I do not think that banning of the nuclear weapons is the best idea possible. They are the most efficient deterrent means ever known by the mankind. From the other side, such a ban would decrease abilities of the civilized world to fight terror. Terrorists will never follow any bans, and their opponents would be disarmed by such a decision, providing terrorists with obvious advantage
This is truly a sad state of affairs for a mostly civilized planet, don't you think?
I agree, but this is the reality. Nukes helped to prevent transformation of the Cold War into WWIII. I hope, nuclear superiority of the Western civilization will help it to win war against rogue regimes of the Third World.
I hope, nuclear superiority of the Western civilization will help it to win war against rogue regimes of the Third World.
You mean exactly what by this?
Algis.Kemezys- And therein lies the problem. I do not believe that the world IS mostly civilized, and I am not speaking only of the underdeveloped nations. I am convinced that civilized society is only a thin veneer, that can be torn or cracked very easily.
Like steissd, I believe that even if we never have to use it, and I hope that we never will, we need the nuclear superiority as a deterrent.
The veil of civilization flutters in the wind
And it looks like gauze from here
To Walter Hinteler: I mean that the regimes sponsoring terror may realize their vulnerability to the overwhelming military might of the USA and the West, and reassess their behavior.
Algis, the illusion of civilization is rather gauzy, isn't it? Unfortunately, I think Phoenix is right and without the deterence of our nuclear superiority, other countries with much less to lose, would quickly attack with nuclear weapons. I just don't think that one country should have this much power.
In an ideal world, the UN would be the world's police force, but they don't seem to be up to the task. At this point, I'm not holding out much hope for any of us, because, God knows, GW certainly isn't up to the task.
I really hate the thought of the US being the only country with true nuclear superiority. The old adage, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely," (or words to that effect) is a basic truth. The power hungry crowd in Washington frightens me almost as much as the Taliban.
If Nukes are outlawed, only Outlaws will have Nukes
Nuclear waste also fades your genes.
But not mine, they're Calvin Kleins.
Hmmm, then whose is Calvin wearing?
Tommy Hilfiger ?
You wrote: "The power hungry crowd in Washington frightens me almost as much as the Taliban".
That is a very provacative statement and I'm very surprised that a forum guide would indulge in that kind of rhetoric.
I wasn't going to mention it but do you remember the burkas and those bearded guys whiping women every step of the way?
Would you like to retract that statement?
Alfred Nobel defended his manufacturing and selling of his new invention with the premise that such it was such a powerful weapon that it would end the possibility of war. as long as we adhere to the convention that we are civilized we will continue to develop greater potentials for self-destruction.
Well, here's a fun topic.
Can we agree first of all that the more nukes floating around, the more dangerous the situation for everyone?
Can we agree also that if nukes are held by a few nations whose perceived interests differ significantly from that of other nations perceived interests, then those other nations might want them too?
So, Non-proliferation/No increase seems to me to be Unstupid Policy # 1. And Reduction seems to be Unstupid Policy # 2.
Diane suggests that the UN ought to be the world police force. I agree, for the reason in my first paragraph. Diane also concludes that the UN doesn't seem up to the task. But that is surely because certain states, including the US, don't want it to be because that entails placing themselves in a position junior to another administrative body. Until that mindset changes, it's tough to see how the UN won't continue to be purposefully hobbled. Which really frosts me now, with the Soviet Union dismantled, what better time to stop playing shoot out on main street?
Steissd's argument that the US's possession of nukes will deter rogue states and terrorists from getting uppity seems particularly uncompelling. Usama wasn't much intimidated, nor are his agents presently dining in a MacDonalds in Detroit, so nukes are irrelevant to terroism. Regarding states such as Iraq, Pakistan, India, and North Korea, the US could cut it's supply into one one hundredth of what it is, and still have a stick big enough to clobber the world. The cat is out of the bag now, and nukes are around, so it seems clear someone has got to have some, but that's the argument for the UN controlling them again, given Unstupid Policy # 1.
dyslexia's point is a profound one. TNT, a weapon so horrible in power and destructive capability, would surely prevent civilized peoples from engaging in warfare ever after. There was, in his time, an explosion at a European factory which killed (if I recall) FIVE PEOPLE - it was a tragedy so huge at the time that the entire world was shocked and disgusted (times have changed, no?).
Diane...I agree with what you say, but for the final comparison. I hold that certain present (and past) US policies pose a very real danger to the world (eg the UN problem I mentioned above) and so this isn't a matter of white hats/black hats, but I will choose the Rotarians over the Taliban.
Perception, yes, I would like to retract that statement. It was made after reading something about oil interests in the paper and I was reacting emotionally rather than objectively.
I do remember the women being whipped for letting part of their ankles show. It also bothers me that many women in Afghanistan are still frightened to remove their burkas because there are still plenty of Taliban sympathizers in the country.
There is truth in the old statement that democracy leaves a lot to be desired, but there isn't anything better. Our system of checks and balances is the most civilized form of government I can think of. What bothers me is that those checks and balances don't seem as evenly balanced as they were and our civil rights have been lessened due to the war on terrorism.
I can even agree with some tightening of civil rights in time of war, but unless we the people keep a close eye on those rights and protest when they are taken away arbitrarily, we are as responsible for their loss as those in government.
I adhere to the 'question authority' school of philosophy.
There is truth in the old statement that democracy leaves a lot to be desired, but there isn't anything better.
Pretty much my point exactly
Our system of checks and balances is the most civilized form of government I can think of. What bothers me is that those checks and balances don't seem as evenly balanced as they were and our civil rights have been lessened due to the war on terrorism
If there were not those in sympathy with a proposition as well those in opposition, there would be neither check nor balance. Hang in there, partner; we're all part of the team, and I feel obligated to fight if necessary should someone attempt to deny you, or any one else, your place on the team.
That's a bright and lovely post Diane.
I'm afraid though, that I won't be joining timber in his promise to you. I'm a diminuitive man and, on Saturday nights, like to put on gingham dresses and dance with swarthy ruffians. Though if there is a cheering squad, I could do pom poms from the sidelines.
What's a team without Cheerleaders? Your's, too blatham, is a noble and worthy calling, and an integral part of the team!
What do I know anyway ... you might look good in gingham.
Sadly I don't. But swarthy ruffians have low standards.
I suppose we have.