Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
reepicheep

Bans imposed on nuclear weaponry

Recommended Posts

In a bid to revive the debate room, and in light of more nuclear tests in North Korea, here's the question;

 

Should the US (or really any country with a similar nuclear arsenal), as a country with the largest or second-largest nuclear arsenal, be allowed to actually ban (or at least frown upon) other countries (from) making them?

 

Debate away!

Edited by reepicheep

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as they're Communist / a threat to us / a threat to Israel, I don't see any problem with not letting them have nuclear bombs.

Otherwise, let them go about their business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as they're Communist / a threat to us / a threat to Israel, I don't see any problem with not letting them have nuclear bombs.

Otherwise, let them go about their business.

>implying only communists are evil

>implying only we and israel are worth protecting

 

I'm not an expert on this subject, but I can't imagine a whole ban coming any time soon. It would be great if it were possible to have nuclear weapons completely banned, but it's simply an issue of trust. If nation A bans nation B from having nuclear weapons, nation B will think that nation A is just trying to get an advantage by making their own nuclear weapons and attacking the defenseless nation B. Things will work the same exact way vice versa. So no, nuclear weapons are not good, but we'll have to wait a while before safely establishing a ban on them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as they're Communist / a threat to us / a threat to Israel, I don't see any problem with not letting them have nuclear bombs.

Otherwise, let them go about their business.

 

I agree with very little of what you say, but even for you that.. that was parodic, right? Right?

Edited by Mano

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as they're Communist / a threat to us / a threat to Israel, I don't see any problem with not letting them have nuclear bombs.

Otherwise, let them go about their business.

But why should we decide whether they get to have nuclear bombs? Why should we have any power over them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, many Americans have become accustomed to the mindset of a "global police." It's like us attempting to dictate the world through a limited budget. I don't think we have the right to ban other countries from creating nuclear weapons and for us to still have them. If we were trying to impose such a ban, we should follow it as well. Nuclear weapons are bad news and no one should be at risk from them.

Edited by Smilefishy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like I probably should have mentioned that we really shouldn't be doing something like that anyways.

Oh well, at least I knew what I was thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

The US isn't run by a theocracy that is completely opposed to the civilized western world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

The US isn't run by a theocracy that is completely opposed to the civilized western world.

But again, how does that give us the high ground? Why are our morals superior to theirs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there is to be nuclear weapon bans, it has to be global. The US can't just sit on their high horse and stop people they don't like from having them, because in their mind they have the superior morales and political systems. I think nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of, but we all know the US won't get rid of theirs, so no one else should have to either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

The US isn't run by a theocracy that is completely opposed to the civilized western world.

But again, how does that give us the high ground? Why are our morals superior to theirs?

Are we threatening to use the nukes on anyone? These countries want them for the sole purpose of using them against others.

 

If there is to be nuclear weapon bans, it has to be global. The US can't just sit on their high horse and stop people they don't like from having them, because in their mind they have the superior morales and political systems. I think nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of, but we all know the US won't get rid of theirs, so no one else should have to either.

All the major super powers, including UK, US, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey, China, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, have or have access to nuclear weapons. It's not just the US, nobody is getting rid of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's completely reasonable for the US to want to prevent countries that hate the US (NK, Iran, etc.) from obtaining nuclear weapons. In addition, I think it's important as humans to prevent these same powers that want these weapons so they can also use them against countries such as South Korea and Bahrain.

But why should that give the US the right to keep their weapons? And why should the US be allowed to impose sanctions on countries that are separate from them? I'm not asking what is the 'right' thing to do, because obviously NK + nuclear weapons = bad news, but isn't it hypocritical of the US to have weapons while preventing other countries from having them? (And again, replace 'US' with any generic country, I'm not hating on the US here)

The US isn't run by a theocracy that is completely opposed to the civilized western world.

But again, how does that give us the high ground? Why are our morals superior to theirs?

Are we threatening to use the nukes on anyone? These countries want them for the sole purpose of using them against others.

 

If there is to be nuclear weapon bans, it has to be global. The US can't just sit on their high horse and stop people they don't like from having them, because in their mind they have the superior morales and political systems. I think nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of, but we all know the US won't get rid of theirs, so no one else should have to either.

All the major super powers, including UK, US, Russia, France, Germany, Turkey, China, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, have or have access to nuclear weapons. It's not just the US, nobody is getting rid of them.

