Why bother with nuclear weapons?
@lightlysalted (183)
March 18, 2007 5:58am CST
One of the main reasons for justifying building nuclear weapons was linked to the cold war, where western govenrments were keen to build them to reduce the likelyhood of a nuclear attack by the former soviet union. However times have changed and many of the threats faced by the global community are often within their own borders in the form of terroism. In an age where smart bombs are so intelligent that they can be directed down the barrel of a tank, what's the point of a nuclear weapon? who is there to deter? Look at Germany they don't have nuclear weapons (they're not allowed following the end of WW2) and has anyone bombed them recently?
3 people like this
4 responses
@michelledarcy (5220)
•
18 Mar 07
I agree with you entirely. We are damamging our planet and spending lots of money on these things when our countries could be investing it into worthwhile things like cures for disease or helping the environment.
@lightlysalted (183)
•
19 Mar 07
and here lies some of the solutions to removing nuclear weapons, if governments were more willing to spend billions on improving poverty within their own countries or investing in others, then this may improve relations and limit the need for nuclear weapons.
@senses (840)
• Philippines
18 Mar 07
Upon reading your headline or your tile, what can into my mind was we should really bother because it's dangerous. However, reading your discussion actually change my mind. YEs you are right why bother with nuclear weapong when smart bombs are now available which are actually more dangerous than nuclear weapon since this can be directed to barrel or tanks of gasoline or whatever dangerous materials. You have also mentioned terrosrism, yes you are right with that. Honestly, our government here in the Philippines is trying its best to eradicate terrorism.
By the way, thanks for inviting me as your friend. lol
Hope top have discussion with you with many more topics!
God bless you always.
@trinidadvelasco (11401)
• Philippines
18 Mar 07
We are even faced with the problem that there are countries trying to make their own nuclear weapons. I don't know if there is a way to track them all. I believe that there is none as of date.
@lightlysalted (183)
•
18 Mar 07
it's certainly a problem keeping track of who has nuclear capability I agree.
@bananamanuk (835)
•
18 Mar 07
This is an interesting discussion, and I agree with your premis that since the end of the cold war, is there still an need to have nuclear weapons. However, I tend to think that whilst it would be desirable to erradicate the stockpiling and of such weapons, that there is an issue at present over dictatorships such as north Korea, and Iran, and until places like that can demonstrate that they do not have the capabilities (quite how this would be done, i'm not sure) I think other countries will maintain what is deemed the "nuclear deterant" basically it says to those regiemes don't mess with this stuff or we will stop you in your tracks. Otherwise what would happen if one of these rogue nations went ahead, developed such material and used it, how would we defend ourselves.
Its a catch 22. I just don't see anyone giving up these weapons until everyone else has. I think it's justified that we keep our options open simply because of unpredictable regiemes like those i mentioned.
@lightlysalted (183)
•
19 Mar 07
as I say in the age of satellites and precision weapons even if rogue regimes did develop nuclear weapons after we hand surrended ours we could easily destroy them. I don't think that having nuclear weapons is a deterrent, because is a rogue regime is going to use them then they'll use them whatever. If anything possessing nuclear weapons just gives others the excuse to develop their own.
