...nukes keep the peace?
By jeanneyvonne
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
Philippines
November 10, 2012 2:45am CST
I think that everybody knows that only three countries have official nuke status- UK, US and France.My friend will go on a debate regarding the disarm of nuclear power and weapons (mostly on the weapons). he consulted me on the matter and said that nukes aren't important anymore and they shoudl be decommissioned.plus,they are pain to the budget (thankful that he don't have one0. However,with N.Korea up there and the numerous missile firing that shakes my country once in a while,I don't know whether they should be gone for good. I know people are don't approve of nukes but someone told me that the current 'defense' in the world,it's better to have a weapon to ensure that nobody will attack you and you can retaliate quickly when someone fired one. They,I have to audit,also have a good point. But do nukes really keep the peace or the tension?
5 responses
@tigershark (202)
• United States
10 Nov 12
Heck, they might even cause peace! If everyone launched their nuke missiles and each covered a part of the Earth so that everyone got blasted, there would be no more to worry about! :D
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
12 Nov 12
Interesting point. Everybody will be on equal level and maybe people will stop and start talking rather than aiming weapons at each other.
@challs12 (548)
• Malaysia
10 Nov 12
I never agree with war and nuke as well. It just destroy us and has no benefit. But when opposite region has the weapon, then we must defense ourself to have the same or even greater weapon compare to the opponent. But, if every region wipe off their nuke materials and facilities, then it will be better to the whole world. Remember that this world is getting older and damage due to our own hands. So, better just live in peace and no need to fight for material or underground assets. Just work on what we have and make it commercialise so that it will be our main income and can support everyone.
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
12 Nov 12
I agree that if every country with nukes will disarm and vow not to really use them (which I kinda though is not going to happen), it's good. But the threat in today's world is sometimes not a paranoia anymore. You have one piece of the world that has civil unrest. You don't that happening in your country or be tangled with the mess. I would love to live in a world of peace. Whether that era is gone or still in the future is the question.
@challs12 (548)
• Malaysia
12 Nov 12
Your wish to have a peaceful is likely not going to happen. I'm very sure that this world gonna destroy because of our own hand one day. It's just a matter of time when the launch button push. I think this will happen and must happen. It's impossible to them to destroy their nuke weapon and facility without using it. Or in another easy question, why they do that weapon if they have no possibility of using it in future.
@lampar (7584)
• United States
10 Nov 12
Unfortunately there are more country in present world that have 'nukes' than just the three countries you stated. In order to keep 'peace', leaders from many different country need to engage in 'talk' regularly and frequently, solely depend on 'nukes' is not going to keep the world 'peaceful', but may deter non 'nuke' rogue nations from letting out its overly predatory behavior internationally, it is used mainly as a deterrence against aggression. 
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
12 Nov 12
Again, apologies. They were the first thing to pop into my mind. But I am grateful to be corrected. I am in favor of diplomacy but that will not stop some people to use violence or warfare to prove their point. I think that they are really used (as for now) as a warning sign that says "don't attack or else'. But diplomacy,a s you said,should be abandoned just yet.
@rog0322 (2829)
• Cagayan De Oro, Philippines
16 Nov 12
Hi,
It is called Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD scheme, the deterrence doctrine during the Cold Wars. It is still applicable today, one country points a nuke weapon on another and the other does the same, no one pulls the trigger and there is peace in the world.
Just like the days of the wild, wild west of old, I think. If we can only apply that to our neighborhood, the police would have less headache in crime control all over.
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
16 Nov 12
Thanks for clarifying the point. I think that many people think that it is morally wrong for anyone or country to have nuclear weapons. But then again,if this happens over the time, I think nobody gets the chance to declare war (unless they are really serious in provocation) other countries.
@robspeakman (1700)
•
10 Nov 12
Offical Nuke status? - As mentioned before, there are other countries that also have nukes - Let us not forget Israel, it is an open secret that these angry little buggers have them too - If you lived next door to these lot, would you not also like to have them and possibly develop your own.... That is Iran, Who can blame them for wanting their own.
They call it Mutually Assured Destruction - MAD, that is why the US and Russia have roughly the same number - No one has an advantage when the War comes
@jeanneyvonne (5501)
• Philippines
12 Nov 12
Again apologies. I agree that nobody has the advantage. It's all a gamble for these countries, maybe it is worth a gamble. Anyone who disrupts the status quo is like starting a powder keg. Everybody will have a knee-jerk reaction and nobody knows the outcome.
