All countries should have nuclear weapons

One of the contentions in favor of widespread gun ownership is that guns are an “equalizer.” Without guns, physically weak people would always be at the mercy of physically strong people; but if most people went around armed, with the power to drop each other at a moment’s notice, there would be less overall brutality for fear of lethal retaliation. The “little guys” would have just as much power as the “big bullies.” Or so the argument goes.

I’d like to extend that argument into the international arena.

Without nuclear weapons, weak nations would always be at the mercy of strong nations. But, if every country had an offensive nuclear capability, with the power to wipe out an enemy’s city at a moment’s notice, there would be fewer and less bloody wars for fear of nuclear retaliation. The “little” nations would have just as much power, or at least as much opportunity for power, as the “superpower” nations.

Therefore, by trying to keep all the nations on the planet who don’t yet have nuclear weapons from getting nuclear weapons, the U.S. is acting like a big bully who wants to keep the little guys scared and under his thumb. We shouldn’t be preventing Iraq or North Korea or Pakistan from developing nuclear weaponry, we should be encouraging it!

Maybe the US should ship 1 bomb to every un-nukalarized country in the world. With a nicely writen users manual of course.

Have you ever read Frank Herbert’s “Committee of the Whole,” Tracer?

Oh come on. This is ridiculous!

First of all, no pro gun person tries to make a case about physically weak people v.s. physically stong people. Where did you get that?

And comparing individuals possesing small arms in a (allegedly:rolleyes: ) free country with rouge nations possessing nuclear weapons is asnine.
While I don’t always agree with Tracer, I’ve never known them to come on here with such silly arguements.

Who are you, and does the real Tracer know your posting under their user name?:p;)

A fission/fusion device is not an equalizer.

Given your OP (guns): one gun, one bullet, one dead guy (maybe a second one if the bullet passes through). Even Clint Eastwoon in A Fistfull of Dollars had to aim and recock his revolver to shoot one guy.

In some terms: one idiot, one person dead.

Take a nuclear device. Or any weapon of mass destruction for that matter, be it chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature. One weapon, thousands dead.

In terms: one idiot, thousands, if not hundred of thousands dead.

Are you prepared to put that sort of trust into the hands of one person? Unfortunately, I see nukes this way: we developed 'em, we dropped 'em. As such, we had to also develop a way to handle them responsibly, and also to contain them. It’s not so much a matter of keeping the competition in check, it’s a matter of keeping them out of the hands of the irresponsible idiot who’s going to use them for nefarious/personal gain.

IMHO, good training, solid tactics and strategy, and a vivid imagination can turn 1,000 people with 1,000 single-shot pistols into a serious force to be reckoned with - something that may someday prove to be the stalwart of an invading force. With, or without nukes.

Nuclear weapons are a scourge. But, it’s a burden we all have to bear.

Like I said, my $0.02.

Every time the gun lobby says that women should be armed because it negates the strength of a male attacker.

If everyone had guns, we would all be a lot nicer to each other…but there would be a lot fewer of us around.

I don’t know. This sounds like a good idea to me. It would definitely keep the US in check (i.e. North Korea). Also, if anyone used a nuke in a first strike, they would be obliterated by the world as a whole.

Keep in mind, that you would have to have the world governments insure that nuclear weapons don’t fall into the hands of radical groups, but on a government to government basis, sounds good.

Is that EXACTLY what they say? Cite?

This “defense of physically weak people” arguement sounds like something out of the old west, mid 1800’s. 'Colt, the great equalizer" stuff.

Anyway, if the NRA does say that about women (Cite, please) it’s still not, by far, the main arguement against gun control like “Tracer” seems to imply it is.

And exactly what is your point “Tracer”? Is this a debate about gun control or about nukes?

Okay, okay, I was more interested in throwing out a really wild idea than I was in thinking through its consequences. :wink:

But I don’t think the comparison is entirely without merit. An arsenal/army/navy/air-force is to a nation what personal weaponry is to an individual. If an individual attacks (assaults) you, you can defend yourself with personal weaponry – but if you only have a knife and your assailant has a gun, you’re screwed. He can make you do his will just by threatening to shoot you. Similarly, if another nation attacks (makes war on) your nation, your nation can defend itself with its army/navy/air-force – but if your nation only has conventional weapons and your assailant has nuclear weapons, you’re screwed. The other nation can make your nation do its will just by threatening to nuke you.

