Should Nuclear Weapons Be Banned?

[Neo-Logic]

Should nuclear weapons be banned? Such weapons are only useful for total devistation of a a city or cities with the power that the modern day ICBM's can unleash. As Robert McNamara puts it "we learn from our mistakes, but with nuclear weapons, there is only one chance. There are no room for mistakes"

Just a quick poll to see what people think of the nuclear weapons. Feel free to express your reasons for voting.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Nuke the nukes. We really don't need them.

BTW, does anyone else have a problem with the name "smart bomb". It's oxymoronic at best!

 

[Lintu]

The thing with banned weapons is that someone crazy enough to use one doesn't particularly care if they're banned (and wouldn't ditch them voluntarily anyways).

 

[Neo-Logic]

Nuke the nukes. We really don't need them.

BTW, does anyone else have a problem with the name "smart bomb". It's oxymoronic at best!

Errrm not really. If left to me, I would've called it ' accurate bombs ' or ' percision bombs'

 

[john313]

theoretically, its a good idea to ban them, but who would destroy theirs first? and the technology would still be out there and no one would follow the rules. Sorta like banning guns, it only disarms the lawful people who would not misuse them in the first place, the evil ones still have their guns.

 

[Crystallas]

The thing with banned weapons is that someone crazy enough to use one doesn't particularly care if they're banned (and wouldn't ditch them voluntarily anyways).

I totally agree, frubals.
Nuclear weapons are going to be made weather they are banned or not. While their intentions are for defense and war related intentions, we learn about them more for their other attributes. Things such as nuke power is big, but what about nuke appliances, and transportation? While this sounds far fetched, a great deal of the research funded and done is due to countries working with nuclear weapons. These things may not only be a reality one day, but they may become the safest solutions.. we just dont know exactly yet.
I think we are in a great position now, where people dont want to see them used, but since the popular majority wont support the use of it, then that makes those scientists all the more careful. We shouldnt support it, but we shouldnt ban it either. Its an important grey area. Aswell as any country that totally drops its nuke research will be slightly more threatened by countries that support their power and potential of their own research. Allowing for 3rd world countries(let alone more powerful nations) with corrupt leaders to use nuclear force and not care since they cant be stopped.

 

[Fluffy]

My mind wandered onto this topic when I was debating in a gun ownership thread. Afterall, if I feel that people should be allowed to use guns, then where exactly do I draw my line in terms of the danger to others which the weapon has? Surely I cannot merely argue that a gun can only kill a few people, comparatively, before the gunman is taken down whilst a nuclear weapon could kill much more and therefore should be banned from home ownership.

Yet at the same time I dislike the idea of giving power to the state whilst banning it from the people since, in my opinion, this will lead to a dictatorship, given time.

And then again, I don't like restricting personal freedom at all since I feel that it is an inefficient way to prevent crime by banning the tool.

It is a moral mess .

 

[Ori]

I voted to ban them all. If only one is fired, thats it, we are buggered.

 

[Khale]

I voted to reserve some just in case.The amount that we and other countries have of these is ludicrious. Though we do need them as a constantly implied threat, having the thousands upon thousands that we have now is a bit overkill.

 

[BUDDY]

Whether we like it or not, coutries like Korea, China and Iran either have them or are trying to get them. As long as those who profess to hate our ocuntry and our way of life have nuclear weapons, it is important that we have them as well. It's a crappy situation, but one we must deal with. I just hope that a reliable nuclear defense platform can be made a reality. This would make nuclear weapons obsolete, which would be good for everybody.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What can be possessed can be stolen. We have more than enough conventional and "smart" ordnance to deter any "rational" force. If the force is not rational, no number of nukes will deter them, and we risk being their supply depot for our own destruction.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

In an ideal world, I would vote to get rid of them all, but....

theoretically, its a good idea to ban them, but who would destroy theirs first? and the technology would still be out there and no one would follow the rules. Sorta like banning guns, it only disarms the lawful people who would not misuse them in the first place, the evil ones still have their guns.

Frubals for what is, IMHO, the right answer.

 

[Stormygale]

To band nuclear weapons is easily said. Truth is, no one knows how many buried silos are under the farms in Russia. To ban such a thing, just flares tempers and gets things going like North Korea. All that will accomplish is sending the manufactor of such armaments into secret production, to surface after our own are gone.
The leadership of America would never disarm this totally and get rid of it. No. No matter if we say it is gone or not, there will be some loop hole, like "I did not have sexual relations with woman" to keep such armaments in quick reserve. I fear getting rid of nuclear weapons. The second it would take place, is the moment we would realize our mistake.
Nuclear armaments are a buffer zone that scream, "if you shoot one at us, we will shoot two at you" and immobolize your major resources and factories...

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Like the Cold War agreement between USA and USSR to slow down nuclear warhead production and to destroy some of them, banning nukes wouldn't do much. Only a small percentage of nukes would actually be destroyed. A nuclear warhead is like a queen on the chess board. A very powerful piece that can turn the tide of any battle.