Is there anything more urgent than disarmament?

Discussion in 'Politics and Society' started by chelseapoet, Feb 7, 2004.

  1. chelseapoet

    chelseapoet New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    A simple question: Is there anything more urgent than nuclear disarmament?

    A subsidiary question: Any new ideas about how to bring this about?

    And another: How do you feel about the world's largest nuclear power and the only state to have used nuclear weapons in a conflict using the possession of WMDs (now all but disproved) as a pretext for invading Iraq?

    And what on earth can we do about ex-soviet nuclear material getting into the hands of terrorists?
     
  2. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Thre must be a God up there.

    Yes, I think there is nothing more urgent than nuclear disarmament.

    If the U.S. spends the billions it is now spending in its Iraq war, then it can bring about disarmament. Not a new idea? The use of money for this purpose, big big money, I think is a new idea. With money many things are possible. Disarmament is one of them. You want North Korea to disarm, give it money and help it to use the money to get to improve the lifestyle of the country, starting with the government leaders.

    I feel very very bad about the U.S. excess of nuclear firepower. We were lucky that no nuclear holocaust occurred during the cold war decades. There must be a God or we were very fortunate. The U.S. is the country with the most quantity and the most lethality of WMDs. So, as it could amass all these WMDs, it can also now do a lot of things to rid the earth of these deadly equipment and materiels.

    The U.S. can buy the nuclear arsenals of the former Soviet Russia, pre-emptive buying over the terrorists. Or the U.S. can buy the terrorists; these guys are human, money can talk with them. If the price is right, they will be amenable to abandon their terroristic campaign. Just get them to talk with the U.S. But the U.S. does not want to talk, for example with North Korea, so also with the terrorists. The U.S. loves to make war, they love experimenting or toying with their big guns and bombs. To build and expand their empire.


    The U.S. loves to shoot instead of talk; because they have the guns and the bombs and they have been more inclined in their history to shoot than to talk. When will they ever learn? Iraq is a repeat of Vietnam.


    Susma Rio Sep
     
  3. Baud

    Baud Seeker of Knowledge

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't mean to be cynical, but can anyone tell me what evil nuclear weapons have caused up to now?

    Horoshima and Nagasaki were destroyed. This is of course true, but the number of death there were comparable with what conventional bombing would have brought about (civilians were commonly bombed by both parties at the time). It is widely believed that the conventional invasion of Japan would have caused many more deaths.

    Nuclear weapons have siphoned quite an amount of money in the past. This is also correct. However, that money is gone and cannot be recuperated.

    Nuclear weapons still require to be maintained to ensure that they remain safe, and this require money. However, much more money would be needed to dispose of them safely (although I agree that this would balance over the long run).

    What actual threat do nuclear weapons pose? No sane government would use strategic nuclear weapons in any conflict where its very survival is in fact threatened. The US, Russia, France and the UK would certainly not do it, and neither would China and India, because they have so much geographic depth that they can afford to dispose of their enemies another way. None of them would use nuclear weapons in a regional conflict, either, and fro the same reasons. Pakistan and North Korea are more of a threat because of the instability of their governments, but they must be aware that using nuclear weapons first would bring their immediate demise. They would use them only if cornered. The majority of serious studies I have read disregard the use of nuclear weapons by any state.

    A real threat is the theft of nuclear material by terrorists, but disposing of all nuclear weapons would not really solve the problem. It is still quite easy to build a "dirty bomb" using radioactive waste found elsewhere, and if it is possible to steal nuclear weapons now, it would certainly also be so at the time of their disposal.

    All in all, although I agree that complete nuclear disarmament would certainly make the world a better place, I think that the actual risk is so low that yes, there are more urgent things to do than nuclear disarmament: fighting AIDS, reducing income inequalities, investing in poorer countries and helping them develop, fighting global warming, developping new medicines and making them available for a cheap price, and there are many other examples.

    I am certainly not a warmonger, but I think that there are much more urgent things to do than dispose of bombs that are just sitting there without hurting anyone at this stage.

