NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, another thread on the same ol' subject. It was a short paper I wrote for a class, and figured some people might be interested or having something to say.

Nuclear Weapons in Today’s World
By Prime Minister Hasmi

In today’s complex and rapidly changing world, anti-war rallies take place daily all over the world. People feel many ways about many issues, and they aren’t afraid to make their voices heard. One issue they especially like to tackle time and time again is the necessity of eliminating all weapons of mass destruction, all over the world. For the first world countries to dismantle all of their nuclear, biological and chemical weapons is folly. To do so would leave us completely exposed, unable to deal with any aggressor nations that own weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The only time we could ever truly disarm would be in a world where there would not only be any WMD, but there would be no way of making any either. Reduction of these weapons is an option that should be considered, but the elimination of these weapons just isn’t possible.

When the concept of atomic fission first came about in the 1930’s, mankind began the walk down a road we cannot leave or undo. Scientists all over the world realized immediately the immense amount of energy atoms being split produced, and with tension growing in Europe and a war within sight, many also considered how easily this energy could be turned into an incredibly destructive tool. Within a decade and a half, we had produced these terrible weapons, and the path we took turned bleak and rough. Since then, it was too late to eliminate these instruments. What had been done once could be done again.

The brutal irony behind these weapons is quite simple. In order for nations to protect themselves against other nuclear-nations, they have to be able to do unacceptable damage to their adversary; otherwise, there is nothing to stop an aggressor nation from bullying those without these weapons. When the atom bomb became more than just an idea, it was necessary for a nation to control some to stay independent.

Even if the all the nuclear super-powers in the world did dispose of their weapons of mass destruction, the world’s problem would simply be put on hold for a year or two, before it would evolve into an even worse problem. If all of the “good” nations of the world were to eliminate their weapons, it would leave the “bad” nations with theirs. Those nations would then be able to push around our nations. There would be nothing to stop them from using their weapons, if we had none. And if the “bad” nations were forced to eliminate their weapons as well? Soon they would be able to build one of their own; the simplicity of the devices is astounding. We would have the same issue.

The only way to completely eliminate the risk of WMD would be to completely and utterly eliminate modern technology. All of the progress made in the last one hundred years can somehow be turned into a weapon; therefore, to eliminate the weapons, you must eliminate the technology. Medicines can be turned into terrible biological weapons, pesticides can be easily modified to be chemical weapons of mass destruction, and clearly our nuclear power stations are only a few steps away from being weapons. We would have to get rid of all of these. We would be walking a road that would eventually lead back to these weapons. The only way to get off this road is to go back to the beginning. The atom was conceptualized in 500 BC. Is that far enough? Imagine a world with no technology, one without electricity, computers, or other tools that make our world what it is. Is it worth it?

Nuclear weapons and other WMD are something to fear. They are capable of incredible short-term and long-term damage. However, we shouldn’t be worrying about eliminating these weapons. We need to keep them out of the hands of terrorists and other groups that wouldn’t be afraid to use them, and we need to also eliminate the number of WMD in the world. Locating all of the missing Soviet nuclear devices is key. Also, we need to limit the number of WMD that we control. For instance, the United States of America doesn’t need the excessive number of 1400 nuclear bombs. Nations should be allowed enough devices to do unacceptable damage to aggressors, but not enough to intimidate other nations with the threat of overwhelming nuclear holocaust.

Weapons of mass destruction are things that exist in our world, not unlike electricity and planes. They aren’t something to be loved and enjoyed, but they aren’t something to get rid of. They play and important role in the politics and defense of our own and other allied nations. Eliminating them is simply not an option. We can and should reduce their numbers and control their whereabouts, but to totally eliminate them would plunge the world into a new Dark Age. These devices aren’t evil; they are tools. We just have to keep them out of the hands of the fools that would play with them and hurt themselves and others.

The answer is simpler than it may seem. Peace.

The answer is simpler than it may seem. Peace.

I couldn't have said it better myself

Well, I'm glad a few people took the time to read it.
Peace isn't possible either. It isn't human nature. Since the dawn of time, people have killed each other. Today, wars and terroism still take lives.

