I know I'm not alone in feeling this.

[readwriteblue.livejournal.com]

Comments

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

the us is the least likely to nuke anyone. nukes are a dirty word, and anyone who even looks like useing them gets funny look. and it still only takes one wrong move and everyone gose splat.

you right, no country will give up nukes. and the number of wepoens dose matter, if only becous if your spending money mainting nukes your never going to lanch, then that money could be spent on beter things. plus, the smaller the arsnel, the smaller the risk of something going wrong and the world turning in to a cinder.

and, on the point of useing nukes on an invading force not being an esclation, dureing the cold war, nato had a policy that if the russans made a move in to western germany, thay would use nukes. the russans would retaleate with a full strike, folowed by the nato countrys in a full strike. so, at dureing the cold war, it would have been an esclation.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

No, the non-escalating use of nukes is against an invading force on friendly/neutral soil. The nato full scale response was not an escalating responce it was a policy decision intended to tell Russia that they would not take increment their use of force and would go straight to the deterrent effect.

I.E. They made it official policy in order to deter the USSR from attacking. The strikes described were not defensive nuklear blasts, they were full scale retaliation.

Also, the number of weapons does matter. And smaller is worse, the less nukes one has the more likly strikes are because the less likly deterrent response is.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

the number dose matter, in a lot of ways. one, nukes are expencive, and the more there are, the more chance here is that there could be a fuck up.

and, there is also the nuklear non prolfration treaty, witch said that those signtors who had nukes would eventuly get rid of them.

lets not forgot the us has all its icbms, plus the sub lanched missless. and sub lanched missless are far more diffcult to take out. its why there used. so its not like a redunction in the number of warheads is gona screw the US over, and ideed, it may lead the way to starting a decomsoning proses to help meet the non prolfration treaty.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

I dont think you understand deterrent theory, you should read up.

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

im willing to give that. everything ive lernd has been from a few wiki articals a while ago and a radio program.

however, i will say this. britan, france, russia, the usa, and china, all signed an agreement with the other countrys of the world to give up nuklear wepoens. it is the treaty with the most signtors, i belver. these 5 countrys (along with india, pakastan, and north korea), should give up there wepoens in line with the treaty. then, we would be at senario 2 that you gave, no one has nukes. and to me, that present infitnaly less chance of us all being vaporised.

i find (as, prahaps, i hope everyone else), all war apporhant, but axsept there are times when it may be nessesery, for a viraty of resons, but nukes, and cemical wepoens, and doubly so for biological wepoens, repsent a class of wepeons so destrctive that, to me, thay have no place on the battle field, or even on the negotating table, for use as a barganing chip

but, i will axspt that nations will be reluctient to give up nukes whilst other nations have them. however, nukes are very exspenive to maintane, and, indeed, replace. money witch could be much beter spent on a long list off things both social and milatery.

and, presuming im on the right thread, these, as well as not brakeing anther treaty (the test ban treaty), are, for me, exelent resons. but, also, to a large extent, moral. and, at the end of the day, if your off a diffrant moral mind set, we'll just end up agueing in circles.

[goumindong.livejournal.com]

No such treaty exists.

I cant understand what you are trying to say with the rest of it,

[red-pill.livejournal.com]

witch treaty?

the test ban treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Test_Ban_Treaty) or the non prolifration treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty). becouse thay both exist.

and, becous, you asked so nicely

"m willing to give that. Everything I’ve learned has been from a few wiki articles a while ago and a radio program.

however, I will say this. Brittan, France, Russia, the USA, and china, all signed an agreement with the other countries of the world to give up nuclear weapons. it is the treaty with the most signatures, i believe. these 5 countries (along with India, Pakistan, and north Korea), should give up there weapons in line with the treaty. then, we would be at senario 2 that you gave, no one has nukes. And to me, that present infinitely less chance of us all being vaporized.

i find (as, perhaps, I hope everyone else), all war abhornt but except there are times when it may be necessary, for a verity of reasons, but nukes, and chemical weapons, and doubly so for biological weapons, represent a class of weapons so destructive that, to me, they have no place on the battle field, or even on the negotiating table, for use as a bargaining chip

but, i will accept that nations will be reluctant to give up nukes whilst other nations have them. however, nukes are very expensive to maintain, and, indeed, replace. money witch could be much beter spent on a long list off things both social and military.

and, presuming im on the right thread, these, as well as not braking anther treaty (the test ban treaty), are, for me, excellent reasons. But, also, to a large extent, moral. and, at the end of the day, if your off a different moral mind set, we'll just end up arguing in circles. "