as stated by the description. I was reading a news article today and I got to thinking. you can just answer the general question, if you feel more adventurous consider answering these individual questions.

1. if it was in your power, would you eradicate all nuclear weapons?

2. do you think they act as an effective detterent to agression from foreign nations?

3. do you think your country ( if it posseses any) would ever use them (in any scenario, right up to the enemy is well within your borders and you face defeat.

4 . do you think its justifiable to nuke civillians?

5. do you think all nations are entitled to possess them? if not, why? what makes a nation worthy of possesing them?

6. point of curiosity, do you know all the nations that possess them?

7. do you think civilians should be able to have them moved if a majority object?

oh, heres the picture that started me thinking, in case it helps you to think. or not. either way.

thenumberone :
What exactly is your major?
You do not seem to be the best in history.

Good Luck To All.
Peace.

orionfoxgibson :
who said anything about history? that has nothing to do with the topic.
manners son, are a godsend, you should aquire some. and back up your statements in future too, that generally helps.

thenumberone :

Good Luck.
Peace.

This matter is no longer about history, but globalisation and economics. Perhaps fifty years ago mutually assured destruction played some role in preventing war between the superpowers, but today nuclear weapons are no longer relevent. Consider the world's two strongest powers, the United States and China. Despite all the "who wud win in a fihgt, china or the us??" topics you see littered about the internet, the probability of these two countries going to war is virtually zero. They are so intertwined that a war would result in the economies of both countries collapsing, and people these days care far too much about these sorts of things for that to happen. Even if one side somehow managed the win, the victory would be pyhrric. Between loss of trade, damage to infrastructure, a plunge on the currency, and loss of international partners, the winning side would probably be set back decades. Whatever world leaders say about each other in public for votes, they understand this concept. Countries like Iran and North Korea aren't really going to use nukes, assuming they have them. It's just a deterrent because they have no economic influence. The nuclear deterrent is obselete.

As for destroying all nuclear weapons, it's a fine concept but it would never happen. No matter how low the threat of war, politicians still need to appear strong, partly to impress foreign rivals, but mostly to reassure voters at home. Dismantling all the nuclear weapons in a country will not happen because it is a massive vote loser.

Traduweise :
well put.
I think the likelyhood of nations like korea using them are also slim, if they did tgen they eould face war which, frankly, I doubt they really want.
destroying question was more a hypothetical, you have the power to get rid of all of them, and keep them returning.
basically whether the individual perceives nuclear weapons as beneficial or not, which you pretty much answered anyway.
and de arming, it depends where it is. a lot of people are vehemently opposed to them being on their soil.
good points made, global economics have a good effect on national restraint, its generally those that lose out that turn to aggression.
kind of like crime really.

I'll just go through and answer the questions number by number.

1. That's tough. If all nuclear weapons were eradicated, then the first nation to get another one would be king of the world pretty much. If eradicating all nuclear weapons meant that no nation could make nuclear weapons again, destroying their nuclear factories and such, then I would still be against it. There would be more wars, imo. Without a large nuclear threat like that hanging over any nation who is thinking of war, there would def be more wars (and therefore more deaths). If every nation could be trusted, then I'd get rid of them in a heartbeat. lol

2. Yes, no doubt. No sane human wants to send an army at a nation who will respond with a nuclear weapon. It would mean the end of that nation, imo. So yes, I believe it's an effective deterrent.

3. I'm not sure I understand the question very well. Are you asking 'if an attacking army was within your borders, and the only way to win was to launch a nuclear weapon against them, would your country?', then yes, I do. I live in the U.S. With the amount of people here, it would be a very hard call. America would rebuild tho. I think the concept of all the nuclear weapons America holds falling into enemy hands would answer the question.

4. Nuking civilians, just because, is wrong no matter what. If there's a small enemy force in the city, I'll say no again. Now, if it's a small number of civilians and the entirety of the hostile force within the damage radius, I might consider that a possible scenario where a nuke would be justified. However, every other option would need to be exhausted before that is a possibility.

5. Very good question. I'd say no. What 'entitles' a nation to have nuclear weapons is the fact that they have a leader who is sound of mind, and won't use them without exhausting other methods first. The leader must have proven him/herself responsible as well.

