Jump to content


Photo

Should countries have weapons of mass destruction


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 monsta666

monsta666

    -the bees knees

  • Retired
  • 2782 posts
  • Location:London, England
  • Interests:I enjoy many things and am keen to keep in-touch with real life events. I enjoy reading all sorts of material and like to travel and experience different cultures even though I don't have the money to fulfil my dreams! My biggest passion however lies in sports and I am a real sports addict that will watch almost anything sports-related. My childhood football team is Arsenal and I will support them till the day I die! Saying that, there is more to life than sports and I am open-minded and curious person so I am open to trying out most things!<br><br>Since I'm here it's clear one of my big interests is anime. I have been watching anime since 1994 but only since 2006 I have been watching it on a regular basis. The genres I enjoy the most are fantasy/action/sci-fi anime with Fate/Stay and Claymore being series that I enjoy immensely. I have a certain weakness for harem but only in some doses.<br><br>Well that's it for me, if you want to learn more send me a pm. Have a good time on FTV and remember: this is just a forum so don't take things too seriously! You know who you are! ;)

Posted 31 January 2008 - 11:47 PM

In the recent political climate there is an attitude that certain countries should not be allowed weapons of mass destruction (namely Korea and Iran) due to these countries being deemed irresponsible. My opinion on the matter is everyone should be entitled to weapons. How can certain countries decide that other countries are irresponsible and how does one become responsible? In any case no country is stupid enough to use them so let them have it.

Remember weapons of mass destruction not only means nuclear weapons but also includes biological (anthrax), chemical (nerve gas) and radiological weapons (dirty bombs) as well. What is your opinion? Should certain countries be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons or is it within every countries right to obtain one. For the optimist you could say unilateral disarmament but in this world I don't think that will happen.

Speaking of disarmament the Chemical Weapons Convention (which also covers biological weapons) has been signed by 183 countries. The convention states that all chemical/biological weapons should be destroyed by 2007 (a year late already). As it stands only 33% of weapons have been destroyed since the treaty formed in 1993 with USA planning full disarmament on 2014 and Russia 2027. As far as I'm aware there are no plans of nuclear/radiological disarmament.



#2 EggBeast

EggBeast

    - deska`

  • Retired
  • 1597 posts
  • Location:Right here, right now. Of course I recall my past times an places, and I must always respect my times and places to be. lol
  • Interests:Dang, I'm updating this nonsense!<br><br>I love going to college, I love meeting all kinds of new people, I'm loving my major, and I'm... liking my minor.<br><br>So... I've gotta say I'm still enjoying software development, and enjoying mathematics even more than when I started college.<br><br>I'm still big into philosophy, of course. I still enjoy poetry, though I haven't been writing quite as much as I used to. And I still love to talk religion.<br><br>I've got to say that I've cut down quite a bit on my anime intake from a few years ago, although I still watch a series from time-to-time.<br><br>hmmm... I also enjoy going on late-night walks, the occasional run, I still like Dance Revolution, going on hikes, making &quot;that's what she said&quot; jokes... the usual. :)

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:44 AM

Bah! Should countries have weapons of mass destruction? Hell no!

Do they have any choice? Not really.

What really starts to such with nuclear/biological weaponry is that there is no direct defense against them. All we've got is the threat that we'll bomb them before we get hit, should they ever choose to launch any weaponry against us. So the only defense against weapons of mass destruction are weapons of mass destruction, or better yet, even deadlier weapons of mass destruction.

It's really terrible, every major nation in the world has the capacity to destroy the entire planet within a day or two. The only problem would be that they, too, would likely be destroyed.

So, disarmament? yeah, disarmament would be great, but it simply wouldn't be feasible.

But as for letting more and more nations have access to WoMD, sure, it would be great to prevent it. The less governments with access to them, the less the chance we have of some megalomaniacally insane ruler decide to go ape on the world and destroy a country while they're at it.

Is it ethical to prevent other nations from gaining WoMD? I suppose that is arguable, but at some point, you've got to watch out for your own skin!
"I know. Yes, I know we all go away." - Devin Townsend!