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Weapons of Mass Destruction do nothing but destroy. That is their purpose. They cannot be used to create a stable peace.

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Yah, but we've got the patents. Patent law is a serious issue. 8)

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

No carbs of course!

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What, concerned about getting a taste of your own medicine, eh? :twisted:

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

Maybe the japs shoulda given up after the *first* nuke... Not to play monday-morning-quarterback with the whole thing, but it woulda made sense to me, given the whole situation. :wink:

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What a lot of rot.

If the US wants to claim the moral high ground, let them set an example by destroying some of their own stocks.

The fact that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, has the largest arsenal of them, and claims for itself the right to 'pre-emptive" action (and then later says O.K., maybe the intelligence was faulty) does not act to reassure the rest of us at all.

Add to that the new arms race proposed by the "star wars" anti-missile schemes, and you look like a large scary and uncontrollable bully.

The answer is simpler than it may seem. Peace.
Yes, well if the answer was that simple we would have world peace, but its not. Human nature to start wars.

Is the star wars project that nuke zapping satalitte?

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What a lot of rot.

If the US wants to claim the moral high ground, let them set an example by destroying some of their own stocks.

The fact that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, has the largest arsenal of them, and claims for itself the right to 'pre-emptive" action (and then later says O.K., maybe the intelligence was faulty) does not act to reassure the rest of us at all.

Add to that the new arms race proposed by the "star wars" anti-missile schemes, and you look like a large scary and uncontrollable bully.

First, Russia has a larger stockpile of WMD than America. Second, destroying them is more dangerous than keeping them locked away. Third, we *have* destroyed many types of WMD, including nukes, as have the Russians. Most importantly, our WMD were developed in a time of national threat. We didn't know for certain that we'd win the War when we began the Manhattan project, but we knew the Germans were actively persuing the A-Bomb. Same goes for Chem weapons during WWI. Finally, SDI is a tool against rouge-states. Any nation is free to pursue missile defense, and we've sold our extant SDI to Taiwan and Israel already, far from starting a nukefight.

These devices aren’t evil; they are tools

Wrong. WMD, unlike all normal weapons, will almost inevitably kill innocent civilians.

Therefore, unlike normal weapons, they are evil.

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What a lot of rot.

If the US wants to claim the moral high ground, let them set an example by destroying some of their own stocks.

The fact that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, has the largest arsenal of them, and claims for itself the right to 'pre-emptive" action (and then later says O.K., maybe the intelligence was faulty) does not act to reassure the rest of us at all.

Add to that the new arms race proposed by the "star wars" anti-missile schemes, and you look like a large scary and uncontrollable bully.

First, Russia has a larger stockpile of WMD than America. Second, destroying them is more dangerous than keeping them locked away. Third, we *have* destroyed many types of WMD, including nukes, as have the Russians. Most importantly, our WMD were developed in a time of national threat. We didn't know for certain that we'd win the War when we began the Manhattan project, but we knew the Germans were actively persuing the A-Bomb. Same goes for Chem weapons during WWI. Finally, SDI is a tool against rouge-states. Any nation is free to pursue missile defense, and we've sold our extant SDI to Taiwan and Israel already, far from starting a nukefight.

Russia has considerably less WMDs than does the US. Many have been destroyed, the rest dispersed when the USSR was broken up.

The US appears to be a "rogue state"!!! Who the hell decides what is a "rogue state" ?? Do you have to join the axis of evil or what? Is it just enough for the US to declare who the "rogue states" are?

And thanks for mentioning Israel's weapons of mass destruction.

They must be of the 'peaceful" variety, right ?

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What a lot of rot.

If the US wants to claim the moral high ground, let them set an example by destroying some of their own stocks.

The fact that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, has the largest arsenal of them, and claims for itself the right to 'pre-emptive" action (and then later says O.K., maybe the intelligence was faulty) does not act to reassure the rest of us at all.

Add to that the new arms race proposed by the "star wars" anti-missile schemes, and you look like a large scary and uncontrollable bully.

