Reply
Sat 28 Jun, 2008 05:15 am
Well, I think we all agree by now that self-defense is a fundamental, universal, God given right. Countries have an inherent right to defend themselves, and to the means to defend themselves, and other countries have no moral authority to grant the right only at their pleasure and under their control.
Nuclear weapons are the final bulwark against neighbouring countries, should they ever go out of control. If every country was in possession of nukes, it would make a lot of people safer. An invading country would then always be aware of what it is getting into.
Armed invasions, i.e. those in which the invading country knows it is invading a place with an nuclear armed defence force, are very rare - in fact, not a single one has ever happened. In contrast to that, armed invasions are the rule and not the exception in places like Africa or the Middle East, where the 'international community' has effectively disarmed countries and denied them the right to own nuclear weapons.
There are many places where there are lots of nuclear weapons, but effectively nothing in the way of wars - Britain, the United States, and France for instance.
There are places where there is a non-nuclear conflict rate far in excess of the nuclear armed countries' total (nuclear + non-nuclear) conflict rate.
And those countries that have huge nuclear arsenal didn't suddenly have a big spike in nuclear conflicts when their governments started placing nuclear missile silos everywhere.
It's therefore quite logical to argue that non-proliferation treaties only take nuclear weapons away from law abiding countries - the kind you really want on your side. Rogue countries will acquire nuclear weapons in any case, whether we sanction it or not. However, if you outlaw nuclear weapons, only lawless countries will have nukes.
Bottom line: every country should have nuclear weapons.
It tells the bad guys that more potential victims will have nukes for self defence. Everybody is safer - everybody wins.
More nuclear weapons - less wars.
Re: Every country should have nukes...
old europe wrote:More nuclear weapons - less wars.
Ah! Makes me think of the gun nuts in the US.
More guns - less crimes.
Pure nonsense...
How many times did France get invaded since it's had nuclear weapons?
Thought so.
Nuclear weapons don't kill people, people do.
my motto is More velveeta=less cheese
The proliferation of nuclear weapons will lead to their use some day.
Countries are like individuals, not all them are sane and sound..
dyslexia wrote:my motto is More velveeta=less cheese
Bury the Velveeta, put it underground..
Francis wrote:dyslexia wrote:my motto is More velveeta=less cheese
Bury the Velveeta, put it underground..
actually what Francis means is to put all your veleevat in some frence cave until it it gets saturated with mold then sell it to germans as exotic cheese.
Goshdarnit, it's really hard to have a serious discussion with you whiny, bleeding-heart libruls.
If nuclear weapons kill people, where are yours hiding all the bodies?
old europe wrote:Goshdarnit, it's really hard to have a serious discussion with you whiny, bleeding-heart libruls.
If nuclear weapons kill people, where are yours hiding all the bodies?
Most of the bodies are in japan.
Can anyone name the only country to ever use nuclear weapons in a theater of war?
dadpad wrote:Most of the bodies are in japan.
Ah, but that ended the war, didn't it?
More nukes - more peace!
old europe wrote:Goshdarnit, it's really hard to have a serious discussion with you whiny, bleeding-heart libruls.
Yes, my heart always bleeds when someone makes the apology of weapons or guns use..
How cannot people see that the less guns, the less crimes.
Same with weapons.
Which is the most armed country in the world?
Number of casualties in the war it's engaged in? Around four thousand!
Number of deaths by gun, per year, inside it's own borders? Thirty thousand!!!
Which country manufactures and sells the most land mines?
dadpad wrote:Which country manufactures and sells the most land mines?
Is that a trick question?
Francis wrote:Number of deaths by gun, per year, inside it's own borders? Thirty thousand!!!
Francis, you just refuse to see the logic.
Yes, guns killed about 30,000 people. But cars killed around 45,000. Nuclear weapons, on the other hand, killed exactly 0 people.
I think that's a pretty strong case for banning cars and allowing nuclear weapons...
Don't think so.
US is the biggest manufacturer of land mines..
Every country should have cluster bombs.
More cluster bombs more peace.
Your a fook wit old europe.
Piss off back to your black depressive hole and put the cover back on will ya the rest of the world wants to get on with their lives
old europe wrote:Francis, you just refuse to see the logic..
Why would I do that?
Your logic is not mine.
You see it in a short time span.
Wait till every country has nukes.
Some of them WILL use it...
A weapons' historical usage is not an inherent argument as to its predicted usage.
Such a claim is a logical fallacy.