Brandon!

hi.

The UN should give every contry in the world nukes and whoever uses them, have them tweeked to blow up once acctivated(^_^)

It's difficult to discuss ethics and justice in an abstract, philosophical sense. In international relations, when different nations have different agendas, compromises that may not be absolutely logical or "fair" must be made in order to maintain global security. Yes, from a logical perspective, the NPT isn't fair. How can we allow certain nations to have nuclear weapons and deny other nations the right to possess them?

But practically speaking, when the NPT was created, none of the five nations in possession of nuclear weapons were willing to sacrifice them. Requiring disarmament would lead to a diplomatic deadlock, and nothing would be accomplished. Thus, the NPT aims at preventing further proliferation in exchange for gradual disarmament of the nuclear weapon states. Is it fair? No. Is it practical? Yes.

However, there are certain aspects of the NPT that I believe should be modified or expanded, including the mandate of the IAEA, retribution for withdrawal, and measures ensuring that the nuclear weapon states are committing to eventual disarmament of their nuclear arsenals. I'm not in any way an expert on the NPT, so I don't know how to practically go about making these changes, but I do think that they are necessary in order to ensure the effectiveness of the NPT.


Sure, that system works out when you're distributing frosting-covered cupcakes.. but not necessarily if you're dealing with deadly weapons. First of all, realize that some governments are essentially dangerous. Their decision-making processes are centralized, and their officials are often corrupt enough to sell nuclear material to non-governmental bodies, including terrorist groups. Secondly, it *sounds* logical to distribute nuclear weapons evenly throughout the international community, but this solution ignores the structure if our global system. Giving all nations the ability to possess nuclear weapons would create fear and instability and would certainly topple any sense of unity or security.

Realize that international relations is all about practicality and feasibility.. not necessarily "fairness".

I think this has to be the easiest topic on here by far. Anyone who is for creating bigger and so called 'better' weapons in just a war monger..and no one likes those.

^ It's not that simple.

Of course it is. Have we not already reached the point of almost constant fear? Eventually it will all come back to us. Of course we shouldn't worsen the situation

^I'm not in constant fear. I think the majority of the U.S. isn't in constant fear. There's a threat, yes, but fear? That's a little much. It's a lot more complicated then you say it is. Would you rather some other country create bigger, better weapons first and then send them our way?

I don't agree with making them for no reason, but if there's a threat, sure, why not? Only as a means of defence though. I wish that we didn't have to even worry about this. Everyone needs to disarm their nukes, but that's not gonna happen, so we need to be prepared.

Wow, you just contradicted the hell out of yourself. First we make them..but only for protection..but actually we shouldn't have in the first place? Derr, I think only any idiot would support making new weapons even if it were for defense purposes. We need to work on creating better means of arguing rather than seeing who has the most powerful artillery, that is irresponsible and just plain stupid. There is absolutely nothing that would lead to us having to create said big bad weaponry. The only other places capable of it wouldn't even attack us for any reason at all. America is in deep shit right now and building more powerful weapons might help cool everyone off for a while...but would definitely destroy us in the long run.

^ Wow. I don't even think I have to say anything.

Obviously you misread my post, or simply didn't comprehend. Read it again, and if you're still confused, too bad. I don't have time to explain myself to everyone who can't read properly.

Not true. If I buy a gun to protect my home from burglars, am I a violent person?



Let's take a second and ponder why weapons were created in the first place. Maybe our early ancestors had a discussion like this. For arguements sake, let's pretend they tried to be diplomatic in the beginning. But if resources were especially scarce, there would need to be some competition to determine who would be the one to take home the food. Using Rock, Paper, Scissors probably would not have made both sides content with the outcome. If both parties wanted the scarce resource so badly, is it unreasonable that they would use violence to make certain that they would be the one to have it? And then, when tribes formed, armies looked for better weapons in order to make killing more efficient in order to secure whatever they were after?

Having the proper weapons gives one more diplomatic leverage. This only makes sense. Imagine you wanted to cross a bridge, but a knight was guarding it. If the knight threatened to attack you, but he had no arms or legs, would you feel threatened at all by him? Perhaps he'd try to bite at your legs, but really the only damage he'll do is bleed on you.

I am not arguing that weapons did in fact create leverage, all I am saying is that have we not seen what it has done? Can't we tell what is going to happen to us? I am so afraid that one day we are just going to blow ourselves up. Doesn't anyone else worry about that?


