Do you believe nuclear weapons are vital to secure sovereignty?

[closeupready]

And if not, do you favor unilateral US nuclear disarmament?

Also, if so, how can anyone argue that any sovereign state recognized by the US and the UN should not have nukes?

[sinkingfeeling]

1. No, not necessary. The US cannot possibly disarm with all other nuclear countries doing the same.

[closeupready]

4. Why not? They aren't necessary, you're arguing. We can guarantee our sovereignty without them, ya?

??

[Statistical]

11. Sure we can guarantee our sovereignty but likely at a price we are unwilling to pay.

We have a large enough conventional military that a limited exchange likely wouldn't end US sovereignty however it likely would kill tens of millions of Americans.

Our retaliation (MAD) ensures not nuclear power uses that power in a fight or as a threat.

If a nation like Russia kept an arsenal of its current size (10,000 + warheads) we can NOT guarantee sovereignty without nuclear weapons. It would could be used as a threat. "Surrender or we will kill hundred million of your citizens". If we remained sovereign under such a situation (and it is likely we would be) it would be only because our advesaries allowed us to be.

[closeupready]

15. So if a nation like Russia keeps its arsenal intact, then NO nation is safe.

If that arsenal threatens US sovereignty, then it threatens the sovereignty of every other nation on Earth. Correct?

[Statistical]

33. With a large enough arsenal .... yes.

I think a realistic goal during Obama term would be massive reduction in US & Russian arsenals to bring them in line with UK, France & China.

Lets compare the various arsenals around the world:

Russia: 6681 active warheads
US: 4075 active warheads
France: 300 active warheads
Israel: 200 (not disclosed)
UK: 160 active warheads
China: 180 (not disclosed)
India: 70 (not disclosed)
Pakistan: 70 (not disclosed)
N. Korea: 0 (2 confirmed detonations, estimates for material to build 5-10 devices, non yet weaponized)

Something is instantly obvious. The US & Russia each have more than 4x the weapons of the rest of the world combined.

That is destabilizing. If we accept unilateral complete disarmament is neither politically feasible nor 100% beneficial (it leaves Russia the single nuclear "super state) a realistic goal would be reducing US & Russian arsenals simultaneously to levels close to the rest of the world.

One thing Bush did do was reduce US arsenal from about 10K functional warheads to about 5000 (4075 active). If Obama can do the same to levels like 1500-2000 it would be a major step in the right direction. The next step could bring levels down to <1000.

[sinkingfeeling]

25. We were certainly a sovereign country before the invention of nukes. I clearly stated that

it's now impossible for the US to rid itself of all nukes without every other nuclear country doing the same. Then, we can all be sovereign without nukes again.

[closeupready]

28. So then no other country can rid itself of nukes without every other country doing the same, yes?

I mean, no other country which values its sovereignty.

Because obviously, you can invite the nuclear nations to let you play colony if you don't care about being an independent nation.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. I see it extremely unlikely that any country that currently has nuclear weapons would disarm itself

I also think your 'argument' based on sovereignty is invalid. When the threat is nuclear destruction, sovereignty or being colonized is a moot point.

[imdjh]

2. To me, nukes make conventional warfare seem silly. So I don't get it.

I've never understood "limited warfare" or "appropriate response". As far as I am concerned, if it's worth sending troops and losing some of them, then it's worth going all out and putting an end to it, even if it means wiping the enemy off the face of the earth.

[vadawg]

3. well on that theory with some countries being literally insane

do you think that even if your neighbour is nuts and threatened to kill you he should still be allowed to possess molotov cocktails???

[closeupready]

6. What about if your neighbor has either actually USED molotov cocktails, or criminally trespassed?

As a matter of factual history? Should those individuals be permitted to possess molotov cocktails?

[vadawg]

8. depends on the circumstances, if they used the molotov cocktails to end a bigger fight

ie nukes on japan or trespassed in order to stop an impending attack ie sneaked in and destroyed your supply of molotove bottles then that is a totally different case than your crazy neighbour who threatens to wipe you of the face of the map...

[closeupready]

12. Actually, yes, they are totally different, in that both cases, many people died; threats don't kill.

n/t

[vadawg]

24. cool ill remember that line next time i help someone get a RO for a stalker

threats dont kill, but if someone tells you they are going to kill you and you believe they are capable and willing to do it, then you better get yourself ready..

