WMD For Protection?Really?

[Left Now]

Well I believe the title says it all.

Some people believe that if a nation be in possession of Weapons Mass Destruction,it can protect itself from foreign threats and acts of aggression by other nations.Some others even say that if a country intends to become a regional or even a global power and stay stable in an instable region,ability of production and possession of this type of weapons is a necessity.

As you all may know where I am from and what my country is involved in these days,I have seen many people who are actually Europeans and Americans and as they say they are on Iran's side in this matter who say such things like these:

"US,UK,France,Israel,Pakistan,India and Russia all have nuclear weapons,so why shouldn't Iran have that right to have them?"

Or

"Iran is in a really unstable region surrounded by lots of dangers and foreign threats and nations which are already in possession of nuclear weapons like Pakistan.It has every right to protect itself..."


Well,this thread is not about Iran,not at all;I just wanted to use it as an example for main subject of the thread.

I wanted to ask why some people think like people above?(You know specially those who are monitoring the events from a long distance)What logic are they using and how are they using it?Why do they think such stupid weapons like these bring protection and stability?


Plus+With regards to my dear friend in VT who a little disagrees with me about this matter.

[Vermilion]

I'm in the uk, I'm happy that we have nuclear weapons. No I don't want a big nuclear war. However if it was to come to it I would back my country in the use of them. I do think they deter countries for starting war's. Only 2 nuclear weapons has been used in conflict I believe and that was in 1945. No one has used them since, I get that having then causes tensions between countries however we all know what would happen if one country uses a nuclear weapon therefore it's deters everyone.

[Left Now]

twin,I don't understand your point here.What good can really come out of them?Two countries in possession of WMD threatening each other with WMD if any of them threaten to use WMD against the other?What's its point?

Also I was asking why people who are monitoring the events from distance,would say such things like this,while natives themselves are against it?

[Vermilion]

twin,I don't understand your point here.What good can really come out of them?Two countries in possession of WMD threatening each other with WMD if any of them threaten to use WMD against the other?What's its point?

In reality I don't see any good but I'm happy to have them just in case. I find the whole thing quite funny "let's have something that we never use because it would mean the end of mankind"
You understand my point a bit better ?

[Left Now]

twin,:what::confused:

[Vermilion]

What ? Break it down in to questions.

[Left Now]

I meant I am confused and also it doesn't sound reasonable at all.

[Vermilion]

What's part are you confused with and what's unreasonable ?

[Left Now]

What's part are you confused with and what's unreasonable ?

The fact that these weapons are useless and yet they produce them,keep them,increase them,even test them and maintain them

They are most stupid weapons that have ever existed,why should any nation want to have them,and those who do not have them already purchase or produce them for themslves?

[Vermilion]

I completely agree with what you've just said. I just feel safer with having them. It's like saying he's a 9mm or you can have a 44 which one would you choose.

[Stronk Serb]

Well, if Israel tries something, you can say you will turn Jerusalem into a giant radioactive crater. A country is less likely to commit aggression towards a country which has nuclear weapons. It's the fear factor that deters people away. The Russian Tsar bomb can turn New York into a crater. Of course, you can have smalker nukes but still, the fesr of sheer destructive power of a nuclear bomb will ask anyone is it a good idea to annoy a nuclear power.

[Left Now]

I completely agree with what you've just said. I just feel safer with having them. It's like saying he's a 9mm or you can have a 44 which one would you choose.

Well still the main question remains?Why do people who are away (in this matter those who are specially in European and American countries) think this way?

Or let's just turn the title into "WMD Race".Why do a people whose governments are in possession of WMD already think all others are looking for them too?In this matter they are seperated into two groups:Those who are against others have them and those who are fine with it.Actually I wanted to ask why they think everyone have their own ideology since first,but I just forgot what I really wanted to ask.Apologize.

Well, if Israel tries something, you can say you will turn Jerusalem into a giant radioactive crater. A country is less likely to commit aggression towards a country which has nuclear weapons. It's the fear factor that deters people away. The Russian Tsar bomb can turn New York into a crater. Of course, you can have smalker nukes but still, the fesr of sheer destructive power of a nuclear bomb will ask anyone is it a good idea to annoy a nuclear power.

