Nuclear disarmament Watch

Poll: What should be done
Complete disarmament (14)
35.9%
Status quo (24)
61.54%
All nations should be allowed nukes (1)
2.56%
Other (0)
0%
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#1
Poll to see where people stand on this.

Does anyone out there believe nuclear disarmament is a possibility or a sensible option? There are lots of groups out there attempting to bring about the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, world leaders tend to make noises about it but this seems more to be PR than anything else.

But personally I think these movements are doomed to fail. The technology is out of the bag so say you do eventually convince every nation to disarm, what is to stop X country building a nuke and invading it's neighbour or some version of this? For a nuclear free world to work there would have to be an agreement that any nation that attempted to build weapons would face sanctions and the credible threat of invasion if they did not cease production. Which is never really going to happen.

Personally I am an advocate of the status quo, stop other nations gaining nuclear weapons but also take weapons off hair trigger, and see limited disarmament with weapons being brought down into the hundreds rather than the thousands. Even this seems unlikely with nations like Pakistan building nukes as quickly as possible which naturally adds to global insecurity.

Anyway poll and thoughts.
1
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 5 years ago
#2
I like the idea of disarmament, but like you I believe that it is an impossibility. Un-inventing the weapons is the ideal scenario.

Something needs to be made that would render nuclear weapons obsolete, so that nations already possessing them would admit their futility and get rid and that nations in pursuit of them would realise there's no point as they'd be ineffective.

What that something is I have no idea, though.

So, in lieu, status quo but with warheads being reduced (both in quantity and 'quality') all the time.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 5 years ago
#3
(Original post by Aj12)
Poll to see where people stand on this.

Does anyone out there believe nuclear disarmament is a possibility or a sensible option? There are lots of groups out there attempting to bring about the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, world leaders tend to make noises about it but this seems more to be PR than anything else.

But personally I think these movements are doomed to fail. The technology is out of the bag so say you do eventually convince every nation to disarm, what is to stop X country building a nuke and invading it's neighbour or some version of this? For a nuclear free world to work there would have to be an agreement that any nation that attempted to build weapons would face sanctions and the credible threat of invasion if they did not cease production. Which is never really going to happen.

Personally I am an advocate of the status quo, stop other nations gaining nuclear weapons but also take weapons off hair trigger, and see limited disarmament with weapons being brought down into the hundreds rather than the thousands. Even this seems unlikely with nations like Pakistan building nukes as quickly as possible which naturally adds to global insecurity.

Anyway poll and thoughts.
It's an interesting issue to raise.

Obviously in an ideal world, it would be best not to have nuclear weapons. They are incredibly expensive and a vast diversion of skilled talent and resources into completely unproductive and potentially horribly damaging devices that should never have been used and should not be used.

I am sceptical that the West could not stop Pakistan and India, Israel and other 'new nuclear powers' from having weapons if they really wanted to - to some extent, there appear to be vested interests in some of these developments. Keeping India and Pakistan at loggerheads has been tremendously profitable to the global arms industries.

I don't really agree that the big powers haven't been serious about disarmament - in past decades, a great many people and a number of big governments, including some US and Soviet ones, tried terribly hard against enormous internal and external opposition to bring an end to such weapons. They did achieve a lot, but not final abolition, although this seems to have reached the table a few times.

It could still be done and it should be done - despite increased relaxation on this topic since the 80s and 90s, the world is still under threat from the use of nuclear weapons.
0
reply
The Angry Stoic
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report 5 years ago
#4
Disarming the world would require all the major powers to work together. Which is unlikely.
0
reply
Unruly Marmite
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#5
Report 5 years ago
#5
"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can imagine us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it" Truthfully, I support disarmament, but the instant all nations disarm, one rogue redevelops nuclear weapons and everybody's in trouble.
0
reply
Aj12
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#6
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It's an interesting issue to raise.

Obviously in an ideal world, it would be best not to have nuclear weapons. They are incredibly expensive and a vast diversion of skilled talent and resources into completely unproductive and potentially horribly damaging devices that should never have been used and should not be used.

I am sceptical that the West could not stop Pakistan and India, Israel and other 'new nuclear powers' from having weapons if they really wanted to - to some extent, there appear to be vested interests in some of these developments. Keeping India and Pakistan at loggerheads has been tremendously profitable to the global arms industries.

I don't really agree that the big powers haven't been serious about disarmament - in past decades, a great many people and a number of big governments, including some US and Soviet ones, tried terribly hard against enormous internal and external opposition to bring an end to such weapons. They did achieve a lot, but not final abolition, although this seems to have reached the table a few times.

It could still be done and it should be done - despite increased relaxation on this topic since the 80s and 90s, the world is still under threat from the use of nuclear weapons.
I'm not really sure what more they could do, Israel and India just sort of happened and that was that but the US made some efforts to deal with a Pakistani bomb and convince them to drop it, sanctions and such but it did not really get anywhere so lost momentum. Your problem becomes force is taken off the table as soon as a nation has a bomb so threats become worthless, leaving either sanctions which as Iran and North Korea have shown unless the entire International Community is behind it they won't do much and even then or some sort of carrot.

