Total Posts:97|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Do nations need nuclear weapons?

badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:47:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 1:46:28 AM, Zeitgeist wrote:
Some do, others shouldn't be trusted with a pea shooter.

why do some need them?
signature
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:54:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
To protect themselves with the other nuclear weapon holding nations, of course!
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 2:05:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 2:02:59 AM, badger wrote:
drunk? lol

Quiet! It...seemed fitting at the time?

>_>
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:02:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 2:57:16 AM, CHENZ wrote:
How will they protect themeslves?
By making them there will be boh sides mass destruction..

Has the world gotten so insane that only people within the nation are of concern? Is it of no concern that the rest of the world gets blown to smithereens? Nuclear weapons and MAD have only existed for a very short time and the world has already had too many close calls. I think we were more protected when the worse a nation could suffer from was a bullet, and not total annihilation.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Zeitgeist
Posts: 430
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:29:27 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:10:15 AM, CHENZ wrote:
To be very frank I want that UN should make the policy through which all the nations destroy their nuclear weapon.

1) The UN is as much use as a cracked glass eye.

2) Most nations,. especially those in the Middle East would lie.

3) It's not nuclear weapons that are the biggest threat to the world.
CHENZ
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 3:59:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
They are the biggest threats because if they come in the hands of the anti social elemnts then the result will be disastrous..
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 4:55:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
No.
There is no reason to have weapons that could destroy the entire Earth. The whole world should disarm, hold hands and sing kumbaya, seriously.
It isn't going to happen though.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 5:05:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Given Israel's history of bellicose military attacks on her neighbours and her complete disregard for international law, I think countries in the Middle East need to equip themselves with nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

While Israel remains the only nation in the region with a nuclear capability, Israel will continue to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East with impunity.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 5:13:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 5:05:22 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Given Israel's history of bellicose military attacks on her neighbours and her complete disregard for international law, I think countries in the Middle East need to equip themselves with nuclear weapons as a deterrent.

While Israel remains the only nation in the region with a nuclear capability, Israel will continue to threaten the peace and security of the Middle East with impunity.

Oh yes, splendifourous idea, give nations Nuclear Weapons that think killing themselves will qualify them for 72 virgins is a waterproof idea.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
CHENZ
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 6:21:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
i am repeatedly saying that if these nuclear weapons come in the hands of the anti social elements..
What would be the result??
We cant even imagine!!!!
I know that nuclear weapons play a major role in the countries security and power and every country in the competition of becoming superpower is just dealing with these deadly weapons..
I just dont thing any reason behind this!!!!!
Just to show the superiority the nations are making nuclear weapons..
vivalayeo
Posts: 142
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 7:45:58 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Nuclear weapon's in my opinion have made sure that there has not been a world war three. In the 20th century we saw the world get smaller, and war's get increasingly deadly and brutal. When two countries are afraid of mutually assured desruction, they are more likely to co-operate than not. If it were not for nuclear weapon's, the cold war, would have been a very, very hot war indeed.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 9:10:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 7:45:58 AM, vivalayeo wrote:
Nuclear weapon's in my opinion have made sure that there has not been a world war three. In the 20th century we saw the world get smaller, and war's get increasingly deadly and brutal. When two countries are afraid of mutually assured desruction, they are more likely to co-operate than not. If it were not for nuclear weapon's, the cold war, would have been a very, very hot war indeed.

WWIII is better than no world at all.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 9:14:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
My suggestion arm every nation on earth with 100 high powered warheads and a detection system that will let the countries know if a nuke has been launched against them. Nobody would launch a nuke because it would ensure instant death for them. Also bubonic plague, smallpox, and Ebola are all much bigger threats to the world that are nukes.
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 9:16:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 3:02:17 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 2:57:16 AM, CHENZ wrote:
How will they protect themeslves?
By making them there will be boh sides mass destruction..

Has the world gotten so insane that only people within the nation are of concern? Is it of no concern that the rest of the world gets blown to smithereens? Nuclear weapons and MAD have only existed for a very short time and the world has already had too many close calls. I think we were more protected when the worse a nation could suffer from was a bullet, and not total annihilation.

so... how would you turn back the clock?

I don't think the knowledge is going anywhere....

and if it doesn't go... neither will the bombs.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 9:36:49 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Do we need them? Probably not. Do we want them? Obviously.

Nuclear weapons fill no special vacuum in the world that must be filled in order for it to survive, so to call for the "need" of nuclear weapons for nations is silly. Even in the reality that is the world we live in, the idea of needing nuclear weapons - often brought up in the paranoid delusions of North Korea, India/Pakistan, and Iran - is not always true. They're fantastic bargaining chips in a lot of cases, but they also don't always outweigh the benefits.

But we totally want these weapons that can wipe out millions in the blink of an eye. They're super-destructive weapons that burn hotter than the sun itself. They strike fear into the hearts of your enemies, and your own population. Plus they're pretty cool when you get right down to it.
brian_eggleston
Posts: 3,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 9:43:20 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ireland should have nuclear weapons. They are a sitting duck at the moment. Here is the full extent of the Irish Defence Forces:

Army
Armoured Vehicles: 65
Tanks: 0

Navy
Coastal patrol ships: 8
Frigates: 0
Destroyers: 0
Aircraft carriers: 0
Submarines: 0
Troop Carriers: 0
Assault ships / landing craft: 0

Air Force:
Fisheries patrol aircraft: 1
Single seat propeller-driven reconnaissance planes: 5
Fighters: 0
Bombers: 0

http://www.military.ie...

