But that's the issue. Firing a Nuke isn't sensible. It's insane. You are abusing the term sensible
Last edited:
The labour Leader thread...
- Thread starter easyrider
- Start date
But that's the issue. Firing a Nuke isn't sensible. It's insane. You are abusing the term sensible
Even the best of relationships can turn sour - sometimes without either party being at fault.
The biggest threat to our security but in the grand scheme of things not the biggest threat to our existence. It might also be that on balance it is the biggest threat we face right now due to lower probability of other threats but that doesn't mean it will always be the biggest threat. (Nuclear weapons were never designed as a defence against terrorism at that scale).
In terms of defence war with another country would be one of the biggest threats to our national existence - we are a long way from being able to rule out the eventuality of war with another country so the smart planner will make sure we have an effective/appropriate level of defence against that scenario.
Having an existing nuclear arsenal is an effective deterrence from that eventuality ever happening - trying to build up those capabilities in the face of belligerence might be too little too late or as someone else pointed out seen as an act of aggression by the other party who will then have to seriously consider making a pre-emptive strike in case we planned to use those weapons against them.
Are you somehow suggesting that the most dangerous situation is with zero nuclear weapons, or that the safest scenario would be if everybody had them.... interesting.
I wonder how that works exactly.
Last edited:
If I need to explain that to you then you are too far gone I am afraid.
Explain exactly what you mean by the opposite being true. (as per below)
But that's the issue. Firing a Nuke isn't sensible. It's insane. You are abusing the term sensible
Why is firing a nuke so black and white (or obviously black in your case)
It can be argued that whilst obviously horrific, the bombs dropped on Japan ended a war that could have gone on for ages and killed countless more people than the bombs themselves did.
Last edited:
Ok, what if their was one stubborn nation that decided they wanted to keep their nuclear weapons, or even worse managed to keep some hidden whilst everyone else disarmed.
What would everyone do if said nation then held the world to ransom as it was the only nation that had nuclear weapons?
Do we all sit around singing Kumbaya and hoping all the kindness we have displayed forms a big anti-nuclear weapon shield?
Problem is you can't uninvent* them so you can't guarantee a situation where there are zero nuclear weapons hence the safest option is an adequate global balance of nuclear power.
* Maybe in time technical progression might find a way to nullify them and render their value obsolete.
Exactly.
Complete nuclear disarmament to the point where it is SAFER than having them in the first place (and therefore creating the 'MAD' scenario) will only work if all 7 billion people on this planet agree and also agree to never pursue, make or think of nuclear weapons ever again.
That's all good & well but it isn't what you said.
You said the exact opposite is true, when in reality it isn't. There may indeed be a theoretical 'sweet-spot' for a global force (UN for example) to possess a small number of armaments but your assertion that more weapons = less chance of escalation is folly.
The biggest threats to our existence are environmental. Military action of any sort doesn't come close to that kind of threat.
Sure but this is a military context.
no it hasn't its just meddled just as much as we have, just most of the time its in countries we don't really care about.
not really, which environmental issue has killed more than military issues?
Given their power nuclear weapons should never be the preserve of any one entity, UN or otherwise.
With the consequences of their use more nuclear weapons tends to = bigger deterrence of an escalation however there is a trade off with more weapons = higher chance of one or more being obtained by a madman. Hence the concerns over countries with a high degree of internal instability and owning nuclear weapons.
You are twisting my words.
The exact opposite is for no nations to have any nuclear weapons - which would be the most dangerous situation we could have on this planet.
Ooops I was meaning in terms of global security from nuclear. (My context was that there is no value in most countries giving up their nuclear weapons if even one maintains a clandestine nuclear program, etc. which is something we can't guarantee won't happen).
Totally agree on the conventional force aspect and the fact that without the deterrent things are only likely to escalate not the other way around.
Totally agree on the conventional force aspect and the fact that without the deterrent things are only likely to escalate not the other way around.
Last edited:
what is gained is that they don't do it in the first place, like i said its a bit cause following effect.
if you aren't willing to do it then it doesn't work, which is the big problem saying "i'd never fire them".
what do you think would have happened to the cold war if there hadn't been utter annihilation aimed at each side?
do you really think the soviets wouldn't have taken all of europe?
(lol at nuclear winter though you realise we've set off more nukes than our entire arsenal?)
get rid of nukes and we have a brand new bio/chemical arms race