#3 overfiend1976

overfiend1976

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • 154 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth!
  • Interests:Anime (obviously), My daughter, Good books, Good movies, Good video games and definitely, my soon to be wife!

Posted 01 February 2008 - 12:50 AM

Of course we all should have WMD's! I mean, c'mon how the hell else is everyone going to be kept in line if they're not kept in perpetual fear?! Sheesh. Let's think for a minute folks.

If you didn't notice, I'm being extremely sarcastic.

The need for WMD's is a complete joke.

The only reason the US of good ol A has so many is that we need to keep terrorism under control....by being the biggest terrorists on the block.

Ahhh. Gotta love the land of the free. Just as long as you can blow the shit outta anyone that disagrees with you. *shrug*
This signature will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

#4 smokie

smokie

    -sama

  • Retired
  • 1266 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Interests:Anime, Science fiction, fantasy, comics(western and manga), action figures, video games.<br><br>I am an asshole. I tend to be rude and outrageous at times. I will insult your favorite anime series or character at some point in time. Whats more I will probably enjoy doing so. I'm also FTV's Corrupter of Souls and probably the closest thing we have to a troll here but thats only if I'm in a bad mood and a few select people get on my nerves. In short don't take what I say too seriously. <br><br>My Harem(WIP)<br>Minami Iwasaki from Lucky Star.<br>Jean from Claymore.<br>Kagaimi. Yukino's mother from Nagasarete Airantou.<br>Scarlet Claw from Re:Cutie Honey.<br>Asami from Mushi-Uta.<br>Kudryavka Noumi from Little Busters!<br>Yuiko Kurugaya from Little Busters!<br>Sasami Sasasegawa from Little Busters!<br>Rin Natsume from Little Busters!<br>Mio Nishizono from Little Busters!<br>Kanata Futaki from Little Busters!<br><br>Thats right I have done a claim on the majority of the girls from Little Busters! with no anime adaptation in sight. I'm evil and I know it.<br><br>I'm also an Apprentice Key Master but I took that out of my sig since it was getting too cluttered.

Posted 01 February 2008 - 01:29 AM

QUOTE (monsta666 @ Jan 31 2008, 06:47 PM)
In any case no country is stupid enough to use them so let them have it.

First of all yes many nations would use nukes if they felt they could get away with it.

Secondly the US, the Russians, the Chinese, and most of UN don't trust them for other reasons. What if they sell these weapons? Or what if they don't guard them securely enough and they get stolen. Both are valid fears. There are already too many floating around out there because of the Soviet Unions collapse.

Also overfiend most of ours are left over from the Cold War when we needed them to scare the Soviets and Chinese into not starting shit unless they wanted to destroy the whole planet. We've just kept them around since there is no point in destroying good hardware.
Fansub TV Corrupter of Souls
Aniki. Proud leader and founder of Fansub TV's Dai Gurren-Dan.
~Do the Impossible, See the Invisible~
~Grow, Grow, Fight the Power~
~Touch the Untouchable, Break the Unbreakable~
~Grow, Grow, Fight the Power~

#5 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • 686 posts

Posted 01 February 2008 - 06:34 AM

QUOTE
How can certain countries decide that other countries are irresponsible and how does one become responsible?


The answer is easy : they are stronger (both military and economically).
On the other hand, the countries seeking WMD seek them so they won't be so easily bullied (and some other reasons, national pride, asserting one's position as regional leader...).
Just look at Iran, it's perfectly sensible for them to seek WMD, otherwise they risk an American invasion (who already invaded their two closer neighbours. Coincidence ? I don't think so).

Let's note that a lot of countries don't want WMD : South Africa or Ukraine dismantled their nuclear programs. Some countries like Japan, Germany, Brazil could easily develop a nuclear bomb in a few years.
Because of the non-proliferation treaty, but also because it's awfully expensive.

QUOTE

In any case no country is stupid enough to use them so let them have it. 


