NationStates Jolt Archive

I think nuclear weapons are cowardly and should be banned. What are your thoughts?

The only way anybody is going to be able to ban nukes for UN members is if they can ban them for non-members as well. Otherwise, a nuclear-capable non-member will look at all the nuke-free UN states and see them as easy pickings.

here here

Eredron would not be opposed to a LIMIT on nuclear weapons, but an outright ban is impossible. It would be impossible to force other nations to destroy their nuclear arsenal, if we have already done so; likewise, non-UN nations would gain a tremendous advantage over UN nations.

It might be helpful if the UN could find a way to monitor nukes, keep track of them, and then let the whole world know where they are. Then affected neighbor states could take precautions. WMDs might not be that easy to locate, however.

Eredron would not be opposed to a LIMIT on nuclear weapons, but an outright ban is impossible. It would be impossible to force other nations to destroy their nuclear arsenal, if we have already done so; likewise, non-UN nations would gain a tremendous advantage over UN nations.

The only advantage comes if one believes that other nations would actually use them. We are proud to be nuclear free, and will always be so. We do not believe that other nations would truly, in the final analysis, be insane enough to actually use nuclear weapons in this day and age. What does anyone gain from a destroyed and unuseable world?

Eredron would not be opposed to a LIMIT on nuclear weapons, but an outright ban is impossible. It would be impossible to force other nations to destroy their nuclear arsenal, if we have already done so; likewise, non-UN nations would gain a tremendous advantage over UN nations.

The only advantage comes if one believes that other nations would actually use them. We are proud to be nuclear free, and will always be so. We do not believe that other nations would truly, in the final analysis, be insane enough to actually use nuclear weapons in this day and age. What does anyone gain from a destroyed and unuseable world?

You would be surprised to fond out a far some are willing to go in order when even if it means the destruction of everything, also some nations are run by people that insane. Anyways non-UN states wouldn't have to completely destroy a a nuke-free UN state, all they would have to do is wipe out the armies that may stand in there way because when you put a ban on nuclear weapons and people comply you no longer guarentee MAD. The Jurian states will not support an outright ban of nuclear weapons, however, we will support limiting them as long as MAD is still a realistic threat to rouge nations that may want to expand their borders.

I like the MAD, this way the cold war never got hot and its still a major reason that many countries try to avoid war with others.
But I rather want a ban on nukes than that America attempts to make a SDI and that way destablizes the entire world order.
But than again there is no efficent way to stop IBCMs and if Bush want to throw money in the toilet, then by all means, he may be my guest.

I think that only partially enriched uranium should be used in weapons. Also all UN members should be issued with an ICBM defence system. :idea:

We do not believe that other nations would truly, in the final analysis, be insane enough to actually use nuclear weapons in this day and age.

Obviously, your not familiar with the United States' illegal preidential regime. They're arrogant enough to use them.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

If nukes were banned the smaller nations such as mine or i dont know... but still nukes are the smaller nations best line of defense in war i side with "of the people" no!!!! :evil:

While banning nuclear missiles is a good idea in theory, in reality, it is simply not going to happen...especially if you are suggesting that the UN disarm while the rest of the world doesn't.

Besides, one of the main points of having a nuclear arsenal is to use it as a deterrent. By having nukes, a small nations can effectively defend itself against a much larger one. Nukes can thus often make up for a disparity in conventional forces.

In the opinion of the people of New Clarkhall, there is no way to effectively de-nuclearize the world. What we can work for, as Eredron has pointed out, is limiting the size of a nation's arsenal to the minimun deterrent needed.

BTW...Preseident Bush's election is perfectly legal. Controversial, yes. Illegal, no.

Obviously, your not familiar with the United States' illegal preidential regime. They're arrogant enough to use them.

Well, where are you from? France, or the Middle East?

The United States never used nuclear weapons except for WWII. Bush technically won, but did not really win the election because they did not have a majority of votes.

Obviously, your not familiar with the United States' illegal preidential regime. They're arrogant enough to use them.

Well, where are you from? France, or the Middle East?

The United States never used nuclear weapons except for WWII. Bush technically won, but did not really win the election because they did not have a majority of votes.

The president elect is not determined by the popular vote, but by who wins the electoral college. So yes he really did win the election.

Nukes shouldn't be banned. Clarkhall and Eredron are right. Nukes are a deterrent. They make people think twice about attacking you (if you're invaded, you nuke their capital. Problem solved.).

Also, countries will almost certainly NOT get rid of their nuclear weapons. Many enlightened nations will surely see the light of getting rid of them, but that doesn't mean that your bad-a** neighbor will see things the same way. The idea of LIMITING the number of nukes a country ought to have is a good idea, though.

The pain in the butt is trying to figure out a good way to limit the arsenals, though.

Office of the Dictator
The Drama Isles

Perhaps we should look towards some common defence policy so that if any UN nation is attacked all others able to will assist. Where two UN countries go to war with each other only one should gain the support of the UN, or both but only diplomatic support.

As a nation of peace lovers with a tiny military (relatively) we will fight strongly against war.

:D i have put up a proposal
On the Use of nuclear weapons
^thats what its called,

please vote for it, :D thanks

We cannot expect countries to comply with unilateral disarmement, thus we should engage in a swift and effective method of nuclear weapons reduction: we should have a nuclear war. I shall demand that all enemey parties surrender and then allow me to blow them all to tiny, radioactive pieces.

