Should the world's nuclear countries work toward eliminating such weapons?
Posted at 5:00 AM on April 9, 2010
by Eric Ringham
(13 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs, Security
The United States and Russia have agreed to a new weapons treaty that if ratified will lead to modest cuts in nuclear arsenals. Today's Question: Should the world's nuclear countries work toward eliminating such weapons?
Comments (13)
Yes.
Total nuclear disarmament is a nice dream that doesn't translate to the reality of our world that includes greed and hate.
Absolutely...and at the same time grow our mutual understanding, compassion, intelligence, hemp/cannabis/ganja and all other beneficial sustainable/renewable resources.
The NPT treaty (1969?) requires signitaries reduce their stock- piles. This has been the law of our land for 40 years now! (Since Mar 1970)
Is anyone awake!
Regards,T
Look at this question from the opposite side -- -Should the world's nuclear countries work toward creating such weapons? I think not, thus the original question must be answered as "Yes."
The USA and Russia each have about 5000 nuclear warheads each. I suspect that makes us powerful and demands respect from non-nuclear countries as was stated earlier by a nuclear proponent. Let's see, does Iran respect us? How about Libya? Syria?
Only two nuclear bombs have ever been used during wartime and that was 65 years ago. Most people reading this weren't alive 65 years ago. I was. The pictures of the horrible aftereffects are enough to turn most people against their use except in the most dire of circumstances.
Let's keep a balance between the two major powers and work toward a peaceful coexistence with all countries.
For the most conservative of you out there, ask yourself WWJD?
The cat is out of the bag and it ain't going back in.
I can't foresee a time when nuclear weapons will totally disappear, because no country could be absolutely sure that its enemies didn't retain at least a few of these weapons.
Reducing the number of nukes is a common sense issue. They are expensive to maintain and secure, and we (and the Russians) have so many that there is no conceivable situation where you could detonate that number of weapons and still have humanity survive the fallout.
The non-thinkers that believe Obama (along with our own military experts) has somehow "weakened" our ability to protect our country in any way seem delussional.
We can still place a ten-megaton nuclear weapon within three feet of its target, anywhere on Earth. How much more do you need?
Elimination of nuclear weapons is not going to happen, and should not happen. Our armed forces are very lean, and depend upon the threat of nuclear operations to make our conventional force credible. I was shocked that President Obama gave away the ability to develop new weapons. This is the height of naivity, and in my opinion, stupidity. Add that to the position taken of eshewing a nuclear response to a chemical or biological attack indicates that the President does not understand the most basic military concepts. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are all weapons of mass destruction. This country has sworn off chemical and biological weapons, so the only response we have to that sort of attack is the employment of a nuclear package. If Obama wants to make nice with feel good comments, that's fine. But the reality must retain a credible nuclear force.
Yes, the world's nuclear countries should work toward eliminating such weapons, but will they is the question. Historically, the nation's with the strongest armies don't reduce weapons because weapons is power, and they receive a lot of benefits from being powerful. Russia, economically, isn't very powerful; yet, countries remain weary of Russia because of its weapons.
"Speak softly and carry a big stick".
T. Roosevelt first used the phrase in a speech at the Minnesota State Fair on September 2, 1901.
People that would like to see the "Great Satan" fall, respect a society that has a strong military. If they sense a weak enemy they WILL attack.
I do NOT think the USA should be a global police force.
We do need to protect our borders to keep out the drugs, illegal aliens, and terrorists.
If a country like Iran or North Korea attacks us I say we use a few nuclear weapons to level them.
DTOM
Elimination of nuclear weapons is a good long term goal. In the mean time there are concrete steps that need to be taken to have a more secure nuclear stockpile. Fewer and better secured weapons worldwide is a desirable and obtainable goal.
Assuming that we will have nuclear adversaries it is important to maintain deterrence capabilities. This is a reality for at least the mid term.
Missile defense will make us less safe. It will upend stable deterrence and will not prevent a nonconventional terrorist attack. Even if we could make missile defense work, which is unlikely, it is a very bad idea for security.
The fact that Obama negotiated away our ability to create new bombs is a feel bad issue. I really don't think that matters much considering that just means that we can't design new warheads, not missiles or propelling capabilities. Get your facts straight.
No, they shouldn't. Not because we should use them in war but because we have no idea what future technology could benefit from work we do now in developing better weaponry. i agree that the existence of nuclear weapons means there is a risk someone could steal one, but that is a small risk, and even if we eliminate all weapons it doesn't mean we're going to start a giant fire and burn all the notes we took, the knowledge will still be out there.
They should work towards reducing and controlling the creation of the weapons, but not total elimination. Right after we dismantle the last warhead will be when the Reptilian Overlords show up.
Yes, but they won't. It would require them all to trust each other and to be trustworthy themselves.
The reduction in missiles really doesn't matter, it's a feel good issue.
The problem is that Obama negotiated away our ability to create new bombs with new technologies, thus hurting our ability to defend ourselves and stay a leg up.
| April 2010 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock