PDA

View Full Version : Weapons of Mass Distruction or Global Peace Makers?


NewLeafsFan
January 4th, 2017, 05:50 AM
We have not had a third world war. Since the atomic bombs were dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have not had a global conflict the lead to global war.

Any comments?

Voodoo
January 4th, 2017, 06:22 AM
Well, since the 1950's there has been almost nuclear war a few times on the sides of America, and the sides of the Soviet Union due to many different factors. One of the most famous ones was a solar burst that happened I believe in the 1980's where Russia's missile launch detection system glitched thinking the United States launched nuclear missiles, but due to a Soviet Officer wanting to wait to ensure it's an actual nuclear launch and not a glitch in the system it was avoided. Not to mention that officer was demoted in rank and kicked out of the military.

1960's the Cuban Missle Crisis was another issue that almost sparked a world war with Russia and its Warsaw and the United States with NATO. The world has been a hectic place for a while. Just people don't pay attention to modern international politics.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 4th, 2017, 09:44 AM
I don't think anyone really wants to use nuclear weapons, but I also think that no one wants to have the weakest and smallest nuclear armament if war did ever break out. That is the basis for the nuclear arms race during the 50's and 60's, always trying not to be outdone just in case war broke out.

Nuclear weapons can be used a peace keeper in some cases, but because people realize that the likelihood of a country like the USA dropping a nuclear bomb is extremely low, I don't think that threat is often taken seriously.

mattsmith48
January 4th, 2017, 12:48 PM
I don't think anyone really wants to use nuclear weapons, but I also think that no one wants to have the weakest and smallest nuclear armament if war did ever break out. That is the basis for the nuclear arms race during the 50's and 60's, always trying not to be outdone just in case war broke out.

Nuclear weapons can be used a peace keeper in some cases, but because people realize that the likelihood of a country like the USA dropping a nuclear bomb is extremely low, I don't think that threat is often taken seriously.

Well it looks like Kim Jong Un doesn't have a problem with launching nuclear weapons, if ISIS or another terrorist group get their hands on a bomb they will use it, and talking about hands, President Pussy Graber said he would use them.

Porpoise101
January 4th, 2017, 05:30 PM
We need to continually phase them out. It is the only way to avert our destruction as a species. There is just too high of a chance for accident. I do think that they have averted war during the Cold War (at least a direct confrontation).

As for the largest nuclear problem, it would probably be North Korea. Diplomacy didn't work with Clinton. Military threats didn't work with Bush and Obama. I am not sure what Trump will do to resolve this or what will happen. I believe the regime will fall soon-ish, but what will happen to the arsenals in that case?

NewLeafsFan
January 4th, 2017, 10:38 PM
Well it looks like Kim Jong Un doesn't have a problem with launching nuclear weapons, if ISIS or another terrorist group get their hands on a bomb they will use it, and talking about hands, President Pussy Graber said he would use them.

Very true. If these weapons git into the wrong hands it would be a disaster. And love the way you refer to Trump.

Voice_Of_Unreason
January 4th, 2017, 11:32 PM
We need to continually phase them out. It is the only way to avert our destruction as a species. There is just too high of a chance for accident. I do think that they have averted war during the Cold War (at least a direct confrontation). I agree with you on that, but I think the fear on countries having secret nuclear arsenals is a bit of an incentive for other countries to keep their own. I'm not sure how the governments of the world would do this unless there was some guarantee that nukes were completely gone and couldn't easily come back.

Uniquemind
January 6th, 2017, 02:59 AM
Mass destruction when combined with humanity's obsession with ego, and power posturing on the world stage.

Stronk Serb
January 6th, 2017, 05:03 AM
Well, if everyone had nukes, there would be no war because- nukes. Attack us and we nuke you, nuke us and we nuke you. Not to mention that the neighbors would be scared of such a turn of events and would join the nuking. Any head of state, no matter how self-righteous or corrupt wants to not provoke a nuclear war. The first one for the sake of his people, the second for the sake of his self-interests.

Uniquemind
January 6th, 2017, 02:19 PM
Well, if everyone had nukes, there would be no war because- nukes. Attack us and we nuke you, nuke us and we nuke you. Not to mention that the neighbors would be scared of such a turn of events and would join the nuking. Any head of state, no matter how self-righteous or corrupt wants to not provoke a nuclear war. The first one for the sake of his people, the second for the sake of his self-interests.

That wouldn't work because while it makes sense logically it assumes death is a deterrent.

You forget that over the last two decades, we've seen tons of sub-groups of people worldwide who are highly suicidal and homicidal people.

Doesn't deter them, they believe doctrines that say you are rewarded upon receiving death.

Stronk Serb
January 6th, 2017, 03:56 PM
That wouldn't work because while it makes sense logically it assumes death is a deterrent.

You forget that over the last two decades, we've seen tons of sub-groups of people worldwide who are highly suicidal and homicidal people.

Doesn't deter them, they believe doctrines that say you are rewarded upon receiving death.

Only the footsoldiers of those ideologies believe so. Leaders are master demagogues who personally use those doctrines for their self-interests.

Uniquemind
January 6th, 2017, 09:56 PM
Only the footsoldiers of those ideologies believe so. Leaders are master demagogues who personally use those doctrines for their self-interests.

Point still stands.

Flapjack
January 14th, 2017, 06:24 PM
If they are stopping a war between the USA and Russia then I am very grateful and they are great peace makers however they are so powerful that nations trying to develop them can cause wars. The official reason for going into Iraq was for nukes and Iran nearly escalated to war but thank gosh Obama resolved that and North Korea is a ticking time bomb. Thank gosh they don't have oil.

bentheplayer
January 16th, 2017, 05:13 AM
Originally, during the cold war it was the idea of mutually assured destruction (MAD) that prevent either party from using nukes and both had second strike capabilities so theoretically neither countries will use nukes. However, now in the current climate of nutters as leaders I won't be too sure as even with MAD for the sake of their own ego these leaders might still launch nukes without considering the consequences.

Exhibit 1 (Pakistani minister threatens nuke war on the basis on fake new):
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/26/middleeast/israel-pakistan-fake-news-nuclear/

Exhibit 2 (Putins comments that MAD is no longer assured under current international law causing a nuke war to be increasingly more possible.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqD8lIdIMRo


Personally, I doubt that any country would start a nuke war in the near future. Everyone is currently busy with the long drawn global economic situation and won't have the time for war. Well maybe apart from the terrorists and ISIS?