Luke Williams

Student- Theology,

This conversation is closed.

Why Don't We Just Get Rid of Nuclear Weapons

In a day when more and more nations have gotten nuclear weapons couldn't we come to a conclusion that perhaps one country only has them because another already does? Is it it up to us to take a role as peace maker and make a first move by getting rid of our nuclear weapons to give a good example to other nations; surely either way nuclear war is unlikely given that everything gets destroyed; why don't we just make the first move?

  • thumb
    Aug 12 2012: We have nuclear weapons just in case someone ever says "God told me we should take over the world" again. Hopefully they are almost completely obselete.
  • thumb
    Aug 12 2012: The quickest way to be totally subjugated to the control of another is to lay down your arms. It is called "surrender". If the nature of Man was free of evil there would be no need for arms. There always has been evil, there always will be evil. To be unarmed is to be enslaved. Do not lay down your weapon(s) in a hostile world unless you want someone else to exercise absolute control over your life.
    • thumb
      Aug 16 2012: I really like your point here, Edward, but there was a time almost 40 years ago when laying down your arms and giving in to your enemy was not only accepted but praised by peers. It was the Revolution of 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama. Martin Luther King Jr. promoted a nonviolent army because there was no other option and it changed the world. Other people, no, the whole world was watching and it enabled them to peacefully protest the chains of oppression they had felt for so long.
      • thumb
        Aug 16 2012: Dramatic stuff you speak of Dylan, but it's apples and oranges. Nuclear weapons, the topic of this debate, are tools of global application, clearly not suitable for civil disputes. As sophisticated as we think we are, it still comes down to jungle rules. The prey that lacks strength is the predator's dinner. To be free, and stay free, a nation must be strong, or must be protected by strong friends. If we all surrender the bullys take over. Sad, but true.
  • thumb

    Josh S

    • +1
    Aug 12 2012: Im not an expert but the way i see it is that powerful countries like the US, Russia, UK, and all the really strong countries that have nuclear weapons keep them mostly for defensive purposes, so that if they are threatened they can eliminate the threat. That threat could be other nuclear weapons or anything, what it is doesnt really matter just the fact that there are threats is what matters.

    Unless we found a way to rid the world of all threats to countries, i dont think we could eliminate nuclear weapons completely. In this day and age the main threats are in the middle east and north korea, so we maintain our weapons mainly in case of a situation with that area. But at the same time, if we found a way to rid the world of threats, we would be perfect wouldnt we? i dont think that can happen... but maybe im just a pessimist
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2012: Because there are ghosts always in this planet.....
    Earlier it was Communist Ghost, now Islamic Fundamentalist Ghost.......
    So we can;t .....
    • thumb
      Aug 12 2012: The Fundamentalist Ghost is much smaller and less popular than the communist ghost though... And, the socialist ghost has become pretty tolerable. It seems like we're getting better in terms of fighting invisible magic enemies : )
      • thumb
        Aug 13 2012: Not sure about the size or extent of popularity but that's the only Ghost now a days in media......
        Do you see any link between fall of Communist Ghost and the rise of Islamic Ghost...?

        Islamic Ghost was actually very close friend onec Communist Ghost was around....
        Though in reality there were never any communist Ghost anywhere rather those were misnomer to Socialist Ghosts.....

        It's interesting to see how the threshold level of tolerability is changing towards so called socialism as wall street barrons made economy to drown turning people breathless
  • thumb
    Aug 16 2012: This subject can be directly related to the anti-gun movement/organization. The anti-gun movement is asking for states to make it illegal for anyone other than police and military to own or be in control of a firearm.

    One argument they put up is "Which situation is safer, one where two people in a heated debate both have guns or neither have guns?" Well obviously it is the second option and that'd be great! Although, that is not a realistic situation. Even today, where firearms are legal with a license, there are guns that are not registered.

    The resources it would take at this point in time to find every firearm that is not registered would be next to impossible. So, when the citizens that have legal firearms now still feel the need for firearms after they are outlawed that would increase the amount of illegal guns more than 5 times.

    Also, if you look at the crime rate in Texas, you will find that it is the lowest in the U.S. "Why?" you might ask. Well, its because almost everyone in Texas has at least one firearm and there are plenty of normal citizens who carry holsters with guns the same as though they were carrying a cell phone in their pocket. So, my theory is "If you increase the countries who can effectively use nuclear weapons, then the threat of a nuclear war decreases."
    • Jon Ho

      • 0
      Aug 22 2012: Hmmm, I'm not really sure if it's wise to scale it up like that. I mean if you accidentally shoot someone in Texas it will only affect you and the person you shot. If you increase the number of countries with nuclear weapons, and one of them accidentally fired off a nuke due to negligence or whatnots... I shudder to think of the consequences.
  • Aug 15 2012: On the other side having nuclear weapons is something close to nonesense. Because you can only use nuclear devices against an enemy that is thousands of miles from you. If the military forces of country "A" are about to cross the border of country "B" Attacking the forces of country "A" with nuclear devices is suicidal. Even if with this attack country "B" neutralizes the enemy attack. The long term effects of radiation will threat also the own population of country "B".
  • Aug 15 2012: Leverage and Intimidation
    Nukes are the most powerful weapons available and ready to use, No one wants to "weaken" their military arsenal by eliminating their nukes. On the other hand if someone gets rid of all his nukes and the other one dont? then the "force" will be on the side of the one who owns the nukes. At this point of human history, one reason that has kept anyone from tossing some nukes to other is simple. If you attack someone with nukes, chances are that someone will do the same to you or to an allie. And no matter if you destroy your enemy with your nukes, it takes only one nuclear device that hits you to mess up part of your country for a very long time. So no matter how much nuclear devices a country has, the amount is not a real advantage. So lets just pray that someone don't get nuke happy.
  • Aug 12 2012: Pandora's Box easy we have no choice but to grow up or not. Having lotgs of reduncy just reduces the chance of a mistake.
  • thumb
    Aug 11 2012: The bible says 'There is no peace for the wicked'.

    It also says 'The wicked runs when no one is after him, but the righteous are as bold as a lion'

    A yoruba proverb says 'A child that vows to give her mother sleepless nights, will also have sleepless nights to make it happen'

    Human wickedness and weaknesses are not exclusive to a nation, race, group or geographical location.
    That is why nuclear weapons will not be destroyed.