This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Nuclear Engineering - Is it worth doing a degree apprenticeship?
- A nuclear attack may have started now.
- Post-Scarcity
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- A level physics nuclear question (3)
- Should I include maps
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- My grow your grades journal 🎀 ~ as a year 12
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Chemistry vs Natural Sciences
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- year 12 looking for advice on any extra things/courses to do in summer
- Can I get an offer from SOAS after one day ?
- Dr Kathy Romer answers your questions about Physics!
- who is donald trump
- Is
- Where to study physics that isn't in a big city and a whole bunch of other questions!
- medicine vs engineering
Obama wants world free of nuclear weapons. Could universal disarmament work?
Poll
Could universal disarmament work?
Barack Obama has outlined his vision of a world free of nuclear weapons in a major speech in Europe.
The US president called for a global summit on nuclear security and the forging of new partnerships to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
He said he hoped to negotiate a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
North Korea's "provocative" rocket launch earlier in the day underscored the need for action, he said.
Although his nuclear goals might not be realised in his lifetime, he said he would strive to achieve them.
The US president called for a global summit on nuclear security and the forging of new partnerships to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.
He said he hoped to negotiate a new treaty to end the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons.
North Korea's "provocative" rocket launch earlier in the day underscored the need for action, he said.
Although his nuclear goals might not be realised in his lifetime, he said he would strive to achieve them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7983963.stm
I think universal disarmament would be ideal, but realistically, could it work?
In strategic warfare, armament is the logical option. If your opponent has no weapon, it is best if you have one. If your opponent does have one, it is even more important that you have one.
With the possibility of countries producing nuclear weapons in secret (such as Israel), reneging on any treaties would be a temptation for all countries. Those who have the weapons have more authority.
I think the issue comes down to this: is it possible to credibly assure other nations that you have no weapons? How we guarantee and enforce such a treaty?
Scroll to see replies
Feral Beast
In strategic warfare, armament is the logical option. If your opponent has no weapon, it is best if you have one. If your opponent doesn't have one, it is even more important that you have one.
In strategic warfare, armament is the logical option. If your opponent has no weapon, it is best if you have one. If your opponent doesn't have one, it is even more important that you have one.
Besides that, in theory it could work, but I don't think it ever could in practice.
Would you really want universal disarmament? In my opinion the risk of a nuclear war is far overshadowed by that of a potential large scale conventional war whch could produce similar casulty numbers, but far more likely to happen, especially in todays world of global warming and scramble for resources
A world without nuclear weapons would be far more unstable and dangerous. Nuclear weapons presently keep the great powers from going to war. In conventional conflict, the stakes are far more acceptable.
There'd probably be even more distrust in certain areas should it happen. See North Korea today, or Iran, and the stubborness of some countries to recognise eachother (Iran and Israel, and Israel and Palestine for example).
It's all well and good Obama putting trust in the world and the world trusting him. But it's the other countries views on eachother that would need to change in order for universal disarmament to work. Obama's gonna have a hard time persuading AIPAC/Israel to ease up on Iran and vice versa.
It's all well and good Obama putting trust in the world and the world trusting him. But it's the other countries views on eachother that would need to change in order for universal disarmament to work. Obama's gonna have a hard time persuading AIPAC/Israel to ease up on Iran and vice versa.
This idea is proposterous. It will never work!
If America begin disarming themselves, every other non-western country isn't going to think "Hey, their doing it . . . maybe we should start too?" They're more likely to be thinking "Perfect, those fools are going to be easier to take down after they disarm themselves"
Plus no country will actually fully disarm themselves. America and Russia have a nuclear arsenal of about 6,000 bombs. They are both likely to keep about 500 of those active for self defence. It's possible to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons on the planet, but its impossible to get rid of them entirely. Its just a false reality which will never be . . .
If America begin disarming themselves, every other non-western country isn't going to think "Hey, their doing it . . . maybe we should start too?" They're more likely to be thinking "Perfect, those fools are going to be easier to take down after they disarm themselves"
Plus no country will actually fully disarm themselves. America and Russia have a nuclear arsenal of about 6,000 bombs. They are both likely to keep about 500 of those active for self defence. It's possible to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons on the planet, but its impossible to get rid of them entirely. Its just a false reality which will never be . . .
Universal Nuclear Disarmament, in my opinion, is not too idealistic. One has to remember that international pressure is an extremely powerful weapon and this could be put to good use to further the policy of Universal Nuclear Disarmament. Nevertheless, at the moment, the situation involving is extremely volatile and has the potential to mutate into something very deleterious.