Well then all of them have to get rid of them if they want them gone? From my point of view, which maybe just due to media spin on it here, but all the anti nuclear policies are being headed by the US and it's mostly them trying to impose such sanctions through the UN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then all of them have to get rid of them if they want them gone? From my point of view, which maybe just due to media spin on it here, but all the anti nuclear policies are being headed by the US and it's mostly them trying to impose such sanctions through the UN.

All those countries are run by level-headed leaders who prefer conducting diplomacy and trade as opposed to war. North Korea, on the other hand, has no intentions of participating the global market, refuses to participate in talks and regularly threatens to use its nuclear weapons on South Korea, Japan and US bases in the Pacific. Hell, we don't even know who is calling the shots over there. KJ-un could be a puppet of the military for all we know.

 

Do you honestly not see any difference there?

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we threatening to use the nukes on anyone? These countries want them for the sole purpose of using them against others.

Actually we have. Don't you remember the Cold War? That was primarily us (and the USSR) threatening to use nuclear weapons in response to any direct military engagement or whenever one is detected as launched. We only averted nuking half the planet because we were lucky with a few moral officers when detection systems malfunctioned. By all accounts, both sides should have launched everything--on multiple occasions. That's wholesale genocide on both sides. Edited by Bob-sama

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a little bit of an exaggeration. "Launch-on-warning" policy was never actually in effect due to the unreliability of satellite-based detection systems - even during the 9/26/83 incident, the Soviets waited for confirmation from land-based radar before making a decision on whether to strike.

 

The whole thing was handled in an amazingly rational manner. We even gave our own security technology to the Russians to ensure that their weapons are as secure as ours.

 

And yeah, the Cold War saber-rattling could be seen as threatening to attack each other, but neither side actually came out and said "we're gonna nuke you".

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a little bit of an exaggeration. "Launch-on-warning" policy was never actually in effect due to the unreliability of satellite-based detection systems - even during the 9/26/83 incident, the Soviets waited for confirmation from land-based radar before making a decision on whether to strike.

 

The whole thing was handled in an amazingly rational manner. We even gave our own security technology to the Russians to ensure that their weapons are as secure as ours.

 

And yeah, the Cold War saber-rattling could be seen as threatening to attack each other, but neither side actually came out and said "we're gonna nuke you".

No, but they did gesture furtively to a sign saying 'we're gonna nuke you' :P

Well then all of them have to get rid of them if they want them gone? From my point of view, which maybe just due to media spin on it here, but all the anti nuclear policies are being headed by the US and it's mostly them trying to impose such sanctions through the UN.

All those countries are run by level-headed leaders who prefer conducting diplomacy and trade as opposed to war. North Korea, on the other hand, has no intentions of participating the global market, refuses to participate in talks and regularly threatens to use its nuclear weapons on South Korea, Japan and US bases in the Pacific. Hell, we don't even know who is calling the shots over there. KJ-un could be a puppet of the military for all we know.

 

Do you honestly not see any difference there?

But again, why should we suddenly be allowed to impose restrictions on weapons that we have? How is that fair, when they really don't want anything to do with us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, why should we suddenly be allowed to impose restrictions on weapons that we have? How is that fair, when they really don't want anything to do with us?

 

I recall the great Christopher Hitchens when he talked about four conditions when a state looses it's soveriegnty. They are...

 

1. Invading a neighboring country

2. Violating the Genocide Convention

3. Harboring terrorists

4. Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

 

Both countries (Iran and North Korea) have done at least three each. They are run by madmen and fanatics that have refused time and time again to see reason and pose a great risk to the security of the planet and to the lives of countless of human beings. You ask why should we, the civilized world, impose restrictions on such countries. The answer is simple. Why should we not? Why should we bloody not?

 

Would you let a psychopath carry a gun? Is it a fair argument to say the police force has no right to restrict said psychopath from carrying a gun because said police force has guns? I'm not suggest that the US is a perfect white knight in the geo-political scene but come on. Compared to Kimmy and the Ayatollah's?

Edited by Phoenix Rider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well then all of them have to get rid of them if they want them gone? From my point of view, which maybe just due to media spin on it here, but all the anti nuclear policies are being headed by the US and it's mostly them trying to impose such sanctions through the UN.

All those countries are run by level-headed leaders who prefer conducting diplomacy and trade as opposed to war. North Korea, on the other hand, has no intentions of participating the global market, refuses to participate in talks and regularly threatens to use its nuclear weapons on South Korea, Japan and US bases in the Pacific. Hell, we don't even know who is calling the shots over there. KJ-un could be a puppet of the military for all we know.

 

Do you honestly not see any difference there?

