Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Is the world

regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 1:24:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

Safer for who?

The greatest atrocities in the world has been done with knifes and hand held guns. It doesn't seem nuclear weapons make things worse anyway.
So prove me wrong, then.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 1:53:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

it seem irrelevant b/c there will never be a world without them...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 2:20:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

The answer should be obvious. The world would be safer if the entire world was completely disarmed, void of all weapons.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 3:39:19 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 2:20:08 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

The answer should be obvious. The world would be safer if the entire world was completely disarmed, void of all weapons.

Should be obvious, yes. But it isn't. During the 20th century, the risk of being murdered (including wars and genocides) was a couple of percent. And most of that was before 1945.

Amongst hunter-gatherers the risk was at least 16%. Some research indicates that in fact as many as half of all adult males ended up murdered in some of these stone-age societies.

Counterintuitive, I know. But think of this: Your hands are weapons.
So prove me wrong, then.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 3:45:04 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 3:39:19 AM, regebro wrote:

Counterintuitive, I know. But think of this: Your hands are weapons.

You really shouldn't say those sort of things without adding a Bruce Lee imitation of some sort. ^^
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 8:49:11 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 3:45:04 AM, Puck wrote:
At 10/14/2009 3:39:19 AM, regebro wrote:

Counterintuitive, I know. But think of this: Your hands are weapons.

You really shouldn't say those sort of things without adding a Bruce Lee imitation of some sort. ^^

Showing off is for the insecure. I have no need of showing off, safe in the knowledge that I can kill you with my little finger, should need or desire so dictate.
So prove me wrong, then.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 9:33:51 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Though I agree with you regebro, do you have the cite for those stats? I want to read up more on it :D
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 9:47:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 9:33:51 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Though I agree with you regebro, do you have the cite for those stats? I want to read up more on it :D

War Before Civilization by Lawrence Keeley.
http://www.amazon.com...

Here is a review: http://www.troynovant.com...
So prove me wrong, then.
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 10:01:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
We would be safer if we were all peaceful, thus completely eliminating war and murder. However, removing weapons takes ut a means to kill people. This would lead dto nonviolent weapons (i.e. sanctions) and hurt the global economy. So afer, yes, but whether it would be better is up for debate.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
simpleton
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:10:14 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

For shure! And the roads would be safer without cars and if guns only fired daisies, war would be pretty too!
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 11:32:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

Neither. Even without the advent of nuclear weaponry, something capable of obliterating entire cities in an instant, humans would still find a way to kill each other on mass scales. The only difference is, nuclear weapons allowed you to attack your enemy without risking your own troops. Such was the rationale behind Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That can be considered "safer," for you, if it wasn't for the fact that a lot of others are now armed with nuclear weapons as well, and they can attack with equal or greater force.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 1:48:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Safer overall? Depends, how safe would the Pacific be with Imperial Japan ruling over it? How safe woudl it have been for the millions of troops landing in Japan?

Nuclear bombs have only been used twice and despite the massive bomb scare experiences in the last 60 years, a country uses them as an indicator of power.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/14/2009 3:57:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 9:33:51 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Though I agree with you regebro, do you have the cite for those stats? I want to read up more on it :D

http://www.ted.com...
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 10:14:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/14/2009 3:57:35 PM, Puck wrote:
At 10/14/2009 9:33:51 AM, Rezzealaux wrote:
Though I agree with you regebro, do you have the cite for those stats? I want to read up more on it :D

http://www.ted.com...

YES! STEVEN PINKER!
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 11:14:26 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
And here is the correct answer:

At 10/12/2009 12:17:00 AM, KeithKroeger91 wrote:
safer with or without nuclear weapons?

Yes!

(Feeling silly this morning)
So prove me wrong, then.
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/17/2009 10:19:29 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here's another perspective... a simple application of a Nash equilibrium. Nuclear weapons are a strong deterrent. Nobody wants to get nuked, and they know that should they ever attack a nuclear armed country, the possibility of nuclear retaliation is very likely. Barring extremists who don't have a problem with suicide attacks, the result is a tense but stable peace. Thus if every country in the world had nuclear strike capabilities, there would be no war, or at the very least, countries would think twice before carrying out any military operations for fear of being vapourized.

Of course, this is a huge simplification and is assuming a perfect scenario where there are no crazy people in the world... which, judging by some of the debates on here, is an obvious fallacy :P
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 3:19:34 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/17/2009 10:19:29 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
Here's another perspective... a simple application of a Nash equilibrium. Nuclear weapons are a strong deterrent. Nobody wants to get nuked, and they know that should they ever attack a nuclear armed country, the possibility of nuclear retaliation is very likely. Barring extremists who don't have a problem with suicide attacks, the result is a tense but stable peace. Thus if every country in the world had nuclear strike capabilities, there would be no war, or at the very least, countries would think twice before carrying out any military operations for fear of being vapourized.

Of course, this is a huge simplification and is assuming a perfect scenario where there are no crazy people in the world... which, judging by some of the debates on here, is an obvious fallacy :P

Exactly. Take for example Robert Mugabe, who in interviews have admitted that he would drag the whole country down to prove a point (which he of course is busy doing as well). That guy, if he had nukes, would use them.

Now it's possible that the people who actually have to follow his orders would refuse, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to trust that. :)
So prove me wrong, then.