Ireland is very vulnerable to attack. Here is a list of European countries with the military capability of launching an invasion of Ireland by both land and sea:

Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Russian Federation
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Irish should invest in nuclear deterrent as soon as possible in order to prevent one of her neighbours just walking in and taking over.
Visit the burglars' bulletin board: http://www.break-in-news.com...
Strikeeagle84015
Posts: 867
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 11:20:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ireland doesn't ever need to worry about invasion because no one will ever conquer Ireland I once saw on youtube this quote that I think is quite fitting to describe Ireland
"If you launched every nuclear weapon in existence at Ireland and then invaded you would still find yourself being chased by an army of angry red heads using nothing but broken beer bottles as weapons"
this song pretty adequately summarizes it
: At 8/17/2010 7:17:56 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
: Hey dawg, i herd you like evangelical trolls so we put a bible thumper in yo bible thumper so you can troll while you troll!

Arguing with an atheist about God is very similar to arguing with a blind man about what the Sistine Chapel looks like
Marilyn Poe

Strikeeagle wrote
The only way I will stop believing in God is if he appeared before me and told me that he did not exist.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 11:38:06 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 9:10:47 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 7:45:58 AM, vivalayeo wrote:
Nuclear weapon's in my opinion have made sure that there has not been a world war three. In the 20th century we saw the world get smaller, and war's get increasingly deadly and brutal. When two countries are afraid of mutually assured desruction, they are more likely to co-operate than not. If it were not for nuclear weapon's, the cold war, would have been a very, very hot war indeed.

WWIII is better than no world at all.

Well to be fair, in the midst of a WW III there would no longer be a world. ;)
cjl
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 11:39:32 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 11:38:06 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/9/2010 9:10:47 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 7:45:58 AM, vivalayeo wrote:
Nuclear weapon's in my opinion have made sure that there has not been a world war three. In the 20th century we saw the world get smaller, and war's get increasingly deadly and brutal. When two countries are afraid of mutually assured desruction, they are more likely to co-operate than not. If it were not for nuclear weapon's, the cold war, would have been a very, very hot war indeed.

WWIII is better than no world at all.

Well to be fair, in the midst of a WW III there would no longer be a world. ;)

only possibly.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 11:57:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 11:39:32 AM, cjl wrote:
At 8/9/2010 11:38:06 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/9/2010 9:10:47 AM, Yvette wrote:
At 8/9/2010 7:45:58 AM, vivalayeo wrote:
Nuclear weapon's in my opinion have made sure that there has not been a world war three. In the 20th century we saw the world get smaller, and war's get increasingly deadly and brutal. When two countries are afraid of mutually assured desruction, they are more likely to co-operate than not. If it were not for nuclear weapon's, the cold war, would have been a very, very hot war indeed.

WWIII is better than no world at all.

Well to be fair, in the midst of a WW III there would no longer be a world. ;)

only possibly.

No, most likely. With the technology we have now there wouldn't be much left if a WW III were to break out. Although I'm against nuclear weapons they have done some good, preventing the world from going to war. The Cold War is a good example of that; both The US and USSR knew the consequences of such wars.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 12:58:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 11:57:10 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
No, most likely. With the technology we have now there wouldn't be much left if a WW III were to break out.

Well, we might destroy human civilization, but the world will still exist.

Although I'm against nuclear weapons they have done some good, preventing the world from going to war. The Cold War is a good example of that; both The US and USSR knew the consequences of such wars.

Technically, you'd have to thank greed for the outcome; both the US and the USSR knew that if they launched a nuclear war, all their built-up power and wealth would evaporate in an instant. That greed helped prevent quite a lot of destruction. ;)
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:02:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 9:43:20 AM, brian_eggleston wrote:
Ireland should have nuclear weapons. They are a sitting duck at the moment. Here is the full extent of the Irish Defence Forces:

Army
Armoured Vehicles: 65
Tanks: 0

Navy
Coastal patrol ships: 8
Frigates: 0
Destroyers: 0
Aircraft carriers: 0
Submarines: 0
Troop Carriers: 0
Assault ships / landing craft: 0

Air Force:
Fisheries patrol aircraft: 1
Single seat propeller-driven reconnaissance planes: 5
Fighters: 0
Bombers: 0

http://www.military.ie...

Ireland is very vulnerable to attack. Here is a list of European countries with the military capability of launching an invasion of Ireland by both land and sea:

Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Russian Federation
Spain
Sweden
Turkey
United Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Irish should invest in nuclear deterrent as soon as possible in order to prevent one of her neighbours just walking in and taking over.

NONE of the above countries will invade Ireland, we're sitting in a neat NATO-EU Shield. If Ireland is invaded, the EU responds, which in turn actives NATO. That's a few million troops and a few thousand nukes to our rescue. Meanwhile any (extremely unlikely) terrorist threat an be handled by Britain. We're comfortable.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:03:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/9/2010 12:58:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 8/9/2010 11:57:10 AM, InsertNameHere wrote:
No, most likely. With the technology we have now there wouldn't be much left if a WW III were to break out.

Well, we might destroy human civilization, but the world will still exist.

Although I'm against nuclear weapons they have done some good, preventing the world from going to war. The Cold War is a good example of that; both The US and USSR knew the consequences of such wars.

Technically, you'd have to thank greed for the outcome; both the US and the USSR knew that if they launched a nuclear war, all their built-up power and wealth would evaporate in an instant. That greed helped prevent quite a lot of destruction. ;)

Wow, are you cynical. I'm fairly confident that the destruction of EVERYTHING, not just the assets on the ledger was sufficient to dissuade the powers that be from pushing the button.
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/9/2010 1:03:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Need? no.

want? Oh definteiy, who wouldn't want a phallic weapon capable of killing 20,000 people in an urban area instantly?
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?