68 coaches online • Server time: 17:50
* * * Did you know? The number of matches played is 2984453.
Recent Forum Topics  New Gnones vs Old Gn... | FUMBBL HAIKU'S | Custom Icon, Portrai... |
2009-12-10 20:08:35
24 votes, rating 2.5
24 votes, rating 2.5
While you're in the mood to debate global issues...
I've got one for you.
Nuclear Proliferation: A Good thing or a Bad Thing
What the experts have to say:
Kenneth Waltz:
Nuclear proliferation makes the political world more stable. Mutually Assured Destruction ensures that no country will be able to justify the use of their nuclear weapons. Additionally, the stability provided by nuclear proliferation makes it safe to fight conventional wars.
Scott Sagan:
Nuclear proliferation makes the political world unstable. The creation of more nuclear weapons increases the possibility that one will be detonated by a rogue state, a terrorist organization, or even by accident. Further, chances are good that one explosion would cause nuclear launches from other states, escalating the situation.
John Mearsheimer:
A country should always attempt to obtain a nuclear monopoly while protesting the nuclear proliferation of other nations. In the contemporary world, nuclear weapons mean power. A state's primary goal should be to obtain as much power as possible in relation to other states in order to ensure their survival.
Where do you stand?
Nuclear Proliferation: A Good thing or a Bad Thing
What the experts have to say:
Kenneth Waltz:
Nuclear proliferation makes the political world more stable. Mutually Assured Destruction ensures that no country will be able to justify the use of their nuclear weapons. Additionally, the stability provided by nuclear proliferation makes it safe to fight conventional wars.
Scott Sagan:
Nuclear proliferation makes the political world unstable. The creation of more nuclear weapons increases the possibility that one will be detonated by a rogue state, a terrorist organization, or even by accident. Further, chances are good that one explosion would cause nuclear launches from other states, escalating the situation.
John Mearsheimer:
A country should always attempt to obtain a nuclear monopoly while protesting the nuclear proliferation of other nations. In the contemporary world, nuclear weapons mean power. A state's primary goal should be to obtain as much power as possible in relation to other states in order to ensure their survival.
Where do you stand?
Comments
Posted by James_Probert on 2009-12-10 20:22:02
Before nuclear proliferation was prelavent, Mearsheimer was right.
When there were 2 'superpowers' in the world, Waltz was right.
Now though, with only one 'superpower', IMO Sagan is right, and as a consequence the Nuclear disarmament treaty is a good thing.
When there were 2 'superpowers' in the world, Waltz was right.
Now though, with only one 'superpower', IMO Sagan is right, and as a consequence the Nuclear disarmament treaty is a good thing.
Posted by mwilli72 on 2009-12-10 20:23:36
What we need here is a poll. And pie. Lots of pie. Pie proliferation. Mutually Assured Fatness.
Posted by pythrr on 2009-12-10 21:11:12
Pie to the G to the X to the more pie.
Posted by Jeffro on 2009-12-11 06:23:44
MAKIN' THE BOMBS!!!!
Posted by Archevol on 2009-12-11 09:11:17
Hurgh... too... many... answers....
Posted by Koigokoro on 2009-12-11 12:00:02
Open societies, good enough relations and cooperation between nations to minimize and remove any benefit of war.
Yup, not there yet.
Even meanwhile the weapons of destruction(not conquer) aren't a beneficial to use or have around.
Ofc everything is relative and the question whether 0,00001% rise or decrease in man's potential to wipe the whole world clean 5 times is a good one,
Yup, not there yet.
Even meanwhile the weapons of destruction(not conquer) aren't a beneficial to use or have around.
Ofc everything is relative and the question whether 0,00001% rise or decrease in man's potential to wipe the whole world clean 5 times is a good one,
Posted by Nighteye on 2009-12-12 19:02:47
M.A.D was relevant when you had 2 opposing superpowers, and all it really let to was a massive arms race. When the first nuclear-powered submarine was launched, M.A.D. was pretty much guaranteed.
You need an easily identifiable target for this to work however. When the enemy was USSR it was easy. Just point all your missiles towards Moscow and if you see them fire something at you, launch everything you got.
I am not sure who USA would need to nuke if some nuclear device was activated on US ground. Who do you destroy if say Al-Qaeda nukes a US town?
Nuclear weapons are indeed the Pandora's Box though. We can try to outlaw them all we want, we could try to enforce a policy so all warheads are destroyed. But that still doesn't prevent anyone from trying to build new ones in secret.
I guess my reply indicates I'm as confused about this question as everyone else. Nuclear weapons are terrible terrible inventions. But we have them now. I don't see a way for us to get rid of that threat. Ah to have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
You need an easily identifiable target for this to work however. When the enemy was USSR it was easy. Just point all your missiles towards Moscow and if you see them fire something at you, launch everything you got.
I am not sure who USA would need to nuke if some nuclear device was activated on US ground. Who do you destroy if say Al-Qaeda nukes a US town?
Nuclear weapons are indeed the Pandora's Box though. We can try to outlaw them all we want, we could try to enforce a policy so all warheads are destroyed. But that still doesn't prevent anyone from trying to build new ones in secret.
I guess my reply indicates I'm as confused about this question as everyone else. Nuclear weapons are terrible terrible inventions. But we have them now. I don't see a way for us to get rid of that threat. Ah to have to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Posted by DonTomaso on 2009-12-12 19:29:12
The fewer the better...
Or as Nicole Kidman said: I'm not afraid of someone who wants ten neuclear warheads, but I'm terrified of someone who wants only one.
If there aren't any around, that's a good thing.
Then we also have to understant that the world lives on various timelines. Some countries are still pretty medieval, and will try anything to produce neuclear weapons, when time catches up...
Or as Nicole Kidman said: I'm not afraid of someone who wants ten neuclear warheads, but I'm terrified of someone who wants only one.
If there aren't any around, that's a good thing.
Then we also have to understant that the world lives on various timelines. Some countries are still pretty medieval, and will try anything to produce neuclear weapons, when time catches up...
Posted by Irgy on 2010-01-12 22:04:20
Waltz's argument is such rubbish. It's like the way Americans seem to think that everyone having guns makes them safer. The sad reality is it doesn't work. If more people have guns, more people get shot. Similarly, more nukes means more chance of one going off. Whether he knows it or not, Waltz is simply talking bs, for reasons well explained by Mearsheimer.