[closeupready]

27. Dying is a fact. A threat is a potential fact.

n/t

[vadawg]

29. lol so threats dont matter then, lol ill remember that next time i am threatened with death

[closeupready]

32. You better get a pen and paper to write all this stuff down.

:rofl:

[vadawg]

34. nah ill just believe the guy who tells me he will kill me, its better to write that down

so if i ever do have to whack him at least i am covered....

[closeupready]

35. Suit yourself. I understand - delusions can be so much nicer than reality.

:)

[vadawg]

36. lol you really have no idea that there are bad people in the world who will keep their promise

seems to me you are delusional if you dont think we should listen when someone says they are gonna kill someone...

[closeupready]

37. aa;lkfjiel; ksadml; fkaj; lakjuidfjal; jf; kljawo; ijfl; aj; eilfj.

a;siejfio;j;laskdjo;wijl;fajl;asiejfl;djklaslfjeila

[vadawg]

38. dont be so hard on yourself, admitting your a dick is the first step towards recovery..

[closeupready]

40. ;aioenvkl c l; feasl siojile oilc l;kje soi kcloijoj asfei

a;ijei l;aksjd io;c ioajsf;klaje;lj opicj klasj;e

[vadawg]

42. yes i know its hard, but its a process, but soon you will proudly be able to declare

that you are no longer a dick but have upgraded to an ass. good luck with the program my friend, i will pray for you...

[closeupready]

43. Plonked. When you get some class, get back to me.

n/t

[vadawg]

45. welcome back you are now upgraded to being an ass, well done

[Statistical]

5. Any country who signed nuclear non-proliferation has made a promise/contract to not acquire them.

Iran for example has chosen to sign the NPT. If they sign it we should expect them to honor it.
North Korea withdrew from the treaty in 2003 so it is a slightly different situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

[closeupready]

7. That is not an answer to my question. Are you afraid to answer it honestly?

On edit, oops, sorry, I see - that does indeed answer the "if so" question, thanks.

So then, you agree that they are vital to secure sovereignty, I presume?

[Statistical]

9. Ok let me spell it out for you....

Also, if so, how can anyone argue that any sovereign state recognized by the US and the UN should not have nukes?

The US nor the UN has no authority to force another nation to disarm. HOWEVER any nation who has signed the NPT has made a promise/contract with world to not acquire nuclear weapons. If a country wants to do so then they should withdraw from the NPT. No country has a "right" to trade, travel, tourism, or being part of the international community. Countries that don't abide by the rules HAVE EVERY RIGHT to do so but at the same time they have no right to complain about sanctions, embargoes, travel isolation or anything short of an invasion.

I do believe without nuclear weapons the United State & Soviet Union likely would have started WWIII. As ironic as it sounds the "non use" of nuclear weapons likely saved 80-100 million lives.

[closeupready]

10. Are you going to say this in 30 years when the US dollar is no longer the reserve currency, and

China is an upcoming superpower?

At any rate, thanks for your honesty. :) :hi:

[Statistical]

14. Not sure what you are saying?

China will be a superpower in 30 years. However we will remain a nuclear armed state and the NPT (unfair or now) gives us some legitimacy.

No nuclear equipped power has ever gone to war with another nuclear equipped power.

[closeupready]

16. I'm saying that it's easy for the premier superpower to be magnanimous; when fortunes change, though

they get aggressive, trying to stop the relative decline.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. That we should even consider...

...devastating civilian populations and the environment with those horrible weapons is deplorable. Imagine the generations of sickness, famine and loss of social order that would follow.

All because small cabals of "leaders" act like spoiled children arguing over a sandbox.

One of the reasons I voted for our president is because of his pledge to rid the world of these weapons.

It sounds perverse but in a way I'm grateful for weapons like "smart" bombs (not to be confused with dumb politicians) when I read about how entire cities in WW2 would be destroyed trying to destroy a single ball-bearing factory...and they'd still miss the factory more times than not! Nuclear weapons are a regression to pointless destruction and MAD only works so long as everyone who is party to the policy is not actually mad as a hatter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. I believe that the US is in no position to ask others countries to disarm

unless we do it first. Most countries (that are not the US) see this as inherently unfair and a sign of continued western dominance & oppression of countries of color. Honestly, if you reply with indignance to this post, i am not going to respond because i frankly dont care enought. I know however, that most countries especially in the middle-east & asia believe non-proliferation lead by the US is a joke. on the other hand, i think Obama has a better chance of leading non proliferation efforts.

[closeupready]

18. Indignance? I completely agree with you.

You oughta know that by now, ;) :hi: You and I are on the same wavelength.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

19. Oh sorry, by YOU i meant universal You, not closeupready

:loveya:

[slackmaster]

20. The question is moot because the genie has left the bottle

You can't un-invent them. There will always be a danger of someone making and using one.

And if not, do you favor unilateral US nuclear disarmament?

I do not.

Also, if so, how can anyone argue that any sovereign state recognized by the US and the UN should not have nukes?

Because many sovreign states are too insecure to safely handle the weapons.

[closeupready]

22. Yes, it is moot, but it is useful for discussion purposes.

Trying to get people to actually think.

[kctim]

21. Yes, they are vital.

[closeupready]

23. I think so, too.

n/t

[rockymountaindem]

26. Yes, I think we should hold on to the nukes we've got

While I think it might make sense to reduce our stockpile for savings purposes (adhering to an idea of minimal deterrence), I think having nukes and second-strike capability makes us more secure. It means that regardless of whatever else happens, an armed attack against the USA can be met with the kind of response that nobody would want to face. In fact, although I also appreciate (unlike probably most around here) our large conventional forces, I think from a purely security standpoint, as opposed to power projection, it would make more sense to scrap everything else but keep our land and sea based nuclear weapons.

[Greyhound]

31. No. Yes. And what the hell are you all so afraid of? n/t

[NNN0LHI]

39. Don't hear no one talking about bombing North Korea any more do we?

That used to be very common thing to hear people suggest. Even here at DU.

Not so much anymore since they detonated a couple of their own nukes.

Funny how that works.

Don

[closeupready]

41. It does work that way, even as we can all agree that the current NK regime is brutal and ugly.

n/t

[Mendocino]

44. Correct

The US only invades countries without nukes. That is why Iran wants them.

[closeupready]

46. And my argument goes further.

As you say, you won't find any nuclear-armed power invading other nuclear-armed states.

And this is why it isn't only Iran who wants them, but other states that don't have them but are threatened routinely by other states. Also, those who have them but fewer, obviously would want to expand their arsenals.

[Sinti]

47. Personally, I think nuclear weapons are a passing phase

like the trebuchet. Sounds crazy I know, but I believe it. At this point in history, because we (and other nations) have nuclear weapons, others want them for security. As un-American as it seems, there is no simple answer - it's a really complex question.

As an example, if Iran wants them I think it's easy to understand why, unless you are purposefully blind to the situation. We do, after all, have them in the pincers - a standing army in both Iraq and Afghanistan - this is a very elementary military move. If I were them I would KNOW I was next, regardless of what the US administration said - to think otherwise would be the height of foolishness. Aggression begets aggression, every time.

Other countries think they want them, but what they really want they want a seat at the adults table. They fear being attacked if they are without them. It's not as if we've been the most peaceful nation on earth in the last 40 years - if you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention.

We have to draw down, along with Russia and the other nuclear countries. Unilateral disarmament is a completely unreasonable method for achieving international disarmament and peace. Peace, real peace, is based on trust and a willingness to work together to achieve long-term goals in the interest of all mankind.

We don't fight wars over territory and resources anymore, we use trade relationships for this instead - the last admin aside. There are so many challenges for the whole of humanity, if we are to survive, it is incumbent upon us to stop this childish nonsense. Someone has to be the first to act in good faith, and start to disarm, and begin listening and then talking instead of demanding and then bombing.

I think we get there together, or we all die together.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

48. this is an excellent post.

[closeupready]

49. I also like this post, except that since I am pessimistic, I don't see good things in the future.

Unfortunately.

[Sinti]

50. You've got to believe it's possible before you start looking for ways

to make it happen. I hope some day you'll be able to call yourself an optimist :)