Would we achieve world peace with nuclear missiles for everyone?

We should arm the animals before we go so that there would be peace thereafter.

 

Dying in battle for a leader, a cause, a country has been going on from time out of mind. In the modern era, it is a relatively recent phenomenon. Terrorists used to blow things up, blow people up, and were willing to die in battle, but didn't walk into a building with explosives strapped to their body under their clothes in order to kill and maim the "enemy." Look at the Irish fighting for independence from Great Britain. Many died, including civilians, but the perpetrators attempted to survive their deeds. In Palestine, Israeli terrorists blew up people and buildings, like the King David Hotel, destroyed by a group led by a future Israeli prime minister, but attempted to survive. Today? Extremists abound who are willing and able to kill themselves in order to kill their "enemy," often innocent civilians. Yes, things are different today, and I wouldn't stake my life on the guess that if everyone had atomic weapons, no one would use them.

 

effect (third-person singular simple present effects, present participle effecting, simple past and past participle effected)

1. To make or bring about; to implement.​

 

American exceptionalism at its finest.

Kojirou,

Single country dominated world peace is not world peace. It is hegemony. I understand your views, but call it what it is.

 

We need a Doomsday Machine.

But we can't keep it a secret.

And then it's just a matter of building more mineshaft's than the enemy.

 

Nuclear bombs don't kill people, people kill people!

 

So, world peace is world peace, unless it's a style of world peace you disagree with. I know it's largely semantic quibbling, but there's no reason for you to claim that hegemony can't create world peace, especially since a term as vague as "world peace" can easily have multiple interpretations.

 

effect (third-person singular simple present effects, present participle effecting, simple past and past participle effected)

1. To make or bring about; to implement.​

2. Common misspelling of affect.​

 

Maybe, not sure. Achieving Ron Artest with nuclear missiles for everyone does make sense though.

 

I didn't misspell or misuse it, *******; find something better to do with your time.

 

I think Koji is right, though it's not very palatable. It's not illogical because domestically, we're trying to find what's best for everyone whereas internationally, we're looking only for our own advantage. Maybe the UN should be pushing for nuclear proliferation, but the US shouldn't.

Personally, I like the idea of every country having nukes a lot more than I like the idea of every American owning a gun. Countries by and large act rationally, but people do not.

I love it when grammar nazis get owned.

 

I think we should look at this from the military point of view. I mean, supposing the Russkies stashes away some big bomb, see. When they come out in a hundred years they could take over... In fact, they might even try an immediate sneak attack so they could take over our mineshaft space... I think it would be extremely naive of us, heypartner, to imagine that these new developments are going to cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy. I mean, we must be... increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mineshaft space, in order to breed more prodigiously than we do, thus, knocking us out in superior numbers when we emerge! heypartner, we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!

 

Then why is the gun lobby castrating the ATF to prevent it from enforcing laws and then telling the media all we need is the ATF to do it's job better.

Enforcement of current laws doesn't happen because the NRA has figured out how to subvert the executive branch by delaying appointments and controlling funding. It's quite disturbing.

 

What laws are not currently being enforced?

 

I'm late here but this comparison is pretty silly. (and I'm for gun control and limiting proliferation)

But there are a few fundamental differences here,

1. Accidents - An accidental gun shot at worst kills someone. (possibly several people if that incites other people to fire back) Basically if everyone had guns, I imagine we'd have more Plaxico Burress stories which is definitely bad but humanity will probably be ok. On the other hand, an accidental nuclear launch threatens to annihilate the world since protocol is to fire nuclear weapons back at those that launch them.

Consider that during the Cold War, the US gave safety technology to the Soviets because we were scared ****less that the Soviets would either accidentally launch a weapon or misinterpret some random event as a nuclear launch and retaliate against the US unnecessarily. (The Norwegian weather balloon incident is pretty good evidence of this) As a result we gave the Russians early warning satellites so they could probably monitor for nuclear launches.

Now that's just responding to launches. In addition to that, countries like India and Pakistan also lack the technology to prevent them from accidentally launching or having an unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons. (Generally known as permissive action link technology) I would imagine that Iran if they got nuclear weapons would also lack such technology. Now we could give them that technology but such a transfer would mean we acknowledge and accept their possession of nuclear weapons which clearly wont happen. Without technology like PALs and considering those 3 countries are all very unstable environments, you could see some serious **** ups happen with consequences that threaten the world.

2. In addition to accidental launches, the sheer gravity of damage from a nuclear weapon separates it from guns. Guns can't threaten cities or countries on their own. 1 Nuclear weapons can wipe out a major city. And that damage isn't reversible. Also nuclear weapons rest on technology and the spread of such technology means both rational and irrational people can get them. Unlike the nutjob who shot up an elementary school, the nutjob who gets hold of a nuclear weapon can do far more and irreversible damage. That simply isn't worth the risk. The idea of handing out weapons to everyone assumes all leaders are rational actors and there's never been any proof of that being true.


I'm in favor of gun control and stopping proliferation at all costs but the comparison between the two is silly. I'd rather have guns for everyone than have nukes for all countries. The later risks the entire planet while the former just increases the number of gun homicides by a gigantic number.

 

I only typed three words.

You flipped out and linked us a source that agrees with me

Please apologize to JuanValdez for misleading him.

 

"We" are the ones that are actually hurting "them". The logic is like that.

Iraq could still be a country and lose 1 million less lives if they got what we have. That would be bad. We would not have enough oil and money and the joy of torturing.

 

Absolutely!
There is no war between two nuclear nations ever. So the answer is quite straightforward, isnt it?

 

Is this really true? I would argue that throughout history, when regions are dominated by an imperial force they are more peaceful than when they are being fought for by tribes or nations. Empires are inherently unstable and will fall, but while they are dominant, the people ruled by them have more safety and more peace, and sometimes more prosperity (if less freedom and self-determination).

 

No I don't think so and my reasons are the same why I think we should be reducing the number of guns that are out there also. For the most part I believe almost all countries if they had nukes would act responsibly just as the vast majority of gun owners do but the problem is that it only takes a very small handful, or one in the case of nukes, to wreak a lot of havoc. Having more of these weapons out there just makes it more likely that someone will act irresponsibly or in the case of a country political instability and lack of controls will end up having them fall into the hands of groups that act irresponsibly.