FAQ |
Calendar |
![]() |
|
![]() |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Let's disarm our nukes and see what happens.
I propose the US disarm it's nukes, and let's see what happens. It's not like russia or North korea is going to start throwing nukes at us. I think the only real problem that could occur is when say Russia meddles with a country we say hey stop it, then they tell us to go fuck ourselves but that happens regardless of whether we got nukes or not because we both know neither of us has the balls to fire them.
So, if we disarm our nukes, and we create a treaty to disarm and never create nuclear bombs (unless Elon wants to nuke mars), wont other countries follow our lead since realistically if they did shoot off a nuke at us or an ally, they'd get obliterated even without us using nukes. We can regulate the resources and information people need to create nuclear bombs well enough, and if we had Russia side with us on this we could crack down on North Korea. I think we as a whole are just afraid to take the first step towards disarmament, I'm sure there will be many people responding to this with immediate rejections citing different reasons why they believe disarming our nukes would be problematic. But none of that really matters since it happens anyways, whether we have nukes or not. Edit: I think we could frame it this way, having nukes is more dangerous than not having nukes. Whatever problems could occur or be blamed on disarmament, would not outweigh the dangers having active nukes pose. Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-30-2019 at 10:18 PM. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Not having nukes when other countries do have nukes is more dangerous than having nukes. So we can't frame it that way.
Last edited by TriPolar; 10-30-2019 at 10:21 PM. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I propose we dismantle the fire department, and see if any more fires happen..
|
#4
|
||||
|
||||
We won't have any more environmental issues if we just get rid of the environment.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men. |
|
|||
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Multilateral arms-reduction treaties are not necessarily a bad idea; it's not like it must be a unilateral or all-or-nothing decision.
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I disagree, them having nukes and us not having nukes is no more dangerous than us having nukes, in fact it's less dangerous.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
That applies to nuclear powers that are stable, rational countries. That can not be said about the USA at this time. Hopefully the USA will stabilize before an irrecoverable act is made.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I guess in this fantasy...the UK and France retaliate??? Not likely. Russia has nukes for them too.
|
|
|||
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
President Kamala decommissions all our nukes in early 2029. Shortly afterwards, Putin nukes our 100 largest cities and our 100 most important military bases. They broadcast a radio transmission to the smoldering ruins of America, and to France and the UK (now just England and Wales) and says, "if you lay a finger on us in retaliation, we'll nuke cities #101-200, as well as London and Paris and the next 10 largest cities in England and France". You think anyone's going to do anything to Russia at that point? I don't. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Here's the sort of thing that I'm getting at about the lack of stability.
Quote:
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
We withdrew from northern Syria. AFAIK, we've still got several thousand people stationed at Incirlik.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Thanks.
__________________
Hour after hour, day after day, we paddled and sang and slept under the hot sun on the northern ocean, wanting never to return. |
|
|||
#15
|
|||
|
|||
What do you mean your nukes? they also protect NATO,Taiwan,Sth Korea,Australia and the Saudi etc etc who start building their own the day after the USA decommissions their own weapons. What could possibly go wrong.
|
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
![]() No, either everyone disarms together, which, frankly, is never going to happen, or no one does. Which is more likely. We haven't even been successful in stopping other nations from getting the evil things, even nations who should never, ever have them. As to your thinking that having nukes (that is, us having them) is more dangerous than not, well...that's true, if we were some small nation who didn't care about what goes on outside our borders and has zero influence or need for outside connections. Sadly, the US ain't that nation. Even without nukes, the US would be a target...in fact, without them, we'd be more of a target, unless we decided that we would go total isolationist, feudal Japan levels, and didn't want any trade or any input into how the world operates. Assuming we don't go that route, then not having nukes just means we are open to that much more external extortion by countries that do...and pretty much renders our conventional military useless, or so degraded at to be so. We move a carrier, and North Korea threatens a nuclear strike. What do we do then? Hope they are bluffing? And if they aren't? I guess just take the hit. China decides that it doesn't want these silly freedom of navigation runs the US is doing in 'their' territory (since ancient times, dontchaknow??) and threatens a nuke strike. What do we do? Russia decides it REALLY doesn't like all these former client slave states...sorry, partner countries...to have left them and joined NATO...and decides that isn't acceptable. And threatens to use it's far superior nuclear capabilities unless NATO tosses them out for the Soviets..er, sorry, the Russian Federation...to snatch them back up. What do you suppose NATO does with a toothless US? Sure, they have some nukes...think the Europeans would risk a confrontation with a nuclear superior Russia and no US to back them up? ![]()
__________________
-XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
America going nuke-free would cause more nuclear proliferation, not less. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Ironically, China itself would frantically be building nukes. Their own current (modest) nuclear posture is predicated on the US, our own nuclear levels and policies, and the balance between the US and Russia wrt nukes. They figured, we don't need as many, just enough for a credible deterrence. But that calculation would instantly change if the US did this silly idea of the OPs.
