Post by Petalumadom on May 12, 2009 18:43:08 GMT -5
First, two questions:
1. Is it nescessary?
2. Can/will it ever be done?
1. For me, and I believe everyone... the capability of a small group of people to exterminate and leave uninhabitable for generations entire countries and continents is not ideal... So although it's a tad late I would say (aside from ending the war in Japan) it would be better if there were no nukes.
2. But there are nukes... can we get rid of em all?
I'd say not anytime soon... once a technology is invented and it's capabilities proven... especially in this case... if only one nuke remains everything is screwed. So unless the UN gets a backbone and turns itself into a new world government that can barge into any country at will it aint happenin.
Now the question is if they should be limited or not. The people who already have nukes certainly agree that no other country should be able to research or possess the weapons. But is that really fair to the countries who don't have them?
Currently the USA has 51-52% of the nukes in the world... Russia has 43-44% (ish) and the rest of the world fills in the rest... with the UK, France, Pakistan, India (I think), Israel and a couple other countries filling in the blanks. I know that at some point in the cold war 1% of the US nuclear arsenal could basically wipe out ALL OF RUSSIA. That's a lot of territory. The nukes available now are hundreds of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you don't need to fly in a bomber to drop them.
So... what if anything should/can be done?
1. Is it nescessary?
2. Can/will it ever be done?
1. For me, and I believe everyone... the capability of a small group of people to exterminate and leave uninhabitable for generations entire countries and continents is not ideal... So although it's a tad late I would say (aside from ending the war in Japan) it would be better if there were no nukes.
2. But there are nukes... can we get rid of em all?
I'd say not anytime soon... once a technology is invented and it's capabilities proven... especially in this case... if only one nuke remains everything is screwed. So unless the UN gets a backbone and turns itself into a new world government that can barge into any country at will it aint happenin.
Now the question is if they should be limited or not. The people who already have nukes certainly agree that no other country should be able to research or possess the weapons. But is that really fair to the countries who don't have them?
Currently the USA has 51-52% of the nukes in the world... Russia has 43-44% (ish) and the rest of the world fills in the rest... with the UK, France, Pakistan, India (I think), Israel and a couple other countries filling in the blanks. I know that at some point in the cold war 1% of the US nuclear arsenal could basically wipe out ALL OF RUSSIA. That's a lot of territory. The nukes available now are hundreds of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and you don't need to fly in a bomber to drop them.
So... what if anything should/can be done?