It's not the worst fear.
The fear is that either a bomb (nuclear, chemical or biological) ends in the wrong end (through corruption, theft...) or that there's a problem in the chain of command (the chain of command of Pakistan is less safe than the one of the USA or France).

Anyway, if Iran, as a nation, had WMD, it wouldn't be the most terrifying thing ever.
North Korea and the conflict India/Pakistan are quite more worrying.
At most, a conflict Iran/Israel would be worrying, but they're not even neighbours.
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#6 snorky2k

snorky2k

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • 218 posts

Posted 03 February 2008 - 09:15 PM

I wish that those were the only weapons of mass destruction. Global Strike (USA)adds a new and easier to use class (High velocity impact) as does China's recent anouncement of large scale weather manipulation (environmental) that they plan on demonstrating for the next olympics to guarantee a rain free contest. I don't know which concerns me more. Is the ability to take out a large number of cities without radioactive fallout worse than depriving a large area of water or making floods? Either way the worst is that a group of religious fanatics who want the end of the world to come quickly could easily take control to the point of using them at their will.

Now that our army and marines are almost too depleted to withstand and defend against an attack, we may be more likely to escalate to the bad stuff if threatened since we probably won't be able to deploy troups again for fifteen years.

Unlike other nations, we have proven that we will use our nukes. I acknowledge that England considered using theirs on Argentina in the 80's but they decided against it. I am sure that the decision to escalate has already been put into a decision tree and that some general will propose escalation within seconds of meeting the conditions in the decision tree.

Personnally I am against disarmament. To me, giving up a weapon only means that something exponentially stronger weapon has been deployed.

#7 Vicepuma

Vicepuma

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • 588 posts
  • Location:Sweden
  • Interests:Top 3 i have seen: <br><br>1. Black Lagoon<br>2. Casshern Sins<br>3. Slam Dunk ( even tough it was incomplete :()

Posted 03 February 2008 - 10:20 PM

Well the wepons where developed during times where it was actually healthy to own a few just to be on the safe side however using them and threatining to use are two different things.

WW2 did end swiftly because the americans used nukes but the cost was way too much considering the loss of human lifes ofc the contries priority is to keep ones own fellow citizens alive but should it be uphold to any means possible? I would say no because the war would have ended in matter of months anyway with all the oil embargos and supply shortages.

In our day and age it's more of a threat then back in the days cause if just someone gets a bit too greedy with the old soviet armaments we might be looking at a bleak outcome.

If we are realistic mass destruction wepons will exist for as long as there are oppsing powers that have them and i don't think Pakistan and India would destroy any of their same goes for all the other countries that want to protect their sovereignty.

As long as they exist as a threat i'm fine with it but if they are used we are f*ed.
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
My Top 5 atm:
- One Piece
- Fairy Tail
- Nurarihyon no Mago: Sennen Makyou
- Guilty Crown
- Bleach ( love the new arc brings back memories)

Interested in what I've seen?:My Animelist!

#8 EggBeast

EggBeast

    - deska`

  • Retired
  • 1597 posts
  • Location:Right here, right now. Of course I recall my past times an places, and I must always respect my times and places to be. lol
  • Interests:Dang, I'm updating this nonsense!<br><br>I love going to college, I love meeting all kinds of new people, I'm loving my major, and I'm... liking my minor.<br><br>So... I've gotta say I'm still enjoying software development, and enjoying mathematics even more than when I started college.<br><br>I'm still big into philosophy, of course. I still enjoy poetry, though I haven't been writing quite as much as I used to. And I still love to talk religion.<br><br>I've got to say that I've cut down quite a bit on my anime intake from a few years ago, although I still watch a series from time-to-time.<br><br>hmmm... I also enjoy going on late-night walks, the occasional run, I still like Dance Revolution, going on hikes, making &quot;that's what she said&quot; jokes... the usual. :)

Posted 03 February 2008 - 10:25 PM

Yup. It would be far too dangerous to do away with all our nukes. Sure, we could know that we don't have any nukes, but we wouldn't know if someone else has a few hidden up their sleeves, and because the only defense against a nuke is the threat of nuking straight back, well, we'd be veritably screwed.