__________________
-XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter! |
|
|||
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I’m a “no nukes “ kind of guy and a risk taker at heart. Even so, “See what happens” is not a policy I could endorse.
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The concept relevant here is their approach which includes what is frequently called escalating to deescalate. Both public statements and more recent weapons development support that notion being part of Russia's nuclear doctrine. Briefly it's the idea that they can use limited first-use nuclear strikes (escalating from merely conventional means) when conventional conflict has turned against them and they want to de-escalate in a way that is favorable to them. That's a concept now when we still have strong strategic nuclear forces. Russia is effectively gambling that the US and our nuclear capable allies won't choose to risk further escalation in response to those initial limited strikes. Even now, when they face an existential threat if they guess wrong, they have crafted nuclear doctrine to conduct limited nuclear strikes when it is advantageous. That doesn't strike me as an adversary that will respond to unilateral disarmament by disavowing first use of nuclear weapons. It looks a lot more like one that, seeing the risk of guessing wrong going down, is more likely to use nuclear weapons. Then there is the effect on all of our allies and partners that don't have nuclear capability. They know that's there's a US nuclear arsenal to fall back on to protect their most vital national interests. That ceases if we unilaterally disarm and creates an incentive for them to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and develop their own weapons. Sure there's the normal tools to prevent that like sanctions and conventional military strikes. Those tools are problematic when we're discussing nations that are already our strategic allies/partners. Increasing the number of nuclear armed nations is not on my Christmas list this, or any other, year. If the number of nuclear armed nations does go up that comes with the risk that relatively obscure (in US awareness) regional friction points now become potential triggers for nuclear release somewhere in the world. The US disarming does not necessarily reduce the risk of nuclear war. It may increase those risks. I would call potentially increasing the risk of nuclear war worse than than the US merely having nuclear weapons. Last edited by DinoR; 10-31-2019 at 01:30 AM. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I'll point out that there was a four year period when one country had nuclear weapons. And they used them against another country. There has been a seventy year period when more than one country has had nuclear weapons. And no nuclear weapons have been used during that period. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Tell that to Ukraine, who sent their nuclear weapons to Russia after the fall of the USSR. Do you think Russia would be occupying Crimea if Ukraine had kept a nuclear deterrent?
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Are you sure?
|
|
|||
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Removing the US's nukes absolutely increases the chance of nuclear war. The two ways to prevent nuclear war is for neither side to have nukes or both sides. I read an article about the game theory of nuclear war that was pretty interesting. It mentioned how the ideal leader(who pushes the button) should be someone who appears(probably not actually is) a little insane and vengeful. The other side needs to be absolutely sure you will launch your nukes. The other part of this is that you need to appear to be able to launch your nukes. The best way to achieve this is to really be able to launch your nukes. I read about some ideas that maybe the button for the nukes shouldn't actually work. But the risk is that the other side figures that out and then nukes you because they know you can't retaliate.
The other thing that is interesting to me is if the proliferation of nukes among the world powers is what we can attribute 'the long peace' to. Starting a non-nuclear war seems like an easy way to get into a nuclear war and so maybe countries avoid starting one. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
__________________
"You can do anything you set your mind to...But money helps" |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Let's say Russia threatens the US with a nuke after we disarm. Let's say they drop a nuke on us. The US would retaliate by shutting down their power grids, disabling hospitals, and isolating the country.
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
How many years until we disarm our nukes? 50? 100? 200? Is there an estimated time of nuclear disarmament, would you support a treaty aimed to disarm all nukes across all countries by a certain time period? How many years until an accident occurs, or until conflict rises and a nation launches another nuke? Do you think we'll reach total disarmament before or after us humans nuke ourselves again? Edit: So let's say you support the idea of everyone disarming by a certain time period. How do you intend to make that happen? If no one leads the race to nuclear disarmament, there will never be disarmament. The US, will have to be the ones to first reduce their nuclear stockpile, then the rest of the world can follow suit, including Russia and North Korea. Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-31-2019 at 07:47 PM. |
#29
|
||||
|
||||
I'd love to see less nukes in the world, but even a lefty peacenik like me recognizes that this would be a batshit-insane way to go about it.
|
|
|||
#30
|
|||
|
|||
I think you are vastly overestimating U.S. ability to "shut down" someone else's power grids and hospitals at will via cybernetics. Granted, I have no access to NSA abilities or classified knowledge, but I think this is way too optimistic.