Let's just be honest here, the North may be threatening to use them, but they haven't, I doubt they've even got the capabilities anyway. The only people to ever use them in history against an actual population is the US and what is then brought up by Bob, the Cold War. I'm not saying that North Korea and Iran should have nukes, I'm saying no one should have nukes and the US can't go all high and mighty and make people they don't like get rid of them and then not get rid of them themselves. I'd feel a hell of a lot safer in the world if there were no nukes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But again, why should we suddenly be allowed to impose restrictions on weapons that we have? How is that fair, when they really don't want anything to do with us?

 

I recall the great Christopher Hitchens when he talked about four conditions when a state looses it's soveriegnty. They are...

 

1. Invading a neighboring country

2. Violating the Genocide Convention

3. Harboring terrorists

4. Violating the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

 

Both countries (Iran and North Korea) have done at least three each. They are run by madmen and fanatics that have refused time and time again to see reason and pose a great risk to the security of the planet and to the lives of countless of human beings. You ask why should we, the civilized world, impose restrictions on such countries. The answer is simple. Why should we not? Why should we bloody not?

 

Would you let a psychopath carry a gun? Is it a fair argument to say the police force has no right to restrict said psychopath from carrying a gun because said police force has guns? I'm not suggest that the US is a perfect white knight in the geo-political scene but come on. Compared to Kimmy and the Ayatollah's?

Again, though, you're applying our morals to them (and I very much agree), but why should we be allowed to do that? Because while Hitchens may have had some great points, it's still only our opinions, and why should they have to conform to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's just be honest here, the North may be threatening to use them, but they haven't, I doubt they've even got the capabilities anyway. The only people to ever use them in history against an actual population is the US and what is then brought up by Bob, the Cold War. I'm not saying that North Korea and Iran should have nukes, I'm saying no one should have nukes and the US can't go all high and mighty and make people they don't like get rid of them and then not get rid of them themselves. I'd feel a hell of a lot safer in the world if there were no nukes.

So, removing nuclear weapons from the world will somehow cause nuclear weapons technology to magically disappear, ensuring that no rogue state or terrorist group can ever assemble even one functioning nuclear device?

 

Basically, you cannot remove nuclear weapons. Some countries will undoubtedly hide away a few since having even one such weapon would be an enormous trump card if nobody else has one. So, the whole nuclear disarmament thing goes out the window right at that moment. The United States' nuclear arsenal serves as a deterrent. If you take that away, what stops a rogue state from using its own bombs to extort concessions from neighboring countries?

 

This basically leaves two feasible scenarios:

-The current one, where nuclear weapons and ICBMs are owned by a small group of the most powerful countries, ensuring stability

-Yours, where nobody 'officially' has nuclear weapons but nearly everyone is hiding them somewhere, ensuring instability

 

The US may be the only country ever to use nuclear weapons, but it's important to remember that a) it wasn't without provocation b) the United States had been in a state of total war for nearly four years by then and c) the strikes against Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably ended up saving lives.

 

I know it's cool and edgy to call the US a dangerous and warmongering country, but America's vast (and expensive) military ultimately serves as a force for good. It means that countries like Poland, the Netherlands, Japan and Australia do not have to build equally huge armies to defend themselves. The US has done shady things in the past, but it would be insanity to say that US influence and protection doesn't ultimately result in a better world.

 

Also, bear in mind that nuclear weapons are probably the only reason there hasn't been a WWIII yet.

 

Exactly, why shouldn't we be forced to accept their way of life as the correct/ethically righteous one? Because we have more money and power? Much as history is written by the winners, right and wrong is determined by those in charge.

 

What really makes what they're doing wrong? Just because you disagree with it?

 

Ethical/moral relativism B)

This is kind of an absurd argument - in the vastly overwhelming majority of cases, people have been better off in US-influenced countries than otherwise. Surely, you wouldn't want to live in North Korea? Or Iran for that matter?

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I would like the US to step back from its high power place, and have no say in imposing bans on countries making/using nuclear weapons; in my opinion, a ban on North Korea would be justified and a good thing to do. I'd rather have the US assert more power, than less power, (within reasonable boundaries, obviously). It's very difficult to argue against a ban on NK producing nuclear weapons.

Edited by error404

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is indeed not hard hard to argue that NK shouldn't have nukes. Nevertheless, it's still other countries who are imposing this ban. An trade embargo, for example, doesn't really exercise any power over other countries. Banning a country from producing something within its borders, however, is breaching a country's sovereignty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.