Haha, nice monty python reference! xD

There is no need to make new Nukes. The US never really plans on using them, the closet we came was the Cold War, and those nukes are not used anymore. The US has the most high tech Nuclear program in the world, not to mention we have electronic pulse weapons that can do the damage that a nuke can, without the contamination and the deaths. There will be no county in the world that has a more high tech military then the US. Half the world works on US designed defenses anyway, the MIG jet is a exact copy of the F fighters. Germany in WWII was smarter then the US military wise, but that all died when Hitler shot himself.

Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons are effective and useful, but they only knock out electronics systems, which, while effective, isn't nearly the same amount or kind of damage that a nuclear device, detonated in a traditional manner, does.


I'm not sure how you can argue that the AK-47 is a Russian copy of American weapon technology. The AK-47's been around since 1947, and was largely designed by a Russian (Mikhail Kalashnikov). Technically, it's design isn't a whole lot like American military assault rifles.

I agree that the United States should discontinue its production of nuclear weapons. In my opinion, it isn't exactly positive diplomacy to resort to expanding the defense budget whenever the U.S. feels threatened as the world's sole remaining superpower.

However, I stand by my statement that ending production is not "simple". The Bush Administration and the American neocons are determined to maintain U.S. economic, political, and military dominance. It's very difficult to challenge this position, especially since rampant fear of terrorism still exists among the American public. Frankly, shifting power and influence away from those who fervently support American dominance is tricky.. not as simple as you would think.

(And I must apologize for the subtle conservative/Bush-bashing there. Let me know if that sounded too partisan.)



Interesting metaphor, but can it compare to the current nuclear situation? Afterall, nations pursue nuclear weapons primarily for diplomatic leverage.. but is political power a zero-sum game? Power isn't a scarce or limited resource, and surely, there are other methods for gaining diplomatic leverage over certain nations. Allowing the U.S. to dominate the global arena with few powers to "check" its decisions is rather dangerous, in my opinion.

I do, however, see the logic in producing new nuclear weapons, and it's definitely not purely for the purpose of domestic defense. That would be a naive perspective to follow. The U.S. also wants to defend its role as a global superpower, and thus, the creation of new nuclear weapons acts as a method of intimidation to deter other nations from attacking or challenging U.S. power.

As for the EMPs, when they don’t have electronic systems, they can not do any counter attacks if they have no way of communication and more. A nuke is always last resort on all fronts, it can kill the target, but also kill millions of civilians in the same hit. EMP’s can fry all tanks, cars, plains, and communication and make way for a attack.

As for the AK47, I meant to say the AK47 was copied into the M16. And yet the M16 is as widely used as the AK47 by countries that the US gives it to.

Can't we tell what would happen if we didn't create weapons? The Cold War went the way we did because we competed with the Soviet Union to the point of its collapse.



Putting a faraday cage or some kind of emp shielding can nullify an EMP weapon. Also, EMPs have the potential of causing damage to civilians just as well. Detonate an EMP next to a hospital and you have people with no access to life support systems.

Which MiG are you talking about? To be fair, the US actually took the swept wing idea for fighter jets from the MiG-15. Yes, MiGs started to be designed specifically to counter US aircraft (like the MiG-25) or designed after US aircraft themselves (like the Tu-4). And yes, the Russians did copy our missile technology. But check out the specifications for the Soviet Moskit missile and look at our Cold War era Harpoon missile and tell me which one is superior.

Anyway, I stand by my original arguement that if we are to no longer produce new weapons, at least convert existing systems to tactical weapons from strategic weapons.



[edit]Wrong again. Eugene Stoner didn't design the M16 until 1957.

There are attributes of AK47 that are easy to be noticed in the M16. The M16 uses some base technology from the AK47, but yet there are differences as well. One difference happens to be one is plastic and the other is not.

I'm sorry, I made a mistake. I misread your first post. Disregard it.

This thread is dying.. or at least getting a bit too technical.

New sub-question(s):

If the U.S. continues to upgrade its nuclear technology, is a global arms race inevitable? If so, between whom? Is it occurring already?

100% I can guarantee you that the entire world will never surrender to one nation as its supererior. GUARANTEED. An arms race is completely inevitable and in some cases is happening right now. Now I am not saying I am an expert, but this is common sense.

You can't call something "common sense" and affirm that it is fact. Nuclear diplomacy is a complex issue.. nothing within the debate should be reduced to "common sense".

I don't think US should make nukes, it would only make things worse. Other countries would wonder why US has nukes and why they can't and things can happen from there.