U.S. Infatuation With Nukes

[doppelganger]

Why does the United States need tactical nuclear weapons?

Why shouldn't the US begin the negotiations for world-wide nuclear disarmament by offering to give up its own in exchange for everyone else doing so?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I am against nuclear weapons completely and I do believe that the world should disarm together.

It would be pretty stupid for the US to disarm first and freely give tactical advantage to other countries.

 

[doppelganger]

It would be pretty stupid for the US to disarm first and freely give tactical advantage to other countries.

That's why I suggest negotiations with a clearly communicated willingness to finally give them all up.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That's why I suggest negotiations with a clearly communicated willingness to finally give them all up.

I'm not sure if that's feasible. If everyone gave up all nukes, the first country to develop them would have all the advantage.

 

[doppelganger]

I'm not sure if that's feasible. If everyone gave up all nukes, the first country to develop them would have all the advantage.

Well . . . at least then, attacking a country for developing them would make at least some logical sense. :areyoucra

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well . . . at least then, attacking a country for developing them would make at least some logical sense. :areyoucra

Sure it does.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

while there is a good chance that other powers will either retain, develop or stockpile Nukes.
it is unlikely the USA will get rid of its own.
Even if all existing ones were removed and manufacturing plant dismantled, the technology is not going to go away.
Fear will ensure nations continue to hold atomic weapons... the same fear that prevents them using them.
I would rather Nukes were around, than have an equal budget be provided for weapons that were clean but equally destructive.
It is because nuclear weapons are a two edged sword that helps to prevent their use.

 

[RevOxley_501]

the only viable option to fix nuclear weapons use, is to make sure that all countries have at least one.

 

[doppelganger]

Sure it does.

Sure what does? What is the moral justification for a country with nukes invading another country solely because it is developing what the invading country already has?

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps we should beef up the UN forces while disarming national militias.
Nations could then concentrate on the well-being of their citizens rather than expend half their time and money preparing for war.

We desperately need a strong, world peacekeeping body to protect us from our violent, nationalistic, imperial tendencies. As smaller and smaller countries acquire more and more sophisticated weaponry it's only a matter of time before someone unleashes a nuclear offensive with who knows what repercussions.

It won't be long before tactical nukes are being made in High School shop classes.

 

[doppelganger]

We desperately need a strong, world peacekeeping body to protect us from our violent, nationalistic, imperial tendencies.

Who is going to protect against those same violent, nationalistic and imperialist tendencies when they inevitably manifest in this world government?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sure what does? What is the moral justification for a country with nukes invading another country solely because it is developing what the invading country already has?

First of all, I didn't argue that. I fully support complete nuclear disarmament, at least idealistically, but like I said I don't think that it's feasible.

I think that it's perfectly fine to use force (be it economic or military) to keep enemy - or even potential enemy - governments from producing nuclear weapons. I have no problem at all with my country having superiority, especially tactical superiority, and we should do everything we can do to keep it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Who is going to protect against those same violent, nationalistic and imperialist tendencies when they inevitably manifest in this world government?

Whoever has the nukes.

 

[doppelganger]

So should everyone else then be scrambling to get nuclear weapons on the same theory?

And how do you justify a war to stop them when they are doing what you think they should be doing?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

So should everyone else then be scrambling to get nuclear weapons on the same theory?

Sure, if they want the United Nations and everyone else on their case.

And how do you justify a war to stop them when they are doing what you think they should be doing?

That's the justification in itself - a scramble for superiority. You know how it is, dopp. Wars are fought for the control of resources, period. Whoever is on top calls the shots, and I'd rather it were me.

EDIT: It is in the aquisition and control of resources that I find nuclear weapons to defeat the whole purpose of war in the first place. Nuclear weapons render everything useless, so you can't kill your enemy and take his stuff - it's all gone - unless, of course, the battlefield is seperate from the resources, which is possible.

 

[doppelganger]

That's the justification in itself - a scramble for superiority. You know how it is, dopp. Wars are fought for the control of resources, period. Whoever is on top calls the shots, and I'd rather it were me.

I don't disagree with the realpolitik assessment - all anybody wants is their "fair share" of liebensraum. I'm just casting about for something that would fit within the realm of "just war theory" or some other sort of moral justification. I admit it's precious little as an inhibitor of state-sponsored violence anyway, but imagine what the world can be like without any need to at least develop a cogent moral argument for large-scale violence.

And strategic nukes, like fusion warheads, have as their sole purpose the decimation of entire populations of people.

 

[Valjean]

Who is going to protect against those same violent, nationalistic and imperialist tendencies when they inevitably manifest in this world government?

I think it's more likely that one of a hundred countries with various sociopaths and megalomaniacs at the helms will fly off the handle than a single international military power under the control of an international coalition dedicated to keeping the peace.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I came across the Davy Crokett nuke. What an insane idea.

Youtube test: YouTube - M65 Recoiless Nuclear Rifle

Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This idea failed because the range of the rifle was only three miles, which puts the army who fires it within range of fallout. So if it's used on the battlefield, everyone dies.

 

[doppelganger]

I think it's more likely that one of a hundred countries with various sociopaths and megalomaniacs at the helms will fly off the handle than a single international military power under the control of an international coalition dedicated to keeping the peace.

I'm thinking more along the lines of fascism . . .

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think it's more likely that one of a hundred countries with various sociopaths and megalomaniacs at the helms will fly off the handle than a single international military power under the control of an international coalition dedicated to keeping the peace.

Good idea if I am king.:yes: