Is the world better with or without nuclear weapons?

[ddbaj]

I am tempted to go with my gut and say without. However, the threat of nuclear attacks will probably mean that the super powers will never fight again like in World War II. I mean, absent nuclear weapons, we would have probably ended up fighting the Soviet Union at some point, I think. From there, who knows.

So I am a bit torn. It scares me to death to think what will happen if a few of those things go off... but it seems to prevent massive power vs power wars which would yield millions of casualties. So what do you think, DU?

[Journeyman]

1. Food for thought . . .

Until China developed its own Bomb, the Sino-Soviet Border was site of extensive and harrowing clashes between the two powers. Since then, not so much (not at all, from all indications).

Martin van Creveld deals with this in some depth in his seminal work, The Transformation of War. It's worth the read.

[Rick Myers]

2. MAD isn't the problem anymore...

Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Soviets and US in a deadlock where neither DARED use nukes. But with the proliferation of nuclear weapons, we are not safe. And the loose nukes from the former Soviet states worry me the most... Thank Goddess the Soviets used PALs like ours, making detonating the device a Hell of alot harder to do. PALs are Permissive Action Links, that require more than a simple code or button push. If a PAL is tampered with, it becomes inert and the device is useless.

But, in the end, we are NOT safer with nukes on the planet.

[whistle]

3. MAD....mutually assured destruction not feasible between...

....the super powers, that is U.S. and the then USSR, for they knew they would never use nuclear weapons on one another. But it did fuel an endless escalation of other forms of weapons until the USSR was bankrupt. But that never stopped the arms race, it just keeps on going and going.

[LSK]

4. how do you know the UN did not prevent large scale wars?

[piedmont]

11. Don't get me wrong, I like the concept of the U.N. but it's pretty toothless

unless the U.S. and other powers back it up. It didn't prevent Rwanda, Bosnia, Chechnya, Afghanistan, etc. from going all to hell. All those wars were pretty large scale in terms of people killed.

[terrya]

5. Without

Just because they haven't been used in 60 years doesn't mean that they will NEVER be used. And with so many more countries possessing them now, it's even worse.

[Tom Joad]

6. we must abolish nuclear weapons, or they will abolish us.

[MissWaverly]

7. w/o you do not factor in those who consider them a "tool"

in their foreign policy toolbox, as in "all options are on the table." I think there
are some individuals who will use them just because they are there, the same way
a child will set off firecrackers to the detriment of the entire planet which would
mean that there would be corporation ready to cash in and profit on the suffering of
humanity, a guaranteed profit for some lucky vulture.

[blues90]

8. I vote no nukes

We came pretty close in 1962 and this scared the hell out of me as a kid in jr high back then , duck and cover my ass .

Later there was alot of concern when the Soviet Union broke up and how there nukes were spread out and not so very protected .

Now here we are with nukes almost everywhere and who knows who has a shakey will these days .

Besides just how safe are these old nukes and when they are tranported .

It has got to the point with me that let the damn things fly and get it over with . Perhaps only then will people wise up in this insane world of who threaten who with destruction .

I don't think nukes are a deterent to old style ground and air wars , we still have wars going on as in Iraq and threaten countries like Iran who have no nukes so someone always suffers still to this day .

I think about what happened in Japan and this was a horrid thing and still we have not learned a damn thing . Look at all the money spent on weapons and many are sold or wind up in the hands of souless killers .

We had power plants here and in Russia meltdown so how safe can these thing be ?

[treestar]

9. I think it could have eliminated regular war for any nation that has them

at least. Come to think of it, why do we have an army, etc. We have nukes. We can't be attacked in a conventional way.

And in time every country is bound to figure out how to make them.

So it could eliminate war in the sense that attacking any other country would be foolish and tantamount to national suicide.

But then the potential for mistakes, as you say, is scary. Though perhaps technology will have enough of a fix for that. (Also for nuclear power, which is starting to sound a lot more attractive now that oil creates such a volatile political issue in the Middle East - when it comes right down to it, that's why we are over there.)

[demigoddess]

10. Without!!!

without!!