Amazon.com Widgets

Right to possess nuclear weapons: Do nuclear weapons promote peace?

  • I belive yes

    If one person has nuclear weapons, there must be atleast one other country with nuclear weapons to keep the other country in check. Nuclear Technology is a valuable source of energy. Nuclear weapons, while destructive, also have a purpose in peace. If one person has nuclear weapons, there should be at least one other country to keep the other country from dominating all the other countries. Since it is unlikely that EVERY country with nuclear weapons will give them up, a few cool headed countries should have nuclear arsenals at their disposals in need of emergency. The threat of nuclear war keeps many countries from even going to war. Since the result would be chaos.

  • Nuclear Weapons Are a Deterrent

    1) After the two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, American-Japanese hostilities came to a swift close. You don't have to agree with the morality of the action, but it is an indisputable fact that it ended war. Since that time, no nukes have been utilized.
    2) People are smart enough to see the capability mankind has for destroying itself. Look at warfare in modern times. Casualty rates are way down, because people know the effect large-scale warfare can have with the prospect of nuclear weapon involvement.
    3) It's like Chess. If you know a move will get an important piece taken, with no possibility for gain, then you won't make that move.

  • If one person has nuclear weapons, there must be atleast one other country with nuclear weapons to keep the other country in check.

    Nuclear Technology is a valuable source of energy. Nuclear weapons, while destructive, also have a purpose in peace. If one person has nuclear weapons, there should be at least one other country to keep the other country from dominating all the other countries. Since it is unlikely that EVERY country with nuclear weapons will give them up, a few cool headed countries should have nuclear arsenals at their disposals in need of emergency. The threat of nuclear war keeps many countries from even going to war. Since the result would be chaos.

  • They are definitely peacekeepers.

    I love nuking fat people in the morning for the sake of my grandmother's deathbed made out of toast. Nuclear weapons make it so much easier to cook my bacon! It gets so hot that I start sweating and the windows in the house turn into stone. Nukes are love, nukes are life.

  • They are definitely peacekeepers.

    I love nuking fat people in the morning for the sake of my grandmother's deathbed made out of toast. Nuclear weapons make it so much easier to cook my bacon! It gets so hot that I start sweating and the windows in the house turn into stone. Nukes are love, nukes are life.

  • They are definitely peacekeepers.

    I love nuking fat people in the morning for the sake of my grandmother's deathbed made out of toast. Nuclear weapons make it so much easier to cook my bacon! It gets so hot that I start sweating and the windows in the house turn into stone. Nukes are love, nukes are life.

  • They are definitely peacekeepers.

    I love nuking fat people in the morning for the sake of my grandmother's deathbed made out of toast. Nuclear weapons make it so much easier to cook my bacon! It gets so hot that I start sweating and the windows in the house turn into stone. Nukes are love, nukes are life.

  • They are definitely peacekeepers.

    I love nuking fat people in the morning for the sake of my grandmother's deathbed made out of toast. Nuclear weapons make it so much easier to cook my bacon! It gets so hot that I start sweating and the windows in the house turn into stone. Nukes are love, nukes are life.

  • It Doesn't promote peace, rather, a mere suspension of hostilities

    There's a difference between negative and positive peace. Acquisition of nuclear weapons will trap countries further in security and defense dilemma. True, we have no experienced 'global' conflicts ever since WW2 and much of the credit goes to nuclear weapons. But similarly hostilities between regional powers like India and Pakistan have risen up. They are not in direct conflict with one another, however this doe not mean that they are at peace. Same applies to the international system. The fact that countries do not wage wars at global scale does not support the notion that we are at peace. TO achieve perpetual and positive peace, world should walks towards a nuclear non proliferated and a nuclear disarmament era.

  • Wheres World War III?

    If the US didn't develop the nuclear bomb:
    a) WWII would have stretched on longer, leading in thousands, or millions of causalities.
    B) the USSR would have most likely have spread it influence into Japan by getting involved
    c) Nukes kept a world scale war from occurring because Russia wouldn't dare attack the US, and the US wouldn't dare attack Russia, saving millions of lives, and the USSR wouldn't get the chance to take over more land.


    So are nukes peaceful? No. But they do keep the peace, yes it is through fear, but it is peace.

  • It doesn't really PROMOTE peace.