During the Cold War they came within an inch. Pretty sure Gorbachev actually offered complete disarmament
0
reply
uktotalgamer
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 5 years ago
#7
It's a catch 22. If all nations disarm then can a nation be trusted not to rearm, yet if all nations have nuclear weapons mutually assured destruction prevents them from firing on each other.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#8
Report 5 years ago
#8
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I am sceptical that the West could not stop Pakistan and India, Israel and other 'new nuclear powers' from having weapons if they really wanted to.
Oh please do elaborate.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#9
Report 5 years ago
#9
(Original post by Drewski)
I like the idea of disarmament, but like you I believe that it is an impossibility. Un-inventing the weapons is the ideal scenario.

Something needs to be made that would render nuclear weapons obsolete, so that nations already possessing them would admit their futility and get rid and that nations in pursuit of them would realise there's no point as they'd be ineffective.

What that something is I have no idea, though.

So, in lieu, status quo but with warheads being reduced (both in quantity and 'quality') all the time.
You can't uninvent. It's then a case if who can re arm the quickest to get an advantage.

Great moves have been made to get rid of land mines, chemical and biological weapons. It would take a matter of days to re invent them for most nations.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 5 years ago
#10
(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Oh please do elaborate.
You don't think that great pressure could be brought on these countries by their main donor, the United States? By Europe, on which they rely for large amounts of remittance earnings and financial aid?

One must be suspicious when one views the apparent ease with which these countries broke through anti-proliferation in the last 20 years and without serious objections from the big powers. There must be a perceived interest in various capitals in maintaining and increasing tension in these areas.
0
reply
Kiss
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#11
Report 5 years ago
#11
Disarmament if impossible. Nobody would sign up to it and if everybody did, who's going to say there won't be a day when nukes are needed?
0
reply
james22
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#12
Report 5 years ago
#12
With a few exeptions, the status quo is actually quite good. The main players (USA, Russia and China) are not going to use their nuclear weapons lightly because the others will retaliate, and the possesion of nukes makes large scale conventional war far less likely.
0
reply
Aoide
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#13
Report 5 years ago
#13
Disarmament sounds like a good idea but even if all nuclear weapons are removed you still haven't uninvented the technology. Whatever precaution you put in place to stop people rearming all it takes is for one country to build them in secret and all your leverage against them is gone since they are such dangerous weapons.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#14
Report 5 years ago
#14
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You don't think that great pressure could be brought on these countries by their main donor, the United States? By Europe, on which they rely for large amounts of remittance earnings and financial aid?

One must be suspicious when one views the apparent ease with which these countries broke through anti-proliferation in the last 20 years and without serious objections from the big powers. There must be a perceived interest in various capitals in maintaining and increasing tension in these areas.
Not really. The Indian nuclear weapons development happened under the radar to a certain extent. ( people were focused on the cold war at the time)

You've also forgotten to mention that India isn't a signatory of the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
0
reply
Study
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#15
Report 5 years ago
#15
(Original post by Kiss)
Disarmament if impossible. Nobody would sign up to it and if everybody did, who's going to say there won't be a day when nukes are needed?
If noone has them then that day ain't coming.
0
reply
Kiss
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 5 years ago
#16
(Original post by Study)
If noone has them then that day ain't coming.
Watch this episode of the Simpsons:



It explains perfectly why no nukes is a danger, even if the likelihood of an alien invasion is low.
0
reply
pol pot noodles
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 5 years ago
#17
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
You don't think that great pressure could be brought on these countries by their main donor, the United States? By Europe, on which they rely for large amounts of remittance earnings and financial aid?

One must be suspicious when one views the apparent ease with which these countries broke through anti-proliferation in the last 20 years and without serious objections from the big powers. There must be a perceived interest in various capitals in maintaining and increasing tension in these areas.
Pressure? Sure. 'Great' pressure? No, not at all. From a game theory point of view the importance of nuclear weapons to these countries far outweighs the minor punitive financial cost of sanctions or withheld aid from the West, and as Iran and North Korea have shown there's ultimately very little we can do diplomatically to stop a determined state getting nuclear weapons, short of regime change or warfare, two methods which are apparently not in fashion anymore with the public.
0
reply
bazookabrad
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#18
Report 5 years ago
#18
For reasons such as... not being a self-apologetic hippy lefty with my head shoved up my own appeasing arse...

If real nuclear disarmament ever did become a thing, it would and should have to be on an international level, and Great Britain should be the very last nation to disarm... why? Because I'm ****ing British, that's why.
1
reply
elohssa
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 5 years ago
#19
I'm somewhere between 3 and 4. 3 is safer I guess. Nukes definitely prevent wars and have been pretty much single-handedly responsible for stopping major super-powers fighting each other.
0
reply
Dumachi
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#20
Report 5 years ago
#20
What if Aliens catch us with our pants down?
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

How did your AQA A-level Business Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (143)
21.22%
The paper was reasonable (329)
48.81%
Not feeling great about that exam... (126)
18.69%
It was TERRIBLE (76)
11.28%

Watched Threads

View All