Oh – and the only “rouge” nations I know of are first-world countries, which have a thriving cosmetics industry. <rimshot>

“Them”? There’s more than one of me? :eek:

There’s nothing specifically about this on the NRA’s website, but I was able to find a few other pro-gun articles that make this argument by searching on “women equalizer guns” in google:

And then, there’s the site of Women Against Gun Control:

Gun-control-related aruments merely gave me the idea for this thread. I really wanted the debate to be about nuclear weapons.

The answer to your question, tracer, is no. All countries shouldn’t have nuclear weapons and there are several reasons for this:

Once any particular government gets a nuclear weapon it can consider itself secure because no sane neighbouring country will ever attack it. There are two types of government in this world: Democracies (where the government changes every few years) and Dictatorships (where the government is always the same). If a dictatorship gets it’s hands on a nuke then there would be no way of removing that dictatorship. History has shown that, sometimes, it is necessary to remove dictatorships by force (eg Hitler, Milosovic, Mullah Omar). If any of these dictators had had nuclear weapons then there would have been no way of removing them, they and their ilk would stay in power forever.

So the absence of nuclear weapons allows the world community to gang together and remove governments it doesn’t like. If every country in the world had a nuclear weapon then we would be “locked in” to our current position. And we would be locked into this position for evermore because no country that possesses a nuclear weapon will ever want to give it up (for perfectly good strategic reasons).

So giving everyone nuclear weapons would mean that the world would be locked into it’s current position. But I don’t think we’ve reached a position yet where we want to be locked in. There are still plenty of world problems to solve before we lock ourselves into any particular position. We are still a long way from the Star Trek type universe where cultural and religious difficulties have been eradicated.

If we gave Saddam a nuke then yes he would be able to defend himself, but do we really want to give mad dictators the ability to defend themselves? What kind of world does that forbode where change becomes impossible? If the taliban had had a nuke they would still be there now, and God knows what they’d have got up to if they’d had a nuke.

Having nukes doesn’t forbid low-level conflict (look at India and Pakistan) but it does rule out actually removing a government. India is much stronger militarily than Pakistan but it can never take over Pakistan without eating a few nukes. So a nuke gives your government immunity from attack.

We don’t really want all governments to have immunity from attack. Some governments just have to go. But in a fully nuclear armed world, no governments would ever go. We would be locked into our current situation, and our current situation isn’t all that great. I think we need to sort out our current situation before we start to think about locking ourselves into a corner.

Nuclear non-proliferation is the most important issue facing mankind today. I think it was Arthur C. Clarke who talked about the need for any civilisation to get over the “nuclear barrier”.

His idea was that any advanced civilisation on any world in the Universe would eventually discover nuclear power. The potential advantages of nuclear power as a weapon would be obvious to any civilisation.

But then the dangers of nuclear power are also obvious. On discovering nuclear power it is possible that a war will occur in which the civilisation that discovers it will be wiped out.

As soon as you discover nuclear power your planet is at risk of destroying itself. This is the nuclear barrier, you have to overcome this stage if you are to proceed.

By arming every country in the world with nuclear weapons you increase the liklihood that we will not successfully cross the nuclear barrier.

The fact is we need to occasionally change governments every now and then by outside force, for the good of humanity. If we all had nuclear weapons then this would preclude the possibility of changing any particular government. This would be a bad thing.

In fact, this whole North Korea saga has made me wonder about the idea of nuclear disarmament. Maybe now would be a good time to disarm nuclearly since we no longer face the same threat from Russia and China. I think there has never been a better time for nuclear disarmament than we have right now.

The west will still retain nuclear reactors and I dare say they could make a bomb pretty quick if they wanted, but it strikes me that we no longer need nuclear weapons at all since all the countries that have nuclear weapons are on friendly terms.

