I disagree, us having nuclear bombs has not been as effective as you suggest in preventing Russia or others from doing things we don’t like.
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.
Which is why you have the US or Russia lead in said treaty.
Guess you’ve never heard of Vasili Arkhipov.
No, nuclear weapons are our biggest deterrent. They make up a major portion of our military strength.
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.
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.
How? We threaten them, AFTER they dropped a single nuke on us?
This is a crazy idea, like most all of your ideas.
Bro, you have been reading too many Patrick Robinson novels.
I can’t find enough sense in what you are saying to respond sarcastically.
What are you talking about? 
Russia being a puppet of the US and doing what we say (or vice versa) is BECAUSE we both have nuclear weapons. Good grief. :smack:
Which has nothing to do with the point I was making. About as incomprehensible for you to spew out as your first paragraph talking about nukes being less effective because Russia doesn’t do stuff we like.
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’.
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.”
The Russians lost 10 million people to Hitler. You thing a few blackouts will deter them from fighting a war they know they will win?
How did you get that from what I said? Despite us both having nukes, russia is unwilling to listen to what we say. How did you get “russia being puppet of US” I seriously want to know.
First paragraph of this thread
“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”
I’m aware disarming nukes could cause bad actors to act more bad, but that happens regardless of whether we have nukes or not, and us having nukes to try to force people who aren’t going to listen anyways is more dangerous than not having them.
Do you see nuclear disarmament in the foreseeable future? If not, then perhaps you’re on the wrong side of the issue here and your defenses are moot in comparison to the dangers imposed by this notion of nuclear deterrence.
Barack Obama, every paragraph you write in this thread is so rife with bad assumptions one isn’t even sure where to begin to address them.
How so? It looks like I’m the only one in this thread with a goal of disarmament while everyone else is trying to defend it despite the facts.
Allies still develop nukes even with us having nukes.
Russia still fucks with other countries despite us having nukes
North korea still commits mass human rights violations despite us having nukes
With or without nukes these things still happen. The assumption I’m making now is that we’re more likely to have another accidental nuke, whether it be from system malfunctioning or misinformation. The only way to prevent that inevitability is to disarm.
Give up nukes? Not all of them. Maybe a 1/4 or so. How about the smallpox and other biologicals?
People still die in car accidents despite wearing seat belts.
So nuclear disarmament will have no effect on these things. Therefore bringing them up in a thread about nuclear disarmament is off topic.
And I, along with other people, have pointed out that this assumption is probably wrong. If the United States eliminated its nuclear arsenal that would be a signal for other countries to build up their own nuclear arsenals. Either to defend themselves now that they were no longer protected by America’s nuclear umbrella or because they saw opportunities now that they were no longer potentially threatened by American nuclear weapons.
Right now we have nine nuclear powers. Under your proposal we would drop down to eight. And in a few years, we’d have twenty.
And most of those countries would be less stable than the United States and less able to afford adequate safeguards. So the likelihood of a nuclear weapons accident would be higher than it is now.
Seat belts are designed to protect people in car accidents, nukes are designed to murder people in wars.
So in other words you’ll die on this hill to defend nuclear weapons.
You guys have gun nut mentality, guns make u safe right? The same way those nukes make u safe?
and no its not off topic, if we acknowledge this will happen regardless, then we should at least disarm and lower the danger.