Turn on thread page Beta

High tech weapons watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello.

    I was just wondering what other people had opinions about High tech and highly devastating weapons. Is it right to have and develop Bio, chemical and nuclear weapons or should we try to get an alternate way and de-assemble these weapons so the world can be a safer place and we could solve disputes not by war but with other means.

    What do you think?

    Zain
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should develop high tech weapons, but not weapons of mass destruction.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its a very touchy subject. Countrries feel the need to have these weapons to protect themselves, but the chances of anything remotley nuclear being used are slim. I think they develop weapons "just in case". Mostly to scare Middle Eastern countries into doing what they are told.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agha Zain)
    Hello.

    I was just wondering what other people had opinions about High tech and highly devastating weapons. Is it right to have and develop Bio, chemical and nuclear weapons or should we try to get an alternate way and de-assemble these weapons so the world can be a safer place and we could solve disputes not by war but with other means.

    What do you think?

    Zain
    You mean there were no wars before the creation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons?
    Offline

    18
    Amazing isn't it that america is trying to develop laser weapons (allowable under international law) to slice through soldiers like a knife through milk, and yet a laser/weapon that blinds a man is not allowable under international law.

    Hilarious that in order to be acceptable by the law, the weapons being developed must be more deadly.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    You mean there were no wars before the creation of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons?
    exactly. they said after every major war that the latest invention woud make it unthinkable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    exactly. they said after every major war that the latest invention woud make it unthinkable.
    Yep. And getting rid of the deadliest weapons would only increase the chance of war since the costs of fighting wars (in terms of lost manpower and wealth) would be much lower than they are right now.

    The only way to stop war is to destroy humanity.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by foolfarian)
    Amazing isn't it that america is trying to develop laser weapons (allowable under international law) to slice through soldiers like a knife through milk, and yet a laser/weapon that blinds a man is not allowable under international law.

    Hilarious that in order to be acceptable by the law, the weapons being developed must be more deadly.
    The US is also developing a laser missile defense system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And militarising space, a move every other country in the UN bar Israel attempted to stop in a UN resolution that was doomed to fail by those two abstentions. The 'star wars' program and the militarisation of space demonstrate that whatever anyone else does, and however wrong it is for other countries to develop even small-scale WMDs, the US government is going to continue to develop weapons with destructive capacities far beyond anything we have ever seen and to give themselves the capability to use them with impunity.

    Enormous sections of mankind have proved capable of co-existing without resort to war. The concept of a world without it is not an impossible one. There are however two routes to it. One is the multilateral cooperation route, in which countries no longer need to go to war because they are working together internationally, through something like Keynes' International Clearing Union, to ensure prosperity, democracy, understanding and liberty for all. The other route is the path we are on now - the path to US global hegemony, where every state on earth is subordinate to the US - if it is not a client state, it is a puppet government, if not that it depends on the US economically - or, failing that, it can be coerced politically, economically or militarily into compliance.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    Enormous sections of mankind have proved capable of co-existing without resort to war.
    Really? Prove it. Name 3 countries that haven't fought a single war in their histories.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Really? Prove it. Name 3 countries that haven't fought a single war in their histories.
    I'll do that after you explain how we can be certain that events of the past will be repeated in the future, despite the fact that the only constant between them is the concept of a certain country.

    Why insist on having already always been at peace to demonstrate mankind's capacity for peace? Almost all countries have managed, for most of their existence, not to be at war with most other countries. Should we assume that there is no hope for peace in Northern Ireland because there has been conflict in the past or that there is no hope for democracy in Iraq because there hasn't been democracy before? Of course not.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    I'll do that after you explain how we can be certain that events of the past will be repeated in the future, despite the fact that the only constant between them is the concept of a certain country.
    You're the one who made the ridiculous claim that large portions of mankind have been able to not fight wars. Almost every country in the world fought at least one war in the last century, let alone in their entire history.

    Why insist on having already always been at peace to demonstrate mankind's capacity for peace? Almost all countries have managed, for most of their existence, not to be at war with most other countries.
    Peace is merely the prelude to war. It takes countries time to rearm and find an advantageous time to attack you know.

    Should we assume that there is no hope for peace in Northern Ireland because there has been conflict in the past or that there is no hope for democracy in Iraq because there hasn't been democracy before? Of course not.
    Democracy exists in other countries; eternal peace has never existed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    And militarising space, a move every other country in the UN bar Israel attempted to stop in a UN resolution that was doomed to fail by those two abstentions. The 'star wars' program and the militarisation of space demonstrate that whatever anyone else does, and however wrong it is for other countries to develop even small-scale WMDs, the US government is going to continue to develop weapons with destructive capacities far beyond anything we have ever seen and to give themselves the capability to use them with impunity.

    Enormous sections of mankind have proved capable of co-existing without resort to war. The concept of a world without it is not an impossible one. There are however two routes to it. One is the multilateral cooperation route, in which countries no longer need to go to war because they are working together internationally, through something like Keynes' International Clearing Union, to ensure prosperity, democracy, understanding and liberty for all. The other route is the path we are on now - the path to US global hegemony, where every state on earth is subordinate to the US - if it is not a client state, it is a puppet government, if not that it depends on the US economically - or, failing that, it can be coerced politically, economically or militarily into compliance.
    I heard an interesting statistic one time on peace on Earth. Since year 0 AD, there have been something like 100 days of complete peace without any country fighting any other.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You're still talking about the evidence of the past as if it proves definitively the course of the future. Mankind has always seen himself as part of a collective and as that collective has expanded he has lived in harmony with more and more people (and admittedly fought with more). That collective is currently the nation and people within nations, where they are well-defined, live at peace. If that collective were global, as seems the inevitable result of globalisation, then the "us" and "them" that has led to wars might be replaced simply with an "us". It is not inconceivable that mankind might achieve a state of peace and indeed not inconceivable that mankind might do so despite the production of weapons of mass destruction.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tomorrow2Day)
    You're still talking about the evidence of the past as if it proves definitively the course of the future. Mankind has always seen himself as part of a collective and as that collective has expanded he has lived in harmony with more and more people (and admittedly fought with more). That collective is currently the nation and people within nations, where they are well-defined, live at peace. If that collective were global, as seems the inevitable result of globalisation, then the "us" and "them" that has led to wars might be replaced simply with an "us". It is not inconceivable that mankind might achieve a state of peace and indeed not inconceivable that mankind might do so despite the production of weapons of mass destruction.
    A very wise man once said: "Those who cannot remember the past, are doomed to repeat it." If you haven't noticed, the past tends to repeat itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Who says globalization will be inevitable? Future stability could easily be threatened: Melting icecaps, WMDs, trade breakdowns, the rise of the 3rd world, Peak Oil; and these are just random ideas coming into my head.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonD)
    Who says globalization will be inevitable? Future stability could easily be threatened: Melting icecaps, WMDs, trade breakdowns, the rise of the 3rd world, Peak Oil; and these are just random ideas coming into my head.
    Global nuclear winter comes to mine. Another good one, mass deterioration of the Ozone.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why on Earth would we want complete peace?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inverurie Jones)
    Why on Earth would we want complete peace?
    Good question. Some of the greatest inventions come about as a result of war.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    a apparent time traveller called John Titor (from the year 2036) has said that in the year 2015 their is a nuclear war and half the worlds population are killed :eek:

    you can do the research if you want ! quite interesting to read about

    http://www.johntitor.com/
    http://www.anomalies.net/time_travel/john.html

 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.