Well that's exactly what's wrong with this idea.In that matter most victims will undoubtedly be civilians and unarmed people.Just like Carpet Bombing urban areas but in a real greater range.What's the point of defense then?

[Vlerchan]

Why do they think such stupid weapons like these bring protection and stability?
Focusing on one observable implication from this debate, this article examines the relationship between the severity of violence in crises and the number of involved states with nuclear weapons. The study contends that actors will show more restraint in crises involving more participants with nuclear weapons. Using data from the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) project, the results demonstrate that crises involving nuclear actors are more likely to end without violence and, as the number of nuclear actors involved increases, the likelihood of war continues to fall. The results are robust even when controlling for a number of factors including non-nuclear capability. In confirming that nuclear weapons tend to increase restraint in crises, the effect of nuclear weapons on strategic behavior is clarified. But the findings do not suggest that increasing the number of nuclear actors in a crisis can prevent war, and they cannot speak to other proliferation risks.

Asal & Beardsley (2007), Proliferation and International Crisis Behaviour, Journal of Peace Research, 44(2). (http://www.saramitchell.org/Asalbeardsley.pdf)

As I've said before though, whether avoiding non-nuclear engagements now, is worth a possible nuclear engagement in the future is debatable.

[Stronk Serb]

Well still the main question remains?Why do people who are away (in this matter those who are specially in European and American countries) think this way?

Or let's just turn the title into "WMD Race".Why do a people whose governments are in possession of WMD already think all others are looking for them too?In this matter they are seperated into two groups:Those who are against others have them and those who are fine with it.Actually I wanted to ask why they think everyone have their own ideology since first,but I just forgot what I really wanted to ask.Apologize.



Well that's exactly what's wrong with this idea.In that matter most victims will undoubtedly be civilians and unarmed people.Just like Carpet Bombing urban areas but in a real greater range.What's the point of defense then?

Nuclear weapons deter through fear of force, not through force itself. If a country wants to use nuclear weapons for defense, it has every right to do so if it can safely keep them. For example today's Iraq shouldn't have them because of the possibility of them falling into enemy hands.

[thatcountrykid]

The threat of mutually destruction is a sort of protection. During the Cold War, the only reason it didn't got hot was because no body wanted to fire first.

[Canadian Dream]

In reality I don't see any good but I'm happy to have them just in case. I find the whole thing quite funny "let's have something that we never use because it would mean the end of mankind"
You understand my point a bit better ?

Well that's the problem isn't it? Let mankind be in capability of using these weapons so they can be tempted to self-destruct themselves when they get mad against each other, that's what you're saying now. Like what the hell do you mean just in case? Just in case another country drops a nuclear bomb on the UK? To me those weapons are just creating more trouble, and the less others have them, the better, because once one of these bombs drops, it's on.

As for the general question, I think for many people it's out of fear, because they are scared of the country's self-defense (in the case of the ones living in the country). As for the people within the western countries, that's a bit more complicated. I think it's in part because, especially Americans, are revolting against the governement's war policy which sadly hasn't changed much over the country's history. It has always been so terrible to go and sacrifice so many lives in useless wars, and those weapons of mass destruction would hopefully scare away the western countries from starting another war. Even though you might say that they think differently of issues like terrorism, I think it's because Iran's governement is a legit state of law while terrorism does not serve a state of law.

But basically I've only added to Vlerchan's theory that these people think it reduces conflict, only with a few more specific details that may be controversial.

[Cpt_Cutter]

I felt like I had to log in just to give my two cents.

Global politics isn't logical, that's the first thing you need to understand for this to all make sense.

Nukes exist and are kept by nations for the MAD theory. The theory that as long as the biggest superpowers in the world have nukes, they will keep themselves, and by extension, those around them, stable, because Nuclear weapons give far more security than risk. No one is going to fuck with a nuclear nation. I.E. Pakistan and India will likely never have a full scale war, even though they have border conflicts. It's the same with India and China, Russia and Europe, Turkey and Russia, or anyone and Israel.