The only exception to this is India and Pakistan, but if the rest of the world disarmed maybe some progress could be made there too. I’ve been thinking of starting a thread about this actually:

In the past when the USSR were around it was difficult to argue for disarmament because MAD seemed a sensible policy, but now maybe disarmament is the most sensible policy. Because it may help us overcome the “nuclear barrier”.

hmm I wonder…

If the USSR or Iraq were the only superpower in the world, then I would agree that your suggestion has some merit. But since the USA is the major player, it’s better that as few countries as possible have the weapon.

Not all countries are ethically equal. Many are unstable or cruel. Some areas are in dispute (e.g. the Kurds in Iraq; East Timor). Iraq would certainly have erased Kuwait in 10 minutes, and threatened all neighbors if there was any counter-attack. Even if they all had nukes, they would do nothing once Iraq showed it was willing to use them.

Even Italy changes its government every 9 months, it seems. So who has the nukes this month? The centrists? The communists? The right wing?

If all countries had nukes, then we would have had more nuclear conflicts. Certainly the following countries might have used them over the years despite the risk of counter-attack: Uganda, Rwanda, Sudan, Iran, Iraq, Serbia, Burma, Indonesia, Chechnya, Argentina, Panama, Haiti.

There is no merit to the idea.

I think the problem here is you have assume that a nation wants to win. MAD worked in the Cold War because neither the US or the USSR wanted everyone dead (although I am fairly certain that if the Russians never got their hands on The Bomb, we would have nuked them at some point). If you’re Kim Jong Il and you don’t care whether or not your nation lives or dies, as long as your enemy dies too, the whole point of MAD is out the window.

A relevant cartoon:

Ok, I have not read all of the threads, except for the very first, which is what the topic is all about.

First off, every (or almost every) technically does have somet ype of nuclear defence (the nuclear umbrella ex. Isreal is protected by our Nukes(U.S.), and N. Korea is/(was) protected by China’s Nukes).

Second as for getting rid of weapons, or letting everyone have weapons. Big no, no. In australia, the government banned guns to civilians, and crime, rape, murder, etc, have all increased, beacuse no good law-abiding citizens have the potnetial to protect themsemselves from the crooks, rapists, burglars, murders, etc. anymore. The ‘bad people’ saw the opportunity in this new law, and once again went against it, and now they are ruining peoples’ ways of life.

  • why not let everyone have weapons (WMD’s) one good example: jihad…Mujadeen. Holy warriors- people who have alrady taken their last rights. What about suicicde bombers with a nuke strapped to their chest. Would know which country they came fromt hen would you. And would not be able to decifer which country they potnetially did come from either (unless one fessed up to it (or hey it could even be a terrorist act, but still what country gave them the nuke in the first place)). So the infidels would be celebrating, while we set and mourned over our dead, and radioactive land.

I’ve always thought that it would be a service to the world if we solidfied the borders of nations in some kind of permanent way. It seems like nukes might be able to do this.

What if the US was running this game. We give a nuke to every country that has a government we deem acceptable. Eventually every nation will manage to come up with a government we can live with, and they will be strongly motivated so that they can get their nuke.

Got any evidence for this, sport? Or is this just something you got from a chain e-mail? I want some evidence that:

a) The Australian government banned “guns to civilians”
b) Crime, rape, murder, etc. have all increased.
c) That (b) was caused by (a).

SNL had the cure for plane hijackings – give every passenger a gun.

I don’t know about the argument tracer mentions, but an argument I have seen frequently, here in GD and elsewhere, is:[ul][li]Criminals will obtain guns no matter what.[/li][li]If guns are illegal, law-abiding citizens will not have them.[/li][li]Thus the criminals will have an advantage over their victims who can’t defend themselves.[/li][li]Therefore guns should not be illegal.[/ul]It doesn’t seem that much of a stretch to change this to:[ul][]There will always be countries developing nuclear weapons for their own interests.[/li][li]If nuclear weapons are banned, law-abiding members of the international community will not have them.[/li][li]Thus the rogue nations will have an advantage over their neighbors who can’t defend themselves.[/li][]Therefore nuclear weapons should not be banned.[/ul]Perhaps we can agree that Saddam Hussein should not have nuclear weapons, just like we might agree that convicted violent felons should not have guns. But a U.S. citizen should not have his or her Second Amendment rights violated without due process and just cause, and a nation should not have its sovereignty violated without same.