Prolif- good or bad?

[chris1216]

I made this topic because I was curious about other people's opinions on nuclear proliferation and I didn't want to muck up my thread about Iran.

 

 

 

So, to sum things up for those who don't know what I'm talking about: Nuclear proliferation is the concept of the spread of nuclear weapons to multiple nations.

 

 

 

There are two kinds of prolif(eration): Vertical prolif, which is where countries get more, longer ranged, and more dangerous nukes, and Horizontal prolif, where it's just the spread of nuclear weapon technology across the world.

 

 

 

So my question is what people think about whether horizontal proliferation is good. Spread of nuclear tech dangerous? Or causes everyone to be cautious and less likely to fight?

[Tigra00]

There are some people in this world who shouldn't have potential means to destory it. ;)

[Mercifull]

No country deserves the right to have nuclear weapons. No matter what governments say nukes are no a means of defence and are designed for only one thing... to explode and kill as many people as possible and maximum damage to infrastructure.

[caligula101]

The only thing nuclear is good for is making 3 eyed fish :-k

[chris1216]

No country deserves the right to have nuclear weapons. No matter what governments say nukes are no a means of defence and are designed for only one thing... to explode and kill as many people as possible and maximum damage to infrastructure.

 

 

 

I think that only the most unrealistic human being in the world would say that nuclear weapons ever have a chance of being eradicated from the earth.

 

 

 

Besides, this topic is based on the assumption that nukes will exist, the question is whether or not the spread of nuclear tech is a good thing.

[chris1216]

The only thing nuclear is good for is making 3 eyed fish :-k

 

 

 

All the people who's lives and livelihoods depend on nuclear power would probably say otherwise.

[Michael_Allen]

Obviously it's not a good thing, because the more people that have the technology the more likely someone is to do something terrible with it.

 

 

 

But it's also wrong to say were aloud the technology and your not. One mans TERRORIST is another man's FREEDOM FIGHTER. and vise versa.

[Anesthesia]

No country deserves the right to have nuclear weapons. No matter what governments say nukes are no a means of defence and are designed for only one thing... to explode and kill as many people as possible and maximum damage to infrastructure.

 

 

 

They're created to act as a deterrent; which in itself is a good defence. Some of the other countries who may have designs on us wouldn't dare invade because within the hour they'd have our trident missiles bearing down on their capital. The point is not that they would utterly devastate the city, it is that things would never get to that point.

 

 

 

As for proliferation, I haven't thought about it. I'm just happy being in one of the few countries that have them and in a selfish way I'd like it to stay that way :P

[Michael_Allen]

No country deserves the right to have nuclear weapons. No matter what governments say nukes are no a means of defence and are designed for only one thing... to explode and kill as many people as possible and maximum damage to infrastructure.

 

 

 

They're created to act as a deterrent; which in itself is a good defence. Some of the other countries who may have designs on us wouldn't dare invade because within the hour they'd have our trident missiles bearing down on their capital. The point is not that they would utterly devastate the city, it is that things would never get to that point.

 

 

 

As for proliferation, I haven't thought about it. I'm just happy being in one of the few countries that have them and in a selfish way I'd like it to stay that way :P

 

 

 

 

 

You say invade look at IRAQ they were invaded because they wanted NUKES to defend themselves...

[Anesthesia]

That's got nothing to do with my reply.

 

 

 

That is an issue of proliferation and whether other states will allow them to create their own nukes, it has nothing to do with nukes acting as a deterrent.

 

 

 

If anything your POST goes TO support mine - IRAQ has no NUKES and IT got invaded. If IT did HAVE them then the story may have BEEN different.

 

 

 

The nations that have them just don't want others to, they like being in a place of power. I'm not saying that's a good thing.

[Bubsa]

You say invade look at IRAQ they were invaded because they wanted NUKES to defend themselves...

 

 

 

Really? I thought it was because they had Weapons of Mass Destruction? No? Because they had chemical and biological weapons? No? To get rid of Saddam Hussein? Nope?

 

 

 

The reason changes day to day.

[Oy_the_Great]

Of course it's not good.

 

I'll quote the almighty Blackadder here:

 

Edmund: You see Baldrick, in order to prevent war, two super blocks developped. The idea was to have two vast armies opposing against eachother. Each acting as eachother's deterrent. That way there could never be a war.

 

Baldrick: But this is a sort of a war, isn't it, sir?

 

Edmund: Yes, that's right. You see, there was a tiny flaw in the plan.

 

George: What was that, sir?

 

Edmund: It was bollocks.

 

 

 

Atomic weapons in different nations will not only cause a cold war effect, a lurking thread ready to explode, but these days it will also be the target of the much more professional terrorists. And even if terrorism was out of the game, this cold war might just evolve into a real war of unseen scale.

