holding Most of the Cards, and everyone else gets nothing but hard pan and dry dirt.

As long as we have the top 1% holding the top 90% of Resources? Big Bombs are going to be a Way Of Life.

And no-- I don't have a Solution. I can only point to what has not worked, and likely never will-- Religion being The #1 Fail, here.

 

[Wandering Monk]

A tiny bit of good news.

 

[Nakosis]

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

Generally. Not that I it is something I advocate. Just the way things usually work out.

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

Sure cost is part of capability and if you can trust another nation to provide protection.

 

[exchemist]

US used DU in Iraq, Serbia.

What has that to do with the subject?

 

[firedragon]

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.

The irony is, the only nation who used it on innocent human beings still have them and is the police.

 

[exchemist]

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 don't think many religions if any take a specific view on nuclear weapons. After all, what religions are there that are so recent that they can discriminate between nuclear weapons and other kinds? Furthermore it is likely to be their use rather than possessing them that would be the issue.

My own view is that nuclear weapons have proved themselves valuable as defensive weapons but almost useless in practice as offensive weapons. One might argue that that is the ideal weapon!

 

[firedragon]

I don't think many religions if any take a specific view on nuclear weapons. After all, what religions are there that are so recent that they can discriminate between nuclear weapons and other kinds? Furthermore it is likely to be their use rather than possessing them that would be the issue.

My own view is that nuclear weapons have proved themselves valuable as defensive weapons but almost useless in practice as offensive weapons. One might argue that that is the ideal weapon!

I think you're absolutely right. Going nuclear is a "dont mess with us" message. And sometimes I feel its good. Less invasions. Most of the invasions and cross-border-intervened regime changes have happened in non-nuclear countries, of course out of countries that had a direct issue with another power. Or is it "all"?

 

[exchemist]

I think you're absolutely right. Going nuclear is a "dont mess with us" message. And sometimes I feel its good. Less invasions. Most of the invasions and cross-border-intervened regime changes have happened in non-nuclear countries, of course out of countries that had a direct issue with another power. Or is it "all"?

This of course is the reason why Iran wants a nuke: it's about the one thing that guarantees they won't be invaded by the USA, which has often threatened to do so. It strikes me as perfectly rational.

(I regard the loud claims by Israel that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively, to wipe them out, as unfounded and hysterical.)

 

[74x12]

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.

I think we Americans need to try to do it better because if we don't do it better; then I fear the consequences for the whole world. I say that even though I don't trust the American government at all. But, I trust places like Russia or China even less.

But, that's just the thing. It won't last. You're right. World War 3 is coming.

 

[firedragon]

This of course is the reason why Iran wants a nuke: it's about the one thing that guarantees they won't be invaded by the USA, which has often threatened to do so. It strikes me as perfectly rational.

(I regard the loud claims by Israel that Iran would use nuclear weapons offensively, to wipe them out, as unfounded and hysterical.)

Hmm. Youre right. I watched Imran Khan make a direct reference to Nuclear weaponry when he said "Its stupid for two countries with nuclear weapons to be warring". It was a "dont mess with us" message and it worked. It always works.

 

[Vee]

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?

No one should have that much destructive power.
Religion should give a good example by promoting peace and never getting involved in politics.

 

[shmogie]

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?

The existence of nuclear weapons prevented a replay of WW2 for many years. MAD, mutually assured destruction, was the ultimate keeper of the peace.

Now, the technology has spread from the US who invented them to end the war with Japan without horrendous amounts of American blood spilled, to Russia who stole the technology, to other players on the world stage.

No longer can the extensive verifications, and protocols of America and Russia be depended on to stop a preemptive nuclear first strike.

Whether it be the gangster regime of North Korea who will do anything to survive, or the Shia leaders of Iran, who, if they get a nuclear weapon, believe that if they start a nuclear war, the whomever they are waiting for in their religion is going to come to do whatever in establishing their religion over the world, the risks are astronomical.

The two first nuclear powers, the US and Russia did a massive dis service to the world when they did not stop proliferation.

They should have given the states seeking nukes ultimatums to stop, and if they did not, military force should have been used to stop them. The risk was far too great, to allow them to continue, the risks were ignored.

Today Iran is attempting to disrupt the world, and for itś acts of war, there is no like response. All of their nuclear infrastructure and military if required, should be utterly destroyed, nothing less will stop them from obtaining nukes, If they do, God help us.

Who should have them, no one. Yet true nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream.

The best we can hope for is keeping the numbers of nuclear countries where they are now, and pray.