    It's just more of a defense system. Back in WW2, we used them to end a war that would've otherwise went on for years and costed millions of lives. Back then, it didn't promote peace, it just prevented a war from escalating. Today, it doesn't really promote peace. It just tells other nations, "attack me and you won't exist anymore." Therefore other nations are kind of discouraged from trying to attack us.

  • Blowing people up never solved anything

    Nuclear war is a very primitive way of warfare for two simple reasons
    1) Unintentional deaths
    2) what if we all start bombing each other


    No one can say that they can fully control the radius of nuclear debris and the people that get killed or injured. The definition of a terrorist is a person who directs attacks on civilians well by using nuclear warfare like in Hiroshima millions of innocent Japanese people were murdered heartlessly. The effects of the bomb are still showing up in this generation of children.

    What will happen if we bomb another country again and they say no way i have nukes to and they bomb north America, what do you think is going to happen. Obviously we are going to go and bomb them back. Which may result in other countries to get involved in the war which in the process will wipe out hundreds f millions of people.

  • No. Nuclear weapons do not promote peace, they just create apprehension for countries not to initiate war.

    Promoting peace and preventing war are two different things. The former means not only the absence of war but also the advancement of harmony and welfare of the society. While, the latter is just the absence of war. Surely, nuclear weapons do not advance the wellbeing of the society, thus they do not promote peace but avoid just war.

  • It Doesn't promote peace, rather, a mere suspension of hostilities

    There's a difference between negative and positive peace. Acquisition of nuclear weapons will trap countries further in security and defense dilemma. True, we have no experienced 'global' conflicts ever since WW2 and much of the credit goes to nuclear weapons. But similarly hostilities between regional powers like India and Pakistan have risen up. They are not in direct conflict with one another, however this doe not mean that they are at peace. Same applies to the international system. The fact that countries do not wage wars at global scale does not support the notion that we are at peace. TO achieve perpetual and positive peace, world should walks towards a nuclear non proliferated and a nuclear disarmament era.

  • NO They Dont

    All of you who say "Say one country has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. A conflict between this country and another begins. In the hopes of intimidating the other into submission, the hypothetical nation aims it's missiles at the enemy and threatens the launch. The enemy unveils it's own weapons, and a stalemate is drawn. Neither nation will launch it's weapons with the threat of damaging their own ground. " Your wrong. Not all leaders are sane humans. If Kim Jong Un wanted to im sure he woud just bomb every single enemy country. There are people who do not follow rules and are not normal out there so dont think that the will play by your rules.

  • NO They Dont

    All of you who say "Say one country has an arsenal of nuclear weapons. A conflict between this country and another begins. In the hopes of intimidating the other into submission, the hypothetical nation aims it's missiles at the enemy and threatens the launch. The enemy unveils it's own weapons, and a stalemate is drawn. Neither nation will launch it's weapons with the threat of damaging their own ground. " Your wrong. Not all leaders are sane humans. If Kim Jong Un wanted to im sure he woud just bomb every single enemy country. There are people who do not follow rules and are not normal out there so dont think that the will play by your rules.

  • Nuclear weapons do not promote peace.

    The only thing that having nuclear weapons does it promote fear. People and countries will fear each other rather than respect each other because they know they have something dangerous in their back pocket. If we ever want true peace, we need to throw down our weapons and not use them as a way to get what we want. One of these days things are going to go horribly wrong and we are going to destroy ourselves with these weapons.

  • No, they do not.

    Nuclear weapons do not promote peace, it promotes violence and threats. The power of a nuclear weapon is so strong and devastating that no one should be allowed to decide if and when it is used. It should not have been made in the first place, it causes more harm than good.

  • Nuclear weapons promote military capabilities, not peace

    Nuclear weapons do not promote peace. They do promote military might and strategic capabilities in the event of war. They also instill fear, particularly into nations that do not have nuclear weapons. Although nuclear weapons may act as a deterrent to military conflict, it is not the same as promoting peace.

  • Nuclear weapons can't promote peace as no weapons promote peace.

    Nuclear weapons and the threat of possessing and using them defeats the purpose of peace and harmony in society. Should two nations have disagreements the threat that they could pose to not only themselves, but also surrounding societies outweighs any possible benefits that possessing nuclear weapons could have. The effects of nuclear warfare are long-lasting and hard to counteract which would seem like a deterrent to use them in the first place, but so long as they are possessed there will also exist a threat of use.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.