The threat of nuclear retaliation trumps all possible gains to be had from attacking said nation. It's the reason Russia didn't continue on into Europe post WW2, and the reason the Cold war stayed cold. Another reason nuclear weapons are kept by nations is the super-villain theory.

Contrary to popular belief, Nukes aren't that hard to create with the proper resources, time and manpower. Most of it is theoretical, and most of that information is online. It's the delivery system, and getting a device small enough to transport on a missile or bomber that's difficult. The Super-villain theory deals with this.

What if a couple terrorists or one terrorist state creates nukes? Until someone else gets them, that nation holds the world at ransom, which is a terrible thing for global security. Nations like the US keep nukes for both national defense, and overwhelming force against nations or groups which require it.

Are nukes stupid? I say no. I say they're the best thing to happen to global security in a very long time. They might just give us the motivation to get the fuck off this forsaken rock and find somewhere else to live.

[Left Now]

Focusing on one observable implication from this debate, this article examines the relationship between the severity of violence in crises and the number of involved states with nuclear weapons. The study contends that actors will show more restraint in crises involving more participants with nuclear weapons. Using data from the International Crisis Behavior (ICB) project, the results demonstrate that crises involving nuclear actors are more likely to end without violence and, as the number of nuclear actors involved increases, the likelihood of war continues to fall. The results are robust even when controlling for a number of factors including non-nuclear capability. In confirming that nuclear weapons tend to increase restraint in crises, the effect of nuclear weapons on strategic behavior is clarified. But the findings do not suggest that increasing the number of nuclear actors in a crisis can prevent war, and they cannot speak to other proliferation risks.

Asal & Beardsley (2007), Proliferation and International Crisis Behaviour, Journal of Peace Research, 44(2). (http://www.saramitchell.org/Asalbeardsley.pdf)

As I've said before though, whether avoiding non-nuclear engagements now, is worth a possible nuclear engagement in the future is debatable.


I believe it more sounds like Mutual Fear right?

Nuclear weapons deter through fear of force, not through force itself. If a country wants to use nuclear weapons for defense, it has every right to do so if it can safely keep them. For example today's Iraq shouldn't have them because of the possibility of them falling into enemy hands.

And this is what most other people say too,but think about it:What if a country with WMD wants war with another country which is not in possession of them,but that country is capable of defeating the invading forces and even take the conflict into aggressor nation's main land to reach its goal which is being assured that it would not be attacked once again by that nation and also take an amount of money from them for aggression and the damages which that country has delivered to its developing structures?Will that country with WMD use its weapon against the country which it was unable to defeat in battlefield to assure its protection and survival?Who will it be used against except civilians?

Also would you please answer this question too?

Why do some people who don't mind about having WMD who live in a country(in this case Western ones),whether in possession of WMD or not,think that another people in another country may have the same intentions and beliefs as theirs?


The threat of mutually destruction is a sort of protection. During the Cold War, the only reason it didn't got hot was because no body wanted to fire first.

Well,the question was somehow changed in my previous post.Why do some people who don't mind about having WMD who live in a country,whether in possession of WMD or not,think that another people in another country may have the same intentions and beliefs as theirs?

Well that's the problem isn't it? Let mankind be in capability of using these weapons so they can be tempted to self-destruct themselves when they get mad against each other, that's what you're saying now. Like what the hell do you mean just in case? Just in case another country drops a nuclear bomb on the UK? To me those weapons are just creating more trouble, and the less others have them, the better, because once one of these bombs drops, it's on.

As for the general question, I think for many people it's out of fear, because they are scared of the country's self-defense (in the case of the ones living in the country). As for the people within the western countries, that's a bit more complicated. I think it's in part because, especially Americans, are revolting against the governement's war policy which sadly hasn't changed much over the country's history. It has always been so terrible to go and sacrifice so many lives in useless wars, and those weapons of mass destruction would hopefully scare away the western countries from starting another war. Even though you might say that they think differently of issues like terrorism, I think it's because Iran's governement is a legit state of law while terrorism does not serve a state of law.

