• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Should America be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

tupac chopra

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
1,123
Location
Blacktown
Basic Beliefs
I am god
After all America has used these weapons on civilians before.
Also america has launched numerous war crimes or wars of aggression in recent history.

Should the global community insist that America not be allowed to have them?
 
Is there another country on the planet that has done more to reduce the quantity of nukes in the world?
 
http://www.nti.org/analysis/reports/nuclear-disarmament/

Gauging progress towards nuclear disarmament is complicated because shifts both in numbers of weapons and in the overarching policies governing these weapons are relevant. In terms of quantitative reductions, measurable steps have been undertaken by key NWS both unilaterally and bilaterally. The NWS collectively reduced the size of their nuclear arsenals from over 70,000 warheads at the height of the Cold War to approximately 14,900 by 2017. [16] These reductions have been carried out unilaterally by at least four NWS, as well as through bilateral legally binding arrangements between the United States and the Soviet Union/Russian Federation.

The United States has reduced its stockpile by 84% from a Cold War peak of 31,255 warheads in 1967, to the current stockpile of approximately 4,480 operational and reserved warheads. [17] While France has reduced its arsenal unilaterally, and the United Kingdom announced ambitious reductions to its arsenal in 2010, both states plan to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. [18] In contrast to the unilateral reduction measures taken by the NWS, India and Pakistan are believed to be rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals. [19]
 
After all America has used these weapons on civilians before.
Also america has launched numerous war crimes or wars of aggression in recent history.

Should the global community insist that America not be allowed to have them?

How many times do it has to be mentioned that nuclear weapons were not used on a whim? Context is all important.
They ended WW2 more quickly that otherwise.
 
The United States has reduced its stockpile by 84% from a Cold War peak of 31,255 warheads in 1967, to the current stockpile of approximately 4,480 operational and reserved warheads. [17] While France has reduced its arsenal unilaterally, and the United Kingdom announced ambitious reductions to its arsenal in 2010, both states plan to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. [18] In contrast to the unilateral reduction measures taken by the NWS, India and Pakistan are believed to be rapidly expanding their nuclear arsenals. [19]
Well, the number of warheads doesn't really matter that much. it's the number of delivery systems. If you have 3000 warheads, but only enough missiles to put 1% of them on targets, those are the 30 you have to worry about.
That's why the current treaties discuss the number of missiles in tubes. Right now, the Trident subs have only 20 of their 24 possible missiles, with four tubes of permanent ballast installed.
 
I think that's a very limiting factor for NK too. Yes, they have a few missiles. They're proven to be pretty unreliable. They maybe got lucky with one ICBM. Getting one all the way to the other side of the earth has yet to be proven.

Maybe Kim starting a war they most assuredly would lose would be the best thing that could happen to the N. Korean people. Aside from all the death and destruction and all that blather.
 
How many times do it has to be mentioned that nuclear weapons were not used on a whim? Context is all important.

Yes, context is important. And the context that nobody else has used them in all of human history is pretty important context. Sure, the US has moved to limit the spread of these weapons, so long the US can have them and keep them from others. It is rather hypocritical for the US of all nations to demand that nations like Iran and North Korea don't acquire them.
 
Has the context they were used in ever been seen again in the world?
 
After all America has used these weapons on civilians before.
Also america has launched numerous war crimes or wars of aggression in recent history.

Should the global community insist that America not be allowed to have them?

How many times do it has to be mentioned that nuclear weapons were not used on a whim? Context is all important.
They ended WW2 more quickly that otherwise.

WW2 could have ended even sooner had the US not demanded the democratization of Japan and the removal of its Emperor.

Therefor, it stands to reason that nukes were used to advance ulterior goals divorced from the war, and not to end the war itself.
 
Is there another country on the planet that has done more to reduce the quantity of nukes in the world?

Well, that's like saying Jeffrey Dahmer did more than anyone else to reduce the number of people getting eaten by becoming a vegan.
 
Apparently America is allowed to have them but North Korea is not, so I'm wondering why that is.
 
Apparently America is allowed to have them but North Korea is not, so I'm wondering why that is.

Because:

A-it would be antithetical to our interests

B-it would represent a direct threat to the safety of nearby nations when a country that could flip shit* any day now has nuclear weapons



*Flip shit in this case referring to rebellions, coups, and other such things of that nature.
 
Has the context they were used in ever been seen again in the world?

What was the big emergency the US faced from the Japanese in WW2? Was there ever a real chance the Japanese would decimate the USA? Were there battles being fought in California, New York, etc? No. Not really. Not to the point of being conquered or decimated with puppet governments installed etc, the way the USA has done to other countries.

But the USA only does it to countries that lack nuclear weapons, hence the definite need for the regimes in power in these countries in order to stay in power. Seriously, North Korea is the "Axis of Evil" country that has nuclear arms... and the one the US hasn't sought to invade.
 
The North Korean "ultra short range" missiles are not much of a threat until they get more than a kilometre from their silos on a reliable basis.

Nukes are useless unless you can get them within cooee of your enemy.
 
Has the context they were used in ever been seen again in the world?

What was the big emergency the US faced from the Japanese in WW2? Was there ever a real chance the Japanese would decimate the USA? Were there battles being fought in California, New York, etc? No. Not really. Not to the point of being conquered or decimated with puppet governments installed etc, the way the USA has done to other countries.

But the USA only does it to countries that lack nuclear weapons, hence the definite need for the regimes in power in these countries in order to stay in power. Seriously, North Korea is the "Axis of Evil" country that has nuclear arms... and the one the US hasn't