Bombs suck! mad.gif
"I know. Yes, I know we all go away." - Devin Townsend!

#9 overfiend1976

overfiend1976

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • 154 posts
  • Location:Planet Earth!
  • Interests:Anime (obviously), My daughter, Good books, Good movies, Good video games and definitely, my soon to be wife!

Posted 03 February 2008 - 11:12 PM

Besides, we don't need WMD's, we just need lots of EggBeasts. I hear they're remarkably scary.
This signature will self-destruct in 5 seconds.

#10 khael

khael

    /人◕ ‿‿ ◕人\ being Meguca is suffering

  • Sempais
  • 1394 posts
  • Location:Room 29A, 1232 Lightbringer Building Adversary St. cor. Queens St., 6th Circle Hellstown
  • Interests:Anime! And gaming! And money!

Posted 04 February 2008 - 12:40 PM

Allow all countries to have WMD's!!! Education is the key!!!

Yeah i'm being sarcastic mind you.

My answer is simply no.
user posted image

"If it's for the sake of seeing others suffer, no effort is too great." ~Prince Baka

If you're going to enforce rules, don't be a hypocrite. You know who you are.

Things to note when reading my posts:
I have bad memory.
I'm like that anime character who's bad with names. I'm literally bad with names and faces.
I'm tired of political correctness/correctness in general, screw that, this is the internet.
Spelling liek dis doesn't necessitate illiteracy. U call it linguistic anarchy i.e. being lazy.
Also, I ****ed YOU'RE mom.

#11 Hiasubi

Hiasubi

    -Snuggle Bunny

  • Fansub TV Team
  • 1984 posts
  • Location:Happily Drowning

Posted 04 February 2008 - 12:48 PM

Im not sure, currently sicne other countries have WMDs then id say sure lets have them, but if others countries we to get rid of them then id say no, but there will probably be at least 1 country that will keep them even if they say they are getting rid of them.

So im not to sure, i think it will also come down to what state friendships are with other countries are, i dont think there is a difinitve yes or no to this.......




#12 snowpsyche

snowpsyche

    -chan

  • Kouhais
  • 115 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 12:32 AM

What makes me sad is that the reasonable people of any country, who want to live their lives in peace, aren't the ones who get to decide if the world gets nuked out of existence. I remember growing up afraid that the Russians (or us) were going to start WWIII and we'd all be vaporized (plus, there were lots of nice movies to help with the imagination...bleah.)

QUOTE (Dalriada @ Feb 01 2008, 12:34 AM)
QUOTE
Just look at Iran, it's perfectly sensible for them to seek WMD, otherwise they risk an American invasion (who already invaded their two closer neighbours. Coincidence ? I don't think so).



I agree, I think the current US policy does encourage countries to seek nuclear capability. Not that I want world nuclear proliferation, but I've always wondered how the "we can have them but you can't" rationale works.

#13 Hiasubi

Hiasubi

    -Snuggle Bunny

  • Fansub TV Team
  • 1984 posts
  • Location:Happily Drowning

Posted 19 February 2008 - 10:22 AM

QUOTE (snowpsyche @ Feb 19 2008, 01:32 AM)
I agree, I think the current US policy does encourage countries to seek nuclear capability. Not that I want world nuclear proliferation, but I've always wondered how the "we can have them but you can't" rationale works.

The only reasoning i can come up with for that is so that the Nations with WMDs will always have the upper hand, why would you start a war, or invade other countries if they can do the equal amount of Damage to you........

Its so the powerful stay powerful, if many countrys had WMD then it would mean equality, but many goverments dont want it that way, they want to stay superior to all......

Thats the only reasoning i can come up with for it..



#14 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • 686 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 10:53 AM

QUOTE
The only reasoning i can come up with for that is so that the Nations with WMDs will always have the upper hand, why would you start a war, or invade other countries if they can do the equal amount of Damage to you........