6. Not all nations have nuclear weapons. Unless you're excluding all the weak, tiny little countries in the world...

7. Yeah, I do. The nuclear weapons should stay in a defensible location, but if the people object to the placement then it should be moved somewhere satisfactory to both the people and the defensive aspect.

mrfe :
you misunderstood six, I meant, without searching the net, are you aware which nations posses nukes.
interesting answers overall, I like that you thought about it to the minordetails

thenumberone :

1. I would not eradicate all nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are so powerful that they allow the possessor to change the tides of war immediately and oftentimes permanently. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki immediately stopped our enemy in their tracks. And you have to understand that with this enemy, they were so dead set, so absolutely brain-washed that a ground war would likely have cost both sides lives number in the millions. But when we displayed a weapon so powerful that it eliminated two cities, it forced the Japanese to realize they could not win, and they surrendered. I think it's important to note that the number of casualties with the nuclear bombs was around 175,000 people or so. On the other hand, we firebombed several of their cities, including Tokyo, and killed over 450,000. A lot of this was due to the lack of control we had over these weapons at the time, and the primitive structure of Japanese buildings at the time.

2. Absolutely. The United States, its military, and its nuclear arsenal strikes fear into the hearts of our enemies. Notice that the attacks which happen today are not perpetrated by normal military means. It hasn't happened to us since Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Shadow tactics and terrorist attacks are all our enemies can do to us. The most deadly weapon used against us in the past 50 years were passenger airliners. I'd definitely say nuclear weapons are a deterrent, particularly because the ones we have are so much more powerful than anything else on the face of this earth.

3. I'll start with the most extreme case: I do not believe that a nuclear weapon would be deployed in the event that ground is taken in America. The idea is preposterous, and to be honest, our military is so strong and our people are so well-armed that even if a city was taken over, it would only be a matter of time before we retrieved it again. A nuclear strike in today's day and age, I believe, would be reserved to a preemptive strike against another country with nuclear weapons if we felt that their nuclear weapons were an imminent threat to our nation. This was the idea in the Cold War, and I believe it holds true today. However, I guarantee that would be in the most extreme case possible, and the likelihood of that happening is low.

4. Civilian casualties are a product of war. It has always happened, it happens now, and it will happen forever. That being said, civilians should not be the target of a nuclear weapon or any form of military operation, for that matter. However, targeting a strategic military interest might yield civilian casualties, and if it is an imminent threat, I would advise to utilize the nuclear weapon - with the understanding and the acceptance that the blood of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, is on my hands. Because while it may seem "nationalistic" to say this, but the lives of my people and my allies come first.

5. No, no nation is "entitled" to possess a nuclear weapon. I think that if you have constructed a nuclear weapon, the nuclear weapon is yours. It isn't an entitlement but rather a simple matter of fact, and whether or not a nation is entitled to have it is actually irrelevant. The United Nations might sanction Iran all day long for building nuclear weapons, but we ultimately know that if Iran wants a nuclear weapon, unless they are stopped they will have one. I would never want that to happen, but I think the current system of slapping a country on the hand for building them is asinine. If we don't want them to have them, we need to do something about it. Period, no ifs ands or buts. Enough of this whining.

As far as the question to "what makes a nation worthy of possessing them," the answer is simple to me: strength of arms and who you're allied to. The United States is worthy of possessing nuclear weapons because we invented them and we can use them. Israel is worthy because we have given them nuclear weapons. If Iran builds them, if North Korea builds them, then they are worthy because we did not feel it was worthy of our effort to stop them.

6. I know some of them. The United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and I think France are the main ones. North Korea and Iran are speculated to have their own weapons, although whether or not they are actually functioning is left to be seen.

7. No. Many civilians do not understand war and what it entails. They do not understand the threat of an enemy slaughtering families before their very eyes. If the majority of civilians want nuclear weapons to be moved, they should be ignored because war is hell, and a bunch of people sitting in their comfortable houses, playing on their laptops should not be able to tell our military how to defend our country.

That's the way I see things. You might deem it to be wrong, but I sometimes think that we are way too opinionated on topics we are ignorant about for our own good, and I'm not about to be the one to call for the relinquishing of what might be our best possible defense against an all-out war. Are nuclear weapons dangerous? Yes. Do they work as a deterrent? I think so. And if our military thinks they are necessary, I am sure not going to question that.

1.  Of course.  If there is no such thing as a nuclear weapon, the likelihood of killing and war goes down.  If I could un-invent grenades, I'd the same thing.  Fewer weapons, no matter how you look at them, reduce death by warfare.  Even though nukes have only been used twice, they are still a viable threat to the world and our people.