    Baud
     
  4. Anzac

    Anzac Resident Anarchist

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2003
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's their potential to totally annihilate the globe that scares me. What also scares me is that the US seems to run about the world making sure no one else has any expect them, and if anyone does that they are restricted. What right has the US to have these arms than any other nation? What a minute, the UN security council can control it, can it? ALl nuclear powers are the permenant holders, oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

    Also you cannot claim that since it hasn't annihilated everyone that they are safe. If they did then we couldn't be having this discussion!

    I also find it ironic that people say that nuclear weapons provide safety. As soon as one person decides they've had enough we're all dead. People often spout MAD (mutually assured destruction for those putting a good use to spare time) at me, but then let's see which country has all the nukes? The US. Russia, Russia! When was the last time they were maintained? They put a plea out so that they could be maintained before they mothball in their silos due to short term half-life decay. Didn't mention that. In fact, the only nation with the capacity to deliver MAD is the US, and it ain't M if it's one nation - it's just AD! As such that worries me. What worries me more is that they are the single most likely nation to use them - as they have done.

    My favourite quote (from 2002 Guardian) is that it costs more to maintain Britain's nuclear arsenal per person than it does to put them through secondary school - that's a knock on effect of the whole idea.

    Nuclear disarmament would be nice, but it isn't going to happen because of a little thing called US "defence" policy. Actually, talking of which, why do all western countries have departments of defence when all they do is attack?
     
  5. Baud

    Baud Seeker of Knowledge

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am not disagreeing with you Anzac. The potential for descruction of nuclear weapons is scary. It's worst than anything that was made by man before. However, in putting priority over things, one must look not only at the impact of the risk but also at its probablility. Even though the probability that nuclear weapons will be used is not zero, it is anyway very small. On the other hand, more than three million people die each year of AIDS. This is just an example, but if I had to prioritize the allocation of resources, it would go to AIDS and development, not to nuclear disarmament. My answer was aimed at answering the question "is there anything more urgent than nuclear disarmament?" and my answer is clearly yes.

    To answer your question "What right has the US to have these arms than any other nation?" well, the US doesn't have very much to do with that. The majority of countries in the world have signed the nuclear non proliferation treaty (NPT), by which non-nuclear states commit not to produce nuclear weapons, and nuclear states commit to disarm one day. Of course, the latter promise is fairly weak without timetable, but if states are forbidden to produce nuclear weapons, it is by their own promise (and not becasue the UN Security Council wants it). Now not all states have ratified the NPT: Isreal and North Korea for instance have not.

    You also mention that nuclear disarmament will not happen. I don't think this is solely because of the US, although the US most probably will be the last to disarm, but I agree with you that nuclear disarmament at this stage is so unlikely that this is one more reason to put priorities elsewhere.

    And I don't think that nuclear weapons provide safety as such. It depends on a lot of other factors, one of the most important being who else has them and how can they be detterred. You can tell the people who talk to you about MAD that the conept was used in the 50 and 60 only in the context of the Cold War, has been abandoned, and that it doesn't have very much sense now (and is not even mentioned in any defense planning).

    Baud
     
  6. iBrian

    iBrian Peace, Love and Unity Admin

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2003
    Messages:
    6,532
    Likes Received:
    12
    We need the US missile shield extending globally under the UN to circumvent the growing nuclear threat. Watch that is doesn't happen. :)
     
  7. Susma Rio Sep

    Susma Rio Sep Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2003
    Messages:
    828
    Likes Received:
    1
    Disarmament is possible and feasible.

    In my home I make sure that nothing poisonous or highly inflammable are allowed inside. And If such poisonous and highly inflammable materials are unavoidable for cleaning purposes and home maintenance, I have them locked up securely outside, so that kids and strangers or guests don't get their hands on them even innocently. And I wished that home life and work can get along without such poisonous or highly inflammable articles.

    I like to maintain that disarmament is cheaper and more feasible than the present expenditures for more so-called defense spending. I would like to see studies done by cost accountants on this topic.

    The argument that if guns are prohibited only criminals will have possession of guns, I think is not valid in regard to disarming nuclear weapons. Guns shoot bullets, nuclear weapons destroy genes of life forms. And I believe that if governments have the ingenuity and resources to produce nuclear weapons, they certainly can employ their ingenuity and resources to prevent criminals or terrorists from getting their hands on nuclear weapons or producing them -- and the cost is lesser, I also believe.

    Susma Rio Sep
     

Share This Page