But basically I've only added to Vlerchan's theory that these people think it reduces conflict, only with a few more specific details that may be controversial.

Well,sounds better now,but if you have read the example sentences in my first post,in that case some people believe Iran IS looking for WMD and they support if it wants to have while that nation's government and people themselves are against it.That is the point that I wanted to say since the first.

I felt like I had to log in just to give my two cents.

Global politics isn't logical, that's the first thing you need to understand for this to all make sense.

Nukes exist and are kept by nations for the MAD theory. The theory that as long as the biggest superpowers in the world have nukes, they will keep themselves, and by extension, those around them, stable, because Nuclear weapons give far more security than risk. No one is going to fuck with a nuclear nation. I.E. Pakistan and India will likely never have a full scale war, even though they have border conflicts. It's the same with India and China, Russia and Europe, Turkey and Russia, or anyone and Israel.

The threat of nuclear retaliation trumps all possible gains to be had from attacking said nation. It's the reason Russia didn't continue on into Europe post WW2, and the reason the Cold war stayed cold. Another reason nuclear weapons are kept by nations is the super-villain theory.

Contrary to popular belief, Nukes aren't that hard to create with the proper resources, time and manpower. Most of it is theoretical, and most of that information is online. It's the delivery system, and getting a device small enough to transport on a missile or bomber that's difficult. The Super-villain theory deals with this.

What if a couple terrorists or one terrorist state creates nukes? Until someone else gets them, that nation holds the world at ransom, which is a terrible thing for global security. Nations like the US keep nukes for both national defense, and overwhelming force against nations or groups which require it.

Are nukes stupid? I say no. I say they're the best thing to happen to global security in a very long time. They might just give us the motivation to get the fuck off this forsaken rock and find somewhere else to live.

Well,thanks for answering the unchanged question(although I still disagree with you in this matter),but would you please answer the changed one too?

Why do some people who don't mind about having WMD who live in a country,whether in possession of WMD or not(in this case Western countries),think that another people in another country may have the same intentions and beliefs as theirs?

[Canadian Dream]

Well,sounds better now,but if you have read the example sentences in my first post,in that case some people believe Iran IS looking for WMD and they support if it wants to have while that nation's government and people themselves are against it.That is the point that I wanted to say since the first.

Well maybe you should have preciced that the nation was against those weapons because I believe you have stated that nowhere in your first post. I think to some degree that the people from countries like Iran are smart enough to some degree that have weapons of mass destruction would incite countries like the US to start a war with them (the way it did with Iraq many times in the past, although that's a bit different of an issue). Being against those weapons makes them seem more on the US' side of the issue. But as I said some other people in the US think that Iran having those weapons would make the US back off to some degree, which I have already stated that I disagree with.

[Left Now]

Well maybe you should have preciced that the nation was against those weapons because I believe you have stated that nowhere in your first post. I think to some degree that the people from countries like Iran are smart enough to some degree that have weapons of mass destruction would incite countries like the US to start a war with them (the way it did with Iraq many times in the past, although that's a bit different of an issue). Being against those weapons makes them seem more on the US' side of the issue. But as I said some other people in the US think that Iran having those weapons would make the US back off to some degree, which I have already stated that I disagree with.

Well,first of all,you are right I didn't mention it in my first post.Apologize.

And about people not wanting WMDs,well the main reason is because the generation which was present during Iran-Iraq war who are still alive and young enough,know what this means to be victims of these weapons and so they have a complete negative view about them,so it is not in major for fearing other countries attack them,but because they themselves have experienced being pounced by WMDs during war,and most majority of them do not want to see this happens to themselves or any others once again.

[Uniquemind]

The older generations are correct.

WMD's suck and they need to be safely dismantled and humans need to get over their bravado over each other and die peacefully when natural resources run short.

The end result ends up being the same anyway when countries fight over scarce resources and trade deals.

1. We go to war > destruction and economic damage + death and lowering of human population.


Other option

2. People die via starvation or desperation due to a lack of water, food, medical supplies and services.

Although option 2 isn't nearly as costly, as no energy and time need to be spent evacuating or rebuilding towns that would've been bombed out in option 1.