A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us Watch

isaqyi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
That was said by Margaret Thatcher and I could not agree with her more.

What are your thoughts?
4
reply
Stratos
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
At least explain why it would be more stable/safe and then I can start debunking it.

It's not as if nations who share your views only hold nuclear weapons what if North Korea gets hold of them or the 'terrorist nations' I doubt we would all feel safe then considering there's the constant fear of a coup d'etat allowing radical groups to get hold of such weaponry and recklessly use it.

Unless we form a police state and don't allow them to hold nuclear weapons but then we would be hypocrites.(which is what we're currently doing)

And how is killing countless civilians in Japan equal to a war between soldiers who are prepared to die?
4
reply
maturestudy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
More fishing for negs.... sigh
1
reply
isaqyi
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#4
(Original post by Stratos)
At least explain why it would be more stable/safe and then I can start debunking it.
Well when countries are acting the goat, we have a powerful weapon at our disposal, whereas if we're just relying on words and diplomacy, what good is that?
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
Yeah I'd agree. Lets say America had not demonstrated its nuclear capabilities at the end of ww2 (lets be honest thats the real reason) its likely the red army would have swarmed through Western Europe. We would have definitely seen a war between the West and Russia.
0
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
Never realised how annoying it is when a troll posts an opinion you actually agree with :sigh:
0
reply
milkytea
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
If all states decided to rid themselves of nuclear weapons, any tyrannical dictator could simply develop some for themselves, and then hold the world to ransom.
2
reply
Shortarse1
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
(Original post by Stratos)
At least explain why it would be more stable/safe and then I can start debunking it.
I'd never want to get into a fight with a nuclear nation - if the oher nation just had similar conventional arms I'd chance it.
0
reply
ChaoticSkills
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
It's easy to preach that nuclear bombs are bad, yes they are disgusting weapons but at the same time they're unseen insurance policies, it gives countries ashield to keep the power balance in order. The only real threat is the 'terror' states, i.e Iran,North Korea etc from a western perspective that is.
0
reply
maturestudy
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
0
reply
pitchayak
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
thats what gorbachev and reagan tried in the 80s - didnt end up working in the long term... even defensive weapons give off all the wrong signs.
0
reply
Student2806
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
The big question for me about possessing them is whether the government, more specifically the PM, could ever morally order their use. Let's face it, he/she would be condemning millions of innocent people to death by doing so.
Call nuclear weapons a "deterrent" or "insurance policy" all you want, but when it comes down to it they're a weapon of aggression to end all weapons, and possessing them automatically presumes that we'd actually be OK with using them.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (502)
37.8%
No - but I will (102)
7.68%
No - I don't want to (91)
6.85%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (633)
47.67%

Watched Threads

View All