First, Russia has a larger stockpile of WMD than America. Second, destroying them is more dangerous than keeping them locked away. Third, we *have* destroyed many types of WMD, including nukes, as have the Russians. Most importantly, our WMD were developed in a time of national threat. We didn't know for certain that we'd win the War when we began the Manhattan project, but we knew the Germans were actively persuing the A-Bomb. Same goes for Chem weapons during WWI. Finally, SDI is a tool against rouge-states. Any nation is free to pursue missile defense, and we've sold our extant SDI to Taiwan and Israel already, far from starting a nukefight.

Russia has considerably less WMDs than does the US. Many have been destroyed, the rest dispersed when the USSR was broken up.

The US appears to be a "rogue state"!!! Who the hell decides what is a "rogue state" ?? Do you have to join the axis of evil or what? Is it just enough for the US to declare who the "rogue states" are?

And thanks for mentioning Israel's weapons of mass destruction.

They must be of the 'peaceful" variety, right ?

Actually, only very recently has the US has more nuclear weapons than the USSR/Russia.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What a lot of rot.

If the US wants to claim the moral high ground, let them set an example by destroying some of their own stocks.

The fact that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, has the largest arsenal of them, and claims for itself the right to 'pre-emptive" action (and then later says O.K., maybe the intelligence was faulty) does not act to reassure the rest of us at all.

Add to that the new arms race proposed by the "star wars" anti-missile schemes, and you look like a large scary and uncontrollable bully.

First, Russia has a larger stockpile of WMD than America. Second, destroying them is more dangerous than keeping them locked away. Third, we *have* destroyed many types of WMD, including nukes, as have the Russians. Most importantly, our WMD were developed in a time of national threat. We didn't know for certain that we'd win the War when we began the Manhattan project, but we knew the Germans were actively persuing the A-Bomb. Same goes for Chem weapons during WWI. Finally, SDI is a tool against rouge-states. Any nation is free to pursue missile defense, and we've sold our extant SDI to Taiwan and Israel already, far from starting a nukefight.

Russia has considerably less WMDs than does the US. Many have been destroyed, the rest dispersed when the USSR was broken up.

The US appears to be a "rogue state"!!! Who the hell decides what is a "rogue state" ?? Do you have to join the axis of evil or what? Is it just enough for the US to declare who the "rogue states" are?

And thanks for mentioning Israel's weapons of mass destruction.

They must be of the 'peaceful" variety, right ?

Actually, only very recently has the US has more nuclear weapons than the USSR/Russia.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

True.

And to the last guy: I said nothing about Israel, other than that we sold them SDI. SDI = Missile Defense. Genius. SDI does not = WMD.

Well, I'm glad a few people took the time to read it.
Peace isn't possible either. It isn't human nature. Since the dawn of time, people have killed each other. Today, wars and terroism still take lives.

Finally, someone sees my point. I've been saying this to most people that are protesting for peace. This is an excerpt from a speech that a Peruvian Guerilla General made:

'We practise selective anhillation of mayors and government officials, for example to create a vacuum. Then we fill that vacuum. As popular war advances, peace is closer.'

This was effectively what the entire speech was made around. So, what exactly does this mean?

'We practise selective anhillation of mayors and government officials, for example to create a vacuum.' Meaning that they assasinate all governmental bodies that do not agree with their way of leadership.

'...Then we fill that vacuum." Meaning that they strive to accomplish the afore mentioned task within their lifetime.

'As popular war advances, peace is closer.' This is the line that is mainly for this topic.

What is 'popular war' then? Popular war is war that one country feels is beneficial to the way the world is run. I DO mean to place the entire blame on the USA. The Iraq War - that was the USA's 'popular war'. What did it accomplish? Nothing. Peace ISN'T closer, it just got further away moron (Bush).
Look at what happened in Spain. That was because of the Iraq war - that doesn't look like peace! It's not the entire USA, it's just Bush. He pulled the USA out of many peace treaty and nuclear disarmement agreements.
He has destroyed 30 years of worldwide peace advancements.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a world of peace, but wake up morons. It'll never happen. Ever.
As long as we have morons like Bush running superpower countries like the USA peace cannot be achieved.
Finally, peace can never be achieved due to religion. Certain religions attack other religious groups because they don't agree with their style of worship or they do it for 'their God' which makes no sense at all.