1) How would we be able to destroy the mother ship?
2) How would Bruce Willis safe the world if an asteroid was about to hit us?
In all seriousness the threat of mutually assured destruction is enough to keep a major war breaking out. Rogue nuclear powers probably have enough about them not to start anything.
2) How would Bruce Willis safe the world if an asteroid was about to hit us?
In all seriousness the threat of mutually assured destruction is enough to keep a major war breaking out. Rogue nuclear powers probably have enough about them not to start anything.
dob86
1) How would we be able to destroy the mother ship?
2) How would Bruce Willis safe the world if an asteroid was about to hit us?
In all seriousness the threat of mutually assured destruction is enough to keep a major war breaking out. Rogue nuclear powers probably have enough about them not to start anything.
2) How would Bruce Willis safe the world if an asteroid was about to hit us?
In all seriousness the threat of mutually assured destruction is enough to keep a major war breaking out. Rogue nuclear powers probably have enough about them not to start anything.
I agree (not with your attempt of humour, the other part
).It's quite a fact that a third world war would've started if it weren't for the fear of nuclear devastation. And even if it had broken out, I really doubt a full scale nuclear attack would've taken place.
I do think, though, that the more nuclear weapons are around the greater the risk of an accident, or a 'dodgy' group getting hold of one, both cases leading to serious damage.
It's highly naive to belive that a country would lay down it's nuclear weapons: it's quite a necessity for a big country now days. But there's no harm in reducing the amount of weapons a country has.
...or maybe there is?
Would those weapons not be destroyed but be sold to other countries, and risk ending up in the wrong hands?
More probably, the weapons will be adjusted so that they technically aren't nuclear weapons, and therefor the country can claim it has reduced it's amount. When really the weapon can be assembled again into nuclear warhead if necessary.
Davidosh
It can work but America must take the first step
No way. The dangerous nations like Iran and North Korea and so on must say no to nuclear weapons first.
Of course, global nuclear disarmament would be ideal but not foreseeable anytime soon. Obama obviously thinks so too, as he isn't making any movements to do so in the US and is continuing with the missile defense system. His speech was a very nonspecific to any type of actual disarming other than a possible reduction in arms between themselves and Russia, just talking about nuclear arms in general, only specifically warning N. Korea and about ending nuclear testing. America would hardly be the first ones to disarm themselves, and if they did in some very distant future, it wouldn't be in a "Give Peace a Chance" way, hoping everyone would follow suit. It would be more likely together to something similar to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The biggest hurdle would be those countries that didn't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as there are "loose canons", so to speak, there won't be any Westerners that would think of total disarmament.
The biggest hurdle would be those countries that didn't sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. As long as there are "loose canons", so to speak, there won't be any Westerners that would think of total disarmament.
Universal disarmament could only work, if, obviously, it was universal. And this would be nigh on impossible to put into practice, particularly with those countries who aren't signed up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It is a good ideal, for all those claiming it would be "stupid" because it's the only way we can think of to keep from wanting to wage wars with each other. If all that is keeping us from wanting to attack and kill each other is the threat of mutually assured destruction, then that is extremely sad. Extremely. It is thus NOT a good thing that we have the weapons. It is merely necessary.
Having said that, until i was convinced that the world could get along without them, i wouldn't really support disarmament.
It is a good ideal, for all those claiming it would be "stupid" because it's the only way we can think of to keep from wanting to wage wars with each other. If all that is keeping us from wanting to attack and kill each other is the threat of mutually assured destruction, then that is extremely sad. Extremely. It is thus NOT a good thing that we have the weapons. It is merely necessary.
Having said that, until i was convinced that the world could get along without them, i wouldn't really support disarmament.
Related discussions
- a level history - edexcel cold war coursework
- Nuclear Engineering - Is it worth doing a degree apprenticeship?
- A nuclear attack may have started now.
- Post-Scarcity
- [Official Thread] Russian invasion of Ukraine
- A level physics nuclear question (3)
- Should I include maps
- Defence Engineering grad scheme
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- My grow your grades journal 🎀 ~ as a year 12
- Is the UK prepared for WW3?
- Chemistry vs Natural Sciences
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- year 12 looking for advice on any extra things/courses to do in summer
- Can I get an offer from SOAS after one day ?
- Dr Kathy Romer answers your questions about Physics!
- who is donald trump
- Is
- Where to study physics that isn't in a big city and a whole bunch of other questions!
- medicine vs engineering
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