Whilst a ban on nuclear weapons is a fine and worthy principle, and one which we in principle support. With the number of warmongering non UN states out there any nuclear armed nation that gives up it's nukes will last about as long as a snowball in hell. If the UN decides to be so short sighted and ban them, then all nations in the UN will besigning their own death warrents

Our nation is fortunate enough to be the sole posessor of naturally occuring anomolies with high radioactive output. These enities (individually dubbed "Turnip-13") has a myriad of uses that allows our otherwise weak nation to survive, and indeed, do well on the market: virtually all buyers of this remarcable legume are U.N. members.
The Turnips are, however, easy to turn into nuclear weapons (as the 1999 Turnip Pie Competition Disaster showed). If the U.N. passed the ruling on nuclear disarmament, would we be required to sever all trade agreements consisting of Turnip-13, and therefore scuttle our economy? And what would the ramifications of trading within and without the U.N. be?

The UN is not there to dictate policy to member nations! If a nation wants to use nuclear weapons, then that is up to the sovereign country to decide.

If the decision is made against the ban of nuclear weapons, what is the purpose of limiting their numbers? How does having fewer nuclear weapons contribute to the security of the world?

I think nuclear weapons are cowardly and should be banned. What are your thoughts?

Strategic nuclear weapons but without them chances are the USA and USSR would've gone to war. Based on casualty figures in WWII, WWIII would have easily meant 100 million deaths. Is that really a price you are willing to pay for glory and courage?

Notice that since the advent of nuclear weapons in 1945 there has never been a conflict on the grand scale of WWI or WWII.

Nuclear weapons save lives and money in that they discourage war.

People are often fascinated by 18th, 19th century warfare because it was considerably less deadly than a nuclear war would be. Only when war is looked upon as utterly vulgar and the devastation is considered higher than the gain will war be eradicated. Nuclear weapons achieve this.

Nuclears weapons don't achieve much more than murder...the arms race between Russia and America was much alike the one that was going on between the European nations prior to World War 1; the theory was that if every nation had an equal amount of power, they would avoid war. The theory of course went to hell; and the only reason there wasn't a Nuclear war was because the 2 nations that were having the nuclear arms race kept on spying eachother; and no other nation participated in the arms race; if even one other nation had, there might not be a world today.

Nuclears weapons don't achieve much more than murder...the arms race between Russia and America was much alike the one that was going on between the European nations prior to World War 1; the theory was that if every nation had an equal amount of power, they would avoid war. The theory of course went to hell; and the only reason there wasn't a Nuclear war was because the 2 nations that were having the nuclear arms race kept on spying eachother; and no other nation participated in the arms race; if even one other nation had, there might not be a world today.

THere is a difference. Nuclear weapons are strategic weapons. A first strike won't knock out your enemy's arsenals and make him unable to retaliate. The other guy can easily hit your homelands. In the situation before WWI, the theory was that you could launch a first strike, and defeat the other guy before he could strike back. This was the whole idea behind Schlieffen's Plan. This doesn't work during hte nuclear age, becaue the other guy's radar would've picked up any nuclear launches and then launched his own nukes a few minutes before your nukes hit him.

you have to start somewhere in order to stop something. numerous countries have society's based on fear and fear alone. picture it this way another country has knives and i don't so in order to protect myself i get knives the other country seeing this gets a gun because it wants to be on top and is no longer powerful enough with just a knife for it fears death etc
this goes on until both countries eventually have the most terrifying wepons of mass destruction pointing at each other they are terribly afraid to get rid of these monsters because they are afraid of being killed and as technology advances the killing machines gain more power. the only way to stop this process is to let go of that fear and lower your gaurd this is also the basic principle of friendship. i agree it is a risk but there is no other way if you die you die fearless knowing that you've beat the fear factor while the other country still struggles therefore i think we should ban nukes.. who knows maybe the un could have somone invent a blanket force field if you're so worried about it

Whilst a ban on nuclear weapons is a fine and worthy principle, and one which we in principle support. With the number of warmongering non UN states out there any nuclear armed nation that gives up it's nukes will last about as long as a snowball in hell. If the UN decides to be so short sighted and ban them, then all nations in the UN will besigning their own death warrents

i agree but i think we should use all our remaining nukes on any country refusing 2 give up theirs UN or not and believe me im not joking if they want nukes lets give it 2 them

Whilst a ban on nuclear weapons is a fine and worthy principle, and one which we in principle support. With the number of warmongering non UN states out there any nuclear armed nation that gives up it's nukes will last about as long as a snowball in hell. If the UN decides to be so short sighted and ban them, then all nations in the UN will besigning their own death warrents

i agree but i think we should use all our remaining nukes on any country refusing 2 give up theirs UN or not and believe me im not joking if they want nukes lets give it 2 them

... which will destroy all life on Earth ...

Next.

To solve this most heinos probelm me must go bak in time and kil einstien and any other nuclear phycists in US or otherwise

but wait time machinens wont be invented for another 8 yrs so lets get a time machine go forward in time to get a time machine go bak in time and assasinate einstien and his colleages confuesing not really heres a time line

<---------------------------time machine
you-------------->^
ww2 2003 armagedon2011
---^-------------^-----^-----------^

The only way anybody is going to be able to ban nukes for UN members is if they can ban them for non-members as well. Otherwise, a nuclear-capable non-member will look at all the nuke-free UN states and see them as easy pickings.

A good point. In a perfect world no one would have nuclear weapons, but unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world.

We diffinantly need to do something about nukes.

On an unrelated issue, how well would a proposal to build a 400 foot tall statue of a girl in a thong with a small waist and huge butt fair? What about a giant communal bong?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589