role of nuclear weapons in 21st century?
@vgpyogakrishna (168)
India
April 9, 2013 6:08pm CST
I have recently studied that north korea is threatening to launch nuclear strike against south korea and america if they provoke the north korea. There lies the question what is the role of nuclear weapon in this era. In fact the countries which are advocating denuclearisation such as america, russia and europe are the ones who actually have large number of nuclear weapons in their arsenal. The recent trend is that smaller countries are trying to develop nuclear weapons to gain political advantage against super powers. The examples for this is iran and north korea.
i)If iran and north korea would not have had nuclear weapons in their arsenal the america would have destroyed them. korea and iran are surviving mainly because of their nuclear weapons. In fact if iraq and afghanisthan would have had nuclear weapons then america would not have even thought of attacking these countries there by numerous lives could have been saved.
ii)but if a country decides to use nuclear weapons just like what america did against japan in world war two by dropping nuclear bombs in two of japans cities thus causing lots of people to die.
so here is my question does nuclear weapons save or kill human lives? can we imagine a 21st century without nuclear weapons?
4 responses
@lampar (7584)
• United States
10 Apr 13
It is the same analogy one can use to argue against law abiding person using a high power assault weapon to deter a home intruder or criminal from robbing you at home. You probably will feel a lot safer if you have a K -47 at home than say a revolver in your safe. It is not that much of a danger when several intruders sneaking into your home while you are at home alone with an assault rifle which can fire several hundred round of bullets during an invasion. If rogue nations' regime like N.Korea or Iran got their hand on nuclear weapons, it is no question in any person with some intelligent inside his mind that these ruthless rulers will use their nuclear bombs to annihilate USA and other free nations on earth when their blackmails are not met. It is also no doubt rogue nations regime like Iran and N.Korea will provide their nuclear weapon to any terrorist group in the future for terrorism purposes, that is the main reason some of these outlaw regime constantly hide their nuclear weapon from the inspection of UN and outside world. Your example of atomic bombs used against a ruthless imperial Japanese invading forces and its empire in Japan during the second world war by USA is totally out of context in term of logical reasoning and show little understanding of the world's history, Japan is the aggressor that started the second world war with Italy and Germany, without the two atomic bombs possess by USA, i bet you will never get to live to see another day of light after the second world war and will be living under draconian/ authoritarian rule for century inside India as a colony of Japan or Germany. It is not just the massive destructive power that come with the nuclear bombs one should consider under any peace treaty, the question who is in possess of nuclear bombs also play a very important part in preserving world peace at this moment of uncertainty surrounding the very survival of people on this earth in the future. 
@lampar (7584)
• United States
10 Apr 13
The problem here is not that human like us want to kill another human being with nuclear weapon, it is an issue that terrorist supporters and outlaw regimes like those in Iran and N.Korea that will give no second thought in using their nuclear weapon/bomb to annihilate large number of non Iranians or non N.Korean to reach their goal on political black mail and extortion on the free world. That is where the REAL danger of nuclear weapon come into play in world stage, other than just its massive destructive power inherent in nuclear weapon technology. 
@vgpyogakrishna (168)
• India
11 Apr 13
by the way i never said germany is the only culprit in second world war. what is said is that it is the germans who initiated the war which was later joined in by the japanese and the italians. but i think we have actually digressed away from the topic slightly. but its ok. coming back to the topic. i completely agree that there is a realistic chance for nuclear technology to be hijacked b the terrorists. i dont deny that. but regarding the countries like iran and north korea every one has different opinions. according to me.its not necessary for each and every country in this world to act as the puppets of usa. whenever a nation stands against usa then that nation is being stamped as an aggressor. its unfair. earlier iraq, afghanisthan has been painted in poor light now its the turn of north korea and iran. can i ask onething. what the hell the NATO forces are doing in asia. NATO has been formed to guard the pacific region then why they are interfering in asian affairs. when russia invaded afghanisthan its the america which encouraged the taliban but when the sword turned against america now they are playing the victim of terrorism. so funny. thus the problem here is that usa and other superpowers think that what ever they do is right and every other nation should accept it. sorry everyone cant be on the same page. in order to protect from this aggressive super powers the small countries have resorted to building nuclear weapons. so if at all any one is to be blamed for this nuclear arms race it is the so called responsible super powers rather than any one else
@vgpyogakrishna (168)
• India
10 Apr 13
may be you have a valid point.
1)but i am in the opposite side as far as the americas bombing of japan is concerned because even though japan is an aggresssor, they attacked the pearl harbour which is americas one of important naval base, they never attacked any of the americas cities and killed innocent civilians. but on the other hand america has attacked two cites where innocent people were living. if america wanted to make japan surrender they should have bombed japans military or naval base.
2)as far as your point on having ak47 for ones self defense i totally agree with you. if our enemy knows that you are having deadly weapons he will think more than twice before attacking you.
3)there is a factual error in your post. it is the germans who have started the world war 2 and not the japanese. germanys invasion of poland has actually triggered the world war 2.
4)i agree with you that in recent times the counties which have nuclear arsenal have upper hand while signing a treaty.
so eventhough the nuclear weapons have become part and parcel of our todays life. i wish to see a world without nuclear weapon and for that matter i wish to see a world where there is no war at all.afterall we humans are the only foolish creatures in this world where we kill our fellow human being. but look at the animals even though they have only 5 senses they dont kill the member of same species. a tiger will not kill another tiger. at least we should learn from them
@knoodleknight18 (917)
• United States
11 Apr 13
A nuclear weapon is a device designed for the sole purpose of killing people and destroying structures. The best possible outcome is that it will never be used and no lives will be lost. 21st century with no nukes? Won't happen, every civilization throughout time has used force for the final means of negotiation. It's a standoff perpetuated by a take you down with me mentality.
@vgpyogakrishna (168)
• India
11 Apr 13
yes absolutely. in practice the politics of 21st century will be dominated by nuclear weapons. i agree always superpowers want to establish their influence in all parts of the world and for this they use force and military might. now its nuclear weapons and tomorrow it might be another but the urge to conquer the world always remains.
@valentinesdiner (1214)
• United States
10 Apr 13
I hope that the work of President Obama and other forward thinking world leaders will work toward a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons in the world. There will always be nukes or even something more damaging in the future as people try to scare each other.
My prayers is that the regional leaders and guerillas around the world will see the folly of it all. Not in this generation, though. Keep the faith though... someday we may see the wisdom of no nukes, but who is willing to take the first step?
@vgpyogakrishna (168)
• India
10 Apr 13
the first step should definitely be taken by the super powers such as the america, russia and the european countries. because only if they take the initiative other countries will follow. instead if these super powers keeping huge nuclear arsenals go and ask other small countries to stop producing nuclear weapons then no body will listen to these super powers. as america and europe are claiming that they are the most civilised countries it is they who should take these initiatives.
@vgpyogakrishna (168)
• India
10 Apr 13
in overall context i also agree that nuclear weapons will never save lives. but if all the super powers are having nuclear weapons then how will small countries protect themselves from thses super powers. look what happened to afghanistan and iraq. as they dont have nuclear weapons america without any hesitation waged war against them. had these countries had nuclear weapons will america even think about a war. now iran and north korea are spared by usa because they have nuclear weapons. so here in this case nuclear weapons have prevented a war from occuring.