Add
-We are civilized, rational countries, so we won't use the nuclear bomb lightly. You're not.
-We are very cautious with our nuclear bombs, so there's almost no chance that a bomb will be stolen by or sold to terrorist groups. You're not.

I won't comment the validity of those objections. rolleyes.gif


A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#15 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • 1825 posts

Posted 19 February 2008 - 01:51 PM

the question is should anybody have weapons of mass destruction is simple really.
The answer is NO However as we don't live in an ideal world and because of human nature somebody will acquire them and hence the rest will feel the need to have them also so that they do not feel vulnerable.
Asking such a question is futile as we all acknowledge that WMDs are wrong but that doesn't mean anything in a world where the potential of them being used is so high.
ie. Ethically WMD's should not exist, but realistically that is not possible

#16 Hiasubi

Hiasubi

    -Snuggle Bunny

  • Fansub TV Team
  • 1984 posts
  • Location:Happily Drowning

Posted 21 February 2008 - 10:57 AM

Well Ethically Guns, KNife should also not exsist since they too are also dangerous, plus they too can also cause Mass Destruction, so imo none of them should exsist........

But sadly an ideal world will never happen since it would always contain someone whom only seeks power............

But askin gthe question Gustav isnt futile since many would argue that they exsisit to maintain the balance of power in the world and that they will stop the Bad people from taking control.......



#17 Dalriada

Dalriada

    -dono

  • Sempais
  • 686 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:04 AM

QUOTE (Hiasubi @ Feb 21 2008, 04:57 AM)
But askin gthe question Gustav isnt futile since many would argue that they exsisit to maintain the balance of power in the world and that they will stop the Bad people from taking control.......

Many would say they currently exist to maintain the unbalance of power in the world.

And that they've never bad guys from taking control (Ask in Chechnya, Tibet or Iraq).

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.
Ralph Waldo Emerson

#18 Hiasubi

Hiasubi

    -Snuggle Bunny

  • Fansub TV Team
  • 1984 posts
  • Location:Happily Drowning

Posted 21 February 2008 - 11:29 AM

QUOTE (Dalriada @ Feb 21 2008, 12:04 PM)
Many would say they currently exist to maintain the unbalance of power in the world.

But an unbalence of power is a balance non the less, it may not be a fair and balenced one, but it is still a balance,

Personally i think the bigger goverernments in he world are scared more that anything, which is why they tell other countries not have them. They are scared that they would become no longer authortive figures in the world.

They cant preach to other countries not to have them, when they have loads of them, if they were so bad it would make more sense to disspose of the ones they have themselves and then preach to others not to have them.



#19 Gustav1976

Gustav1976

    -sama

  • Retired
  • 1825 posts

Posted 21 February 2008 - 12:20 PM

Your aguement is slightly flawd: an imbalance is not a blalance, blalance implies both sides being equal.
I do agree that there is probably some elemnt of fear about losing power and becoming more vulnerable though.
It's been widely stated in various different places that one of the things those with power fear most is losing that power and fear does very strange things to the mind of even the most rational person.
If you also factor in the fact that those governement with the power will have greater control over economic markets and so on they would be even more reluctant to give up such an advantage.
In an ideal world there wouldn't be any weapons but we do not live in an ideal world so we feel the need to be the ones with the power.

#20 Gumaster

Gumaster

    -san

  • Kouhais
  • 398 posts

Posted 22 February 2008 - 05:46 AM

I don't personally have anything against governments having WMDs, since well, the thread of MAD prevents them from being used, cept for the countries who don't have them, and those countries shouldn't have any reason to be nuked in the first place. However, I'd still prefer there to be no WMDs at all...if a small group of individuals with ideals get even one, then we're in for a lot of trouble. Ideally, get rid of all WMDs, but realistically, just make sure the existing ones aren't used.
user posted image
In the beginning, God said "Let there not be an 'n' in Gumaster's name. And there was no 'n'.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users