Last edited by Velocity; 10-31-2019 at 08:08 PM. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Plus, as already mentioned above, the moment the USA rids itself of its nukes, numerous small American ally nations would feel intense pressure to arm themselves up, because they are now considerably more vulnerable than before. Nations like South Korea, Poland, Taiwan, Japan, etc. They now have every incentive in the world to get themselves an independent nuclear deterrent. Bear in mind that even having America as an ally didn't stop Israel from stocking itself up on some nukes. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
And even a universal nuclear disarmament might not be a real blessing. The threat of nuclear war may have imposed a limit on conventional warfare. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I think you're underestimating the power the US has. The fact you have to buy a chinese cell phone to avoid getting tapped by the NSA should be evidence enough that our government has went above and beyond to ensure our position in the world if push comes to shove. I would not be surprised if the US has actually hijacked nuclear facilities and in the case of the Russias shooting off nukes for example, they could detonate on themselves. My point being, even without nukes the US could win virtually any war if we went all out. Nuclear isn't the biggest deterrent, our intelligence is. Last edited by Barack Obama; 10-31-2019 at 08:57 PM. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If we're playing monopoly, and you lay it out there that if I do something u dont like you'll flip the board over, and I lay it out there that if you do something I don't like I'll flip the board over. There is mutual insured self destruction if either of us piss one another off. I think both of us, would agree that forming a treaty to NOT flip the board over would be better for both parties, since I'm sure both of us want to continue playing monopoly. |
|
|||
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
What's batshit crazy is that we have all these bombs just sitting there. Eventually, those bombs will explode. Whether intentional or unintentional, plus if those nuclear facilities are hijacked, our own nukes could be used against us. |
#36
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Let me give you a timely example of what folks have been trying to explain to you...obviously in vain. Take the situation in Syria. Until recently, the US, despite having a very small force, was the balance point maintaining the status quo in the region. No one could or would go outside of certain parameters because they didn't want to risk the US's wrath. Then, a freaking orange haired monkey decided, hell, let's change the equation and 'see what happens'. Who knew it would cause such chaos and shift the balance so much, causing such a humanitarian crisis?? No one could have predicted that (heavy sarcasm here)!! What you are suggesting is a LOT worse and a lot more destabilizing. It's, seriously, the kind of silly, stupid shit that TRUMP would do on a whim. It's his level of thought and understanding.
__________________
-XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter! |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
And, of course, your idea that we could shut down the Russian grid across the board, let alone for any sort of extended time period, is wildly unrealistic. We MIGHT be able to do some nasty cyber attacks on Russian infrastructure...almost certainly we could...but not that broadly, and certainly not for a really extended time period. And if we COULD, the Russians would, rightfully, consider that an existential threat to be dealt with by extreme measures. Such as nukes. Especially since the US would have nothing left after shooting that fantasy bolt.
__________________
-XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
![]() Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons have been assembled since the dawn of the Nuclear Age. The majority of them were simply disassembled after a while with no incident whatsoever. There has not been a single accidental or wartime detonation of a nuclear weapon since Nagasaki in 1945. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
#40
|
|||
|
|||
I doubt any insurance companies offer self destruction policies.
Quote:
Last edited by TriPolar; 10-31-2019 at 11:35 PM. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you haven't realized it, there are a lot of humanitarian crisis's going on, and we're actually contributing to some of them. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Which is why you have the US or Russia lead in said treaty.
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
With nuclear weapons, the United States is probably the strongest country in the world militarily. But without nuclear weapons, we're barely in the top five. Russia, China, Britain, China with nuclear weapons could all defeat the United States without nuclear weapons. India's a maybe; they have a good-sized arsenal of nuclear warheads but they haven't developed a significant delivery system - their nuclear weapons program has been based around using nuclear weapons in Asia and they've only recently begun deploying global reach weapons. |
|
|||
#45
|
|||
|
|||
He was the Russian admiral who didn't use nuclear weapons during the Cuban missile crisis. I don't know why you think mentioning him refutes Velocity's statement that there's been no use of nuclear weapons since 1945.
|
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
This is a crazy idea, like most all of your ideas. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Bro, you have been reading too many Patrick Robinson novels.
|
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I can't find enough sense in what you are saying to respond sarcastically.
|
#49
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
![]() ![]() Quote:
I'm unsure if you are making a good faith effort to debate and you really don't get any of this and can't grasp what myriad people in this thread have tried to tell you, or you are feigning misunderstanding and comprehension because you are playing a game...or because your brilliant idea has been pretty much universally shot down by nearly everyone else in this thread, all for valid reasons that, perhaps, you didn't see when you thought of it. I will assume it's the former, and you just don't get it, even though to me it's pretty much a no-brainer. The point the part you responded too was to try and demonstrate to you what happens when someone who knows nothing about a situation and decides, on a whim and without consulting anyone, to change that situation for no good reason and 'see what happens', it can go very, very wrong (who know??). And the situation in Syria is MUCH less vital and of far less consequence to the US just deciding, on the whims of an orange haired monkey at the controls, to disarm...and 'see what happens'.
__________________
-XT That's what happens when you let rednecks play with anti-matter! Last edited by XT; 11-01-2019 at 11:19 AM. |
|
||||
#50
|
||||
|
||||
Does anyone else think it is funny that the OP won a Nobel Prize for:
"..his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons." |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|