In conclusion, there is no need for weapons of mass destruction, but they will now be around forever, as they can be made out of almost any easily accesible items and they will be continually be made and used to their potential because of the aforementioned.

PS ~ I'm British. I'm Christian. I'm FOR peace.

If Weapons of Mass Destructiobn are wrong, then they are wrong for all.

I cannot believe the hypocricy of the US, the owner of the largest and most lethal stash of these weapons, going to war because they claimed (incorrectly as it turned out) they another nation had these weapons.

Unbelievable.

What, are US weapons somehow healthier or better for you? Low-fat perhaps?

Perhaps since the US is the only nation to have ever used Nuclear Weapons in a time of combat that perhaps we place a greater value in seeing that no other nation, certainly ones that are aggressive nations obtain these...I shuddered to think when the USSR folded the stories that ex-Soviet generals would sell their weapons under the direct control to the highest bidder

What a lot of rot.

If the US wants to claim the moral high ground, let them set an example by destroying some of their own stocks.

The fact that the US has used weapons of mass destruction, has the largest arsenal of them, and claims for itself the right to 'pre-emptive" action (and then later says O.K., maybe the intelligence was faulty) does not act to reassure the rest of us at all.

Add to that the new arms race proposed by the "star wars" anti-missile schemes, and you look like a large scary and uncontrollable bully.

First, Russia has a larger stockpile of WMD than America. Second, destroying them is more dangerous than keeping them locked away. Third, we *have* destroyed many types of WMD, including nukes, as have the Russians. Most importantly, our WMD were developed in a time of national threat. We didn't know for certain that we'd win the War when we began the Manhattan project, but we knew the Germans were actively persuing the A-Bomb. Same goes for Chem weapons during WWI. Finally, SDI is a tool against rouge-states. Any nation is free to pursue missile defense, and we've sold our extant SDI to Taiwan and Israel already, far from starting a nukefight.

Russia has considerably less WMDs than does the US. Many have been destroyed, the rest dispersed when the USSR was broken up.

The US appears to be a "rogue state"!!! Who the hell decides what is a "rogue state" ?? Do you have to join the axis of evil or what? Is it just enough for the US to declare who the "rogue states" are?

And thanks for mentioning Israel's weapons of mass destruction.

They must be of the 'peaceful" variety, right ?

Actually, only very recently has the US has more nuclear weapons than the USSR/Russia.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp

True.

And to the last guy: I said nothing about Israel, other than that we sold them SDI. SDI = Missile Defense. Genius. SDI does not = WMD.

Even the israeli's themselves no longer pretend not to have WMDs.
Adding SDI does not make it any better, it makes it worse.

These devices aren’t evil; they are tools

Wrong. WMD, unlike all normal weapons, will almost inevitably kill innocent civilians.

Therefore, unlike normal weapons, they are evil.

A lot of weapons will almost inevitably kill innocent civilians. Its just that WMD are able to do it on a much greater scale. Does the fact that they are bigger and better than, say, a catapult make them evil as opposed to a weapon?

Also, I'd like to thank Sdaeriji (I hope he was the one :?) who posted the link to http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab19.asp. If you haven't checked it out, you should, its a real well done website.

Quote from said website:
At times during the Cold War, nuclear war planners have defined deterrence as America's ability to destroy at least one-quarter of an enemy's citizens in any nuclear-war scenario. This is 1960s-era secretary of defense Robert McNamara's infamous doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" (MAD), in which the nuclear powers maintain stability by holding each other's citizens hostage.

NRDC used its nuclear-war simulation tools to show how the populations of the United States, Russian and other nations can be threatened with just a small number of weapons. The map above shows where, given today's high-yield nuclear weapons, an opponent would have to explode a mere 300 warheads to kill 25 percent of the population of all NATO member countries -- nearly 189 million people.