 

I say no to all weapons, from daggers to a-and h-bombs. But I'd already be very satisfied if the heavy artillery would be gone.

 

 

 

 

 

No country deserves the right to have nuclear weapons. No matter what governments say nukes are no a means of defence and are designed for only one thing... to explode and kill as many people as possible and maximum damage to infrastructure.

 

 

 

Though I of course highly agree with the horrible effects of atomic bombs, they actually are a great means of defense.

 

A threat that is really frightening is better defense than any anti-rocket shield can ever be. If you had the choice of fighting a rabid wolf or a little bunny, which one would you choose? The first will kill you or at least cause your relatives and yourself severe damage, the latter will harm your crops at best.

 

An a-bomb (and an entire army for that matter) is useful. But only if it's a threat, and when it's not used.

[Oy_the_Great]

DP

[chris1216]

Actually Oy, I'd say that if professional terrorists hadn't managed to get their hands on and use a nuclear weapon by now, I'd say it probably wouldn't happen very easily in the future.

 

 

 

Remember, Russia's nuclear security is MISERABLE. You could probably bribe the one guy guarding all the nukes with a bottle of Stoli and walk off with a couple nukes.

 

 

 

And as for nuclear umbrellas, I'd say they were definitely best for keeping one warm and dry.

[darkmage099]

Man, this makes me want to live in the stone age. :XD: I have already stated my position on nukes on the other thread. I dont feel like c/p or retyping it. However, my stance on nukes is affirmative. I think no country has the right to stop any country from doing (almost) anything in their borders. If U.S. has nukes why cant Iran? Welll then that goes to the Iran topic so yeah..

 

 

 

I just noticed...this is really off-topic

[Adam007]

How could the spread of nuclear weapons to more and more countries be good? It just raises the chances of another nuke being used, and that could be the catalyst for a massive cataclysmic war.

 

(I wonder if the words catalyst and cataclysmic have anything to do with each other)

[No_OnE]

Nukes are bad. Really, something accidental could cause a nuclear war and completely change the face of the world with an exchange of just 20 nuclear missles. No country should have them. The thing is, though, that nobody is going to get rid of their nukes until everyone else has. So basically, any country who has them, will keep having them. As for other countries getting them, no. That would just increase the likelyhood of some accidental or even purposeful nuclear war starting which could completely wipe out millions or even billions of people. Not to mention, there are some leaders that just don't need that kind of power.

[Giordano]

Either no one has them, or everyone has them.

 

 

 

If Bob and Steve (head of 2 countries) have nuclear missles, Steve would doubt if he should invade Bob. If Steve attacks with his army, Bob nukes him. If Steve nukes Bob, Bob will nuke him x10 more. Steve doesn't want that.

 

 

 

If no one had nukes Steve would have to use his army to invade Bob. If Bob can hold out Steve's army near the border, less civilians will die.

 

 

 

If Steve has missles and Bob doesn't, he can use it on Bob and Bob should quickly surrender fearing the exstintion of his country. More civilians will die here, nukes will be set in major cities.

[SLOWSTORM]

Diagonal Proliferation FTW! \

 

My opinion is that countries that have them should keep them, in order to keep the status quo as far as world safety. However, as new countries show a degree of maturity and economic stability, they should definitely be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Countries that are not mature enough or economically stable enough to refrain from selling them to the highest bidder should not have nuclear weapons. Just like children should not be allowed to buy and play with guns until they are mature enough to know how to use it, keeping themselves and those around them safe.

[malo2]

No country deserves the right to have nuclear weapons. No matter what governments say nukes are no a means of defence and are designed for only one thing... to explode and kill as many people as possible and maximum damage to infrastructure.

 

 

 

They're created to act as a deterrent; which in itself is a good defence. Some of the other countries who may have designs on us wouldn't dare invade because within the hour they'd have our trident missiles bearing down on their capital. The point is not that they would utterly devastate the city, it is that things would never get to that point.

 

 

 

As for proliferation, I haven't thought about it. I'm just happy being in one of the few countries that have them and in a selfish way I'd like it to stay that way :P

Iran never had nukes, and the US never invaded iraq because they thought they were in there. That was just an excuse to get closer to stopping Iran.

 

 

 

 

 

You say invade look at IRAQ they were invaded because they wanted NUKES to defend themselves...

[Oy_the_Great]

Diagonal Proliferation FTW! \

 

My opinion is that countries that have them should keep them, in order to keep the status quo as far as world safety. However, as new countries show a degree of maturity and economic stability, they should definitely be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. Countries that are not mature enough or economically stable enough to refrain from selling them to the highest bidder should not have nuclear weapons. Just like children should not be allowed to buy and play with guns until they are mature enough to know how to use it, keeping themselves and those around them safe.

 

 

 

You only need one 'adult' madman with a gun to kill hundreds.