Even if it was possible to successfully abolish nuclear weapons from the world, should we abolish them?

Asked by: Mathgeekjoe
  • 1 Nuke leads to more.

    All it takes is 1 nuclear bomb to be launched to spark a chain of others. If a country has the balls to do such a thing, this world (the only thing the human race has ever known to our knowledge) will be completely destroyed. I would rather let fate kill us with an asteroid than let an aggressively stupid nation nuke the world prematurely and lose the history and universal presence we have here.

    If there was a way to abolish nukes, myself and any sane person would say that we should.

  • Threats, just threats...

    Nuclear weapons' cons outweigh its benefits. Think about this; nuclear apocalypse. If only 100 nukes were fired, the nuclear winter could cause worldwide famine, killing billions (drop in precipitation).

    Nuclear threats can turn world-ending. In 1962, the Cuban Missile Crisis almost led to a nuclear war (Thank gosh JFK successfully resolved it). Today, Kim Jong-un is threatening a nuclear attack on the United States. This could be avoided if the nuclear weapon was simply abolished.

  • There's no point in nuclear weapons.

    If no one has nuclear weapons, no one can use them against each other so they would not be needed for security. Humans survived for millennia before nuclear weapons were ever invented and there was never any need for them. If they are all removed now we would not suddenly need them either.

  • Better weapons more dead

    Weapons are designed to kill people. The more weapons we have the more people die. To get rid of wars we should get rid of religion I'm happy to discuss further why religion is a bad thing. Need more words... The word minimum is a bit high . .

  • Nuclear weapons have many uses.

    The semi/non-lethal uses of nuclear weapons can save lives. There are many uses of nuclear weapons other than vaporizing a city. A nuclear weapon can be used as an Electromagnetic Pulse if detonated high in the atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated that high in the atmosphere there is no fallout, no soot produce to cause a nuclear winter, and no nitric oxides produce to weaken the ozone. Plus use of a nuclear weapon to produce an EMP produces few casualties, while some would die because of vehicle accidents and lack of electricity, it would over all kill fewer people than conventional weapon would require for the same effect.

    Nuclear weapons are the produce the largest explosion of all current weapons making them some of the best options to intercept a large number of ballistic missiles close together. While alternatives are cheaper for taking out single ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons are the best for taking out a volley or another nuke using countermeasures. The shear fact that nukes are the best counter for massive amounts of ballistic missiles is a good enough reason to keep them.

    Low yield airburst nuclear weapons can be used to take out hardened missile silos. While conventional weapons have some capabilities to take out enemy ballistic missile silos, they don't have as high of probability of success as a single accurate nuclear blast. It is important to note that air bursting nuclear weapons produce little nuclear fallout and little nitric oxide. Also important to note is that low yield nuclear weapons produce less intense flash meaning they are significantly less likely to produce a firestorm and thus would not produce a nuclear winter. On top of that, enemy missile silos aren't filled with much flammable matter as a city thus producing no soot.

    Nuclear weapons can also be used to deflect incoming meteors and asteroids. It is important to know that meteors and asteroids can do several times more damage than any nuclear weapon can. Giving up the strongest thing we have against these forces of destruction seems like a bad idea. I much rather have a nuclear weapon and not need it, than need a nuclear weapon and not have it.

  • Security is essential.

    Whether it be threats from this earth, or natural threats from space, I would prefer to have weapons powerful and fearful enough protecting my nation. I'm not saying that at every opportunity we nuke our enemies, but if they had fought to our doorstep, we should be ready to end it on our terms. I have yet to receive enough proof that nuclear winter and drought is even plausible, being that hundreds of nuclear tests happened in the 1900's, and we didn't have any "Nuclear Winter". The five recognized nations by START have proven that it is possible to have these weapons and not use them to murder billions.

  • Would not work:

    Its all well and good to say nuclear weapons are bad and evil.

    Because they are, should the be used? No

    will they? Depends on who controls them, everyone governments included finds a reason to justify their actions. So if push comes to shove and a nation is losing a war you can bet they will make use of their nukes.

    Its all well and good to say ban them. How exactly?

    Do we make a UN agreement to ban them?

    What about rogue nations that don't care about the UN, those very nations that are attempting to build nukes now?

    Nukes will never be banned because their is no way to enforce such a ban and nations will not allow themselves to be at a strategic disadvantage.

    Just look at whats happened to the Ukraine they gave up all their nuclear weapons, signed a nice piece of paper saying the Russians would not invade them. Look up recent events and see how well that has worked for them.

    A nation without nuclear capability is not taken as seriously as a military threat by nations who have nukes.

    Its all well and good to have a big conventional military but should you have the guts to attack someone with nuclear weapons.

    Who has the capability and possibly the will to destroy your cities, would you risk it?

    That is the question every nation has had to ask itself before declaring war since the invention of the nuclear weapon. That is the true purpose of the nuclear weapon to make the reality of war so costly, that military action is no longer considered a viable option.

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