Thread: No Nukes

Originally Posted by nattybumpo

(sigh) sometimes i just want the world to burn...

I'm with ya Natty-B... civilization needs a good douching.

Originally Posted by nattybumpo

I believe the inevitable consequence of nuclear deterrence policy is the destruction of the United States of America and everything it stands for. Mutually assured destruction is inevitable, as competition for resources and the inevitable clash between the ideals of democratically elected societies and modern dictatorships will result in a nuclear confrontation. Given a long enough timeline, the percentage chance of us not using nuclear weapons drops to almost zero, so long as the risk remains that we might use them, we eventually WILL use them.
To this end, I think our best strategy would be to simply remove all nuclear weapons in the United States from service. Given that it is difficult to adapt weapons grade uranium into usable fissile material by nuclear power plants, that plutonium has yet to be used in a nuclear power plants, and US law has mandated that no new nuclear power plants be generated in the US for the last several years, our best option is to simply detonate the nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles someplace where they can’t hurt anyone, preferably outside of earth’s orbit so as to minimize the effect of nuclear fallout. It would be prudent to make an announcement, (perhaps behind closed doors) prior to launch, and it would be best not to fire all of them at once, so as not to cause a panic or risk a nuclear incident with China or one of the other world powers. Still, to avoid the inevitable delays and stall tactics nuclear advocates use to prevent such a move, I would advise we simply fire them as fast as we can, one at a time, and take the world by surprise so as not to create the inevitable political backlash that comes when a president executes his executive authority, giving opponents of the measure no time to respond or maneuver their political agents into a position to stop the measure. (The backlash will come later) To create a sense of public appeal for the project, I suggest a helio-centric theme be concocted, as the sun has long been a symbol of life, hope, and god’s majesty.

Mututally assured destruction has arguably been the greatest initiative towards preserving peace in the last few centuries. It makes large scale conventional warfare undesirable in the extreme, and limits the major nuclear powers to proxy wars and diplomatic negotation; even dictatorships have vested secular interests and are unlikely to use nuclear weapons save as a final resort.

Your argument is based on a theory with no actual evidence.

Originally Posted by nattybumpo

Actually, there is considerable evidence to support the idea that most wars are caused by various political and economic concerns linked to the expansion of civilization, such as competition over natural resources, overpopulation, and clashing culural ideologies. People fight over land and resources more than any other cause, though it is often disguised behind a thin viel of religious or political ideology that bears no relavence to the actual aims of the war in question. (*cough* Iraq *cough*)

Note the words in bold. This is why your argument falls flat; governments with those interests are not going to engage in nuclear exchange because the destructiveness of such a conflict negates any material or economic gain.

Originally Posted by nattybumpo

Which should negate the need for them in the first place, don't you think?

I see your point. From a defensive standpoint, they seem like a good short-term solution. But consider this: Won't expansion inevitably lead to armed conflict anyway? And when it does, is't that likely to provoke an armed conflict? Its kind of like when Dirty Harry threw the gun at the bad guys feet and said, "Pick it up." (I'm a big Clint Eastwood fan)

Not at all. Possessing the ability to turn a country into a sheet of glass is an excellent deterrent.
Of course it will; but having WMDs simply limits the scale of such conflicts.