Would we achieve world peace with nuclear missiles for everyone?

To be fair to the pro-gun people, I think their self-defense argument is premised on the idea that they bad guys already have guns, so the good guys need guns. But if you could prevent the bad guys from having guns, I would think that's an even better option.

 

Its sad how we focus most of our research as human beings into ending life rather than preserving or bettering it.

 

I'd point out that a state collapsing is a much, much nastier business than a single person dying.

Furthermore, the thing is that theoretically, yes, I think that nuclear missiles would help bring "peace." But I personally have absolutely no interest in a world peace which isn't American-dominated. And while I understand WHY Iran wants nukes, and even acknowledge that they do have pretty good reasons to get them...I really don't care about that.

 

Back of the envelope calculations put 4,000 at somewhat higher than 1 or 2, so no.

 

We would achieve world peace by eliminating humanity.

Of course animals would continue to eat each other, but there would be balance.

 

nuclear missiles are an exponential force multiplier, need relatively few to act as an effective deterrent

 

Well, for one, there's 200 countries in the world. 1 country going nuts out of 200 is far more destabilizing than a shooter killing 5 or even 20 people in a country of over 300 million.

And like I said, I do think nuclear weapons would provide peace. But the thing about "world peace" is that no one views world peace as an absolute good. World peace, in a sense, existed in 1984, but no one wants that.

 

Absolutely not. Nobody has ever suggested that we should not do background checks. Background checks are already required by the ATF except in intrastate private sales.
I would suggest you learn more about the gun control debate before offering irrational ideas.

To play along with your silly analogy, why would you want an unstable 3rd world country (irresponsible gun owner) to have nuclear weapons where terrorist (criminals) could get a hold of them much easier?

 

I'm doubtful that black market gun dealers would run background checks on the people buying their product, even if the law mandated it. Good people don't need the law to be good, and the bad won't follow the law, regardless.

 

I would suggest you learn more about the gun debate before you post falsehoods.

NRA to push back on universal background checks
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-exclusive-interview-nra-david-keene/1878809/

The powerful National Rifle Association will urge lawmakers to vote against mandating universal background checks for gun buyers, NRA President David Keene told USA TODAY on Wednesday. That raises questions about the enactment of many gun-control measures in the wake of last month's shootings in Newtown, Conn.

The gun-show loophole allows some sales at gun shows to go forward without checking the buyer's name against a federal database of convicted felons and the mentally ill. Closing it has emerged as one of the most widely supported proposals among Democrats and some Republicans. In a Pew Research Center poll, 85% of Americans backed the idea.

But Keene, in an interview, and NRA Executive Director Wayne LaPierre, appearing earlier before the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the background checks would do little to stop criminals from getting guns and would burden law-aiding citizens.

 

The antagonist in this game had a similar idea.

Spoiler

It didn't turn out well.

 

it's my understanding that nukes were used by the US twice during world war II - and they have never been used since. is that correct?

besides testing and whatnot - they have never been used to kill since?

and the world has been fighting over that power ever since... that's pretty crazy if you think about it.

 

Easy answer. Hell no! We live in an era where people blow themselves up for a "cause" or a "religion." That used to be extremely rare. No longer. Assuming that the leaders of the world's countries are all going to be sane is a fool's paradise, with all due respect (not calling you a fool!). This is one of those ideas that may sound logical in the abstract, and is anything but logical.

 

Yeah, just gotta admit that a world power who achieved it through crappy controversial imperialistic means with a nuke and with a semblence of good heart, is still better than some scale evening nuke for every country measure.

The "We got the nuke and you dont" approach is the most effective one for now

 

I agree with your point. But, with respect, when was the idea of blowing yourself up for a cause ever extremely rare? World history is replete with examples of men dying for the ideals of a religion or the cause of a secular leader.

The reason we will all continue to argue about gun control into perpetuity is that human nature can be so good, yet so gruesome depending on the individual. It's disturbing.

 

Individual deaths are typically contained and deterred in fairly short order by all of the medical, legal, therapeutic and ceremonial processes in place in a given sympathetic community. When an external and antagonistic force effects thousands of deaths and extinguishes all institutions and the sense of order that only a sovereign country can provide, and does so with the very real threat of it happening again; the economic, collective emotional impact and prospect of additional domestic deaths will last for generations.

 

You never see the religious leaders ever blowing themselves up.

 

The human mind can become so twisted and apathetic because of disparity in society.

When every single individual in the world is dining on fine wine and rolling in Mercedez, maybe we'll see crime rate drop a little.

Effects, you say?