Do nuclear weapons keep us safe?

Do you think that nuclear weapons make the world safer?

  • Yes

    Votes: 9 40.9%

  • No

    Votes: 13 59.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    22
It's like handing out matches at a gas station. 

Sure, if someone lights theirs you can light yours, but you're both dying. 

 
How is having a weapon of mass destruction going to make the world a saver place? The only thing that can disrupt our safety is us. So if we are going to end up killing ourselves by the hundreds of thousands, I would prefer if it didn't harm our environment as well.

 
It works until it doesn't. It's a deterrent, just like bows, crossbows, rifles, machine guns, aircraft, and every other superweapon in the past. And then it becomes the norm.

 
Think of it like this. Imagine the person you hate the most. Both of you are in a room together and there is this collar on your neck. You also have a button when activated, the other person with a collar with die. However, the catch is that the other person will be notified about this and is given 1 hour to live before that person dies.

For an example, if you press the button, the other person has 1 hour to live, and dies. However, the other person can press the button too because he/she still has 1 hour to live.

This mentality is kinda like the nuclear deterrence one. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had the ability to destroy one another, however the other party would know about this and most likely destroy you too.

 
Now look at it from a modern perspective. You know you are going to die in 1 hour. You can press the button and also kill the person who poisoned you.

On one side you have USA+ NATO+others. On the other side you have Russia.

Russia will ultimately lose a war, and their idea of deterrent is by nuking the other party hard enough to get them to stop. Or simply do it out of spite.

 
Rin said:
Now look at it from a modern perspective. You know you are going to die in 1 hour. You can press the button and also kill the person who poisoned you.

On one side you have USA+ NATO+others. On the other side you have Russia.

Russia will ultimately lose a war, and their idea of deterrent is by nuking the other party hard enough to get them to stop. Or simply do it out of spite.
Click to expand...
And this actually translates to a weird situation where conventional warfare does not ever occur in ways that actually mobilize or antagonize NATO forces, instead targeting fringe nations like Ukraine that don't push their buttons too hard.

 
Rin said:
It works until it doesn't. It's a deterrent, just like bows, crossbows, rifles, machine guns, aircraft, and every other superweapon in the past. And then it becomes the norm.




 




 
Click to expand...


Nowhere in history has man had the ability to have a weapon which can destroy all life on earth 2 times over, until the invention of the Nuclear Bomb. The comparison of a nuclear weapon to past weapons such as a bow, aircraft, etc does not seem to be the same concept.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pope John Paul II said:
Nowhere in history has man had the ability to have a weapon which can destroy all life on earth 2 times over, until the invention of the Nuclear Bomb. The comparison of a nuclear weapon to past weapons such as a bow, aircraft, etc does not seem to be the same concept.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure we've got enough ammunition in this world to destroy everything several times over. Aircraft has been more effective at killing more people and infra than nukes too. And when you say "all life" I guess you're not including the cockroaches who can survive the radiation.

 
Rin said:
I'm pretty sure we've got enough ammunition in this world to destroy everything several times over. Aircraft has been more effective at killing more people and infra than nukes too. And when you say "all life" I guess you're not including the cockroaches who can survive the radiation.
Click to expand...
I don't understand, what are you actually arguing? Are you saying that because Aircraft are better at killing people (Strange statement, as nuclear bombs can also be dropped from planes), ICBMs and nuclear warfare are not more deadly? And what does the cockroach bit have to do with anything other than just arguing over semantics unrelated to the discussion?

 
@Rin

One modern nuclear bomb can kill millions of people instantly and kill others thorugh radiation, and that is only one. If nuclear wapons were used in war M.A.D will occur and billions would die as thousands of nuclear warheads, many much stronger than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima, would hit major cities everywhere not only instantly vaporizing hundreds of thousand of people but then bring death in the form of radiation (Think of it hitting New York, 8 Million would die). Those who are from places that did not be hit directly from the nukes would suffer as the thousands Nuclear Bombs would create a nuclear winter which would block sunlight from the sun which would kill plant life which would result in a mass exstinction event. Comparing that to aircraft I assume without nuclear capabilites could not be compared to the effects sinlge plane could do, as one nuclear bomb could drop a payload of 1-100 Megatons of TNT, far more than non-nuclear planes can.

These effects are a great deterrent for a high majority of nuclear armed states, as if a nuclear war occured what would they gain if everything including themslves are destroyed?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top