Posts: 11,246
Likes: 230
XKI Generation: The Recession Generation XKI Map Nation Color: Bottom Left XKI NS Join Year: 56 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006 Historical XKI Political Party: TIP - The Islands Party
Post by Anime Daisuki on Apr 23, 2010 20:31:32 GMT -5
It would be nice if TITO could develop nuclear weapons. Just think of how easy it would be to drop one in an invader region and wham! All invaders wiped out.
I can dream, can't I? ;D
Last Edit: Apr 23, 2010 20:32:11 GMT -5 by Anime Daisuki
We have just a few more than we need to be honest.
I'm not disagreeing with this. We have enough to destroy the world many times over. But the message we send to our enemies through disarmament is equally important.
Guy
Boltor Level (44) [AWD:010304070a0b0d0e0f111213141c1d1e222628293b3718]
Yeah well we don't just stand out in the battlefield shouting that to our enemies. Lol. You're missing the point.
Anyway, nuclear disarmament would only really work if EVERY single nuclear weapon in the entire world was disarmed and destroyed and no more were ever made. So its kinda stupid for us to be disarming even part of our stock when there are countries hellbent on destroying us, and pursuing their own nuclear weapons. So why the hell are we reducing our armament? That just makes us look weak to them.
No offence meant, but this is, possibly, the weakest argument I've seen here so far.
Makes us look weak to them? Who are we talking about exactly? Even if you mean North Korea, I think even if we reduce our nuclear stockpile dramatically, we could, in fact, still destroy them over and over again. Even if we were to dispose of all our nuclear weapons, we could still destroy them. North Korea won't dare attack us. They aren't stupid, just evil.
No country, persuing nuclear weapons, which is 'hellbent' on destroying us, exists. Iran also isn't stupid. It knows that if it attacks us, it is dead. However, it is the potential for terrorists taking hold of those weapons, is the really scary thing. They don't care if we attack back, why would they? That's why we need to apply pressure on everyone to disarm, and if needed, threaten we will attack.
Nobody is disputing that even if we reduce our number of nuclear weapons, that we would still have enough to destroy them.
However, our enemies our not interested in disarmament (whatever countries they may be, North Korea, Iran, etc). There is this notion that if we start disarming that our enemies will too and this is just ideaological bull sh*t.
Guy
Boltor Level (44) [AWD:010304070a0b0d0e0f111213141c1d1e222628293b3718]
no i believe it was a cover up to get attention so they can do something else while the word discuss the issue it was global so usa good cover now what were you covering up
Nuclear disarmament is impossible unless an even more dangerous weapon is created and if we allow every country to posses nukes then it becomes much easier for terrorists to get hold of them
My Credentials
Out of respect for 10KI I use this spoiler to hide my proof of identity
I'm here for fun although serious discussions are possible
Post by Pompadoodle on Jul 16, 2010 17:01:33 GMT -5
Historically, great power wars have been a regular occurence. Sometimes they've been limited to 2 great powers squaring off against each other (Franco-Prussian War; Russo-Japanese War). At other times, there have been general conflagrations involving rival alliances of powers (Napoleonic Wars; WW1; WW2). This is an old pattern of events, going back to the emergence of modern states in the late mediaeval/ renaissance period.
Great power wars happened even when the enemy states were closely economically inter-connected. On the eve of WW1, Britain and Germany were each others biggest trading partner. But nationalism trumped economics, as it usually does.
All of this stopped after WW2. Since then, there have been lots of minor wars, lots of civil wars and lots of very uncivil wars in Africa involving child soldiers, but no great power wars whatsoever. Despite the fact that for much of the period, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were involved in a prolonged arms race- a situation that would have pretty much guaranteed a war in earlier times.
The reason for this is simple: nuclear weapons. They're so appallingly destructive that they make any great power war unwinnable. Nuclear weapons are what kept the peace post 1945. Without 'em its a near cert that the US, the Russians and their respective allies would've fought WW3. Which would've been very bad- worse than WW2 for sure- but nowhere near as bad as a nuclear WW3.
Thus I would question whether getting rid of nuclear weapons would actually be a good move, even if it were feasible. Nation-states are often aggressive; nuclear weapons keep the peace. If we do disarm, lets not disarm too much.
Post by The Enlightened Front on Jul 16, 2010 18:03:43 GMT -5
I agree. The only thing that keeps conventional warfare from breaking out again is nuclear weapons. Ironically, the balance of fear among the leaders of the world has allowed the rest of us to live out our lives in relative peace. That being said, we have so many nuclear weapons now that in the event of a nuclear war, we'd probably run out of cities to destroy before we ran out of nukes. In fact, I've heard that we could guarantee our security with only 300 nuclear weapons, if we kept them primarily on submarines and aircraft, thus guaranteeing second strike capability. So, I'd support pretty much any disarmament plan as long as it stayed above that strategic lower limit.
The fact is no nation is willing to remove nuclear weapons completely as they would be destroyed if other nuclear powers attacked them and they would have no second strike capability to defend themselves with
My Credentials
Out of respect for 10KI I use this spoiler to hide my proof of identity
I'm here for fun although serious discussions are possible