2.  I think the threat of nukes slowed the Cold War between the United States and Russia.  Without shared destruction, the two countries may have gone to war with each other.  I can't predict the future but an argument can be made that nukes have stopped wars between countries.  Or, maybe not.  Someone always finds a way to attack other people.

3.  I live in the United States and we have used nukes.  We would do it again if the administration had specific reasons to do it and it weren't an election year.  The tough thing to do is fight a war while having elected officials.  People want to make changes when things don't go well and using nukes on other countries probably means things aren't going well.  Presidents prefer to stay elected over making the best decision for their people, as do most folks in government.  Will the U.S. nuke someone in the future?  Yes.

4.  Nuking is killing like any kind of bombing.  Americans are huge against civilian murder but in the event of a national war, not a war on terrorism, I have no problem with civilians getting killed.  Especially if they manufacture weapons, study warfighting, or produce more enemies.  A culture can be as dangerous as an army and when everyone is taught to hate and kill, they are not civilians.

5.  If I'm not mistaken, and I'm not cheating by going on Wikipedia: United States, China, Russia, England, France, and India.  Indonesia, maybe, North Korea maybe, South Africa maybe.  I don't think anyone else does.

6.  I think bureaucracies should control nukes, not private citizens.

pray75 :  

I agree almost whole-heartedly with each of your points (but I don't know about the possessing countries).  As it stands now in the technological present, nuclear weapons are powerful mostly in the fear they induce.  I do not believe, at least for now, that less weapons is synonymous with less warfare/killing/etc. A wise man once said, "Walk softly and carry a big stick." The point of the statement illustrates that if we/ others are able to make the consequence for a terrible action great, then that action should not be taken. I wish the world wasn't this way-that a deterrent wouldn't be necessary for peace, but it is.

FoolishPie : I sometimes think these people who want peace by removing arms don't realize that nobody will have peace in that manner. It is through strength of arms that peace is preserved, and it always has been that way throughout history. I don't understand why people don't look back and see that some of the civilizations that had the most peace for their people were also the strongest, and the peace of that country was ruined when someone became stronger than them and took them over. I understand the want for minimizing violence, but that is not reality, and it's time that people recognized that and accepted the reality that humans as a whole are warmongering in nature.

As you said, the quote "walk softly and carry a big stick" is indicative of how we should walk. I do not advocate for war that is unnecessary, primarily because war harms civilians, and if we don't need to be in a place, we don't need to bother those people. But a necessary war that cannot be prevented by any other means, that is acceptable to me. What's necessary is not up to me, because our government ultimately might have interest in things that I don't realize or don't agree with. That's why I was so irritated with people who were so critical of George Bush during the invasion of Iraq (which most everyone supported when he went over there), especially the arguments made about how he went over there for oil (considering Iraq's oil exports went more to Europe, I don't understand that logic). They went under there with the pretenses that Saddam had nuclear weapons, which they did at one point, and I think the war was okay. It's also why I don't criticize Obama for drone bombing in Yemen where there is a high concentration of terrorists.

Sorry for the random tangent, but that's the way I feel.

1. if it was in your power, would you eradicate all nuclear weapons?


Yes.


2. do you think they act as an effective detterent to agression from foreign nations?


I dont live in a country that has nuclear weapons and so far has not any stationed here so maybe... Oh the hell of it. It is all just bullmanure as far as I think. Big boys with their big guns that can destroy the world 100 times and more over. It is just absurd to think about "nations" at that point.


3. do you think your country ( if it posseses any) would ever use
them (in any scenario, right up to the enemy is well within your
borders and you face defeat.


No. And we dont want any. Not yours and not of our own and not anybody elses.. We settle our things in a different way. It is never going to happen..


4 . do you think its justifiable to nuke civillians?


No.


5. do you think all nations are entitled to possess them? if not, why? what makes a nation worthy of possesing them?


No. Yankees and the ruskies have them all ready and it is a sad fact that just cant be helped. Lets leave it at that. Though there is for sure Israel, Pakistan and yadayada yaa... but no more please. What makes them worth? Well the first come first, then the ones who had the money and power and after those who were allied with the rest. Andno, I doubt Iran or NK has it. Yet.


6. point of curiosity, do you know all the nations that possess them?


Usa, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan, UK, France...


7. do you think civilians should be able to have them moved if a majority object?


Yes.


oh, heres the picture that started me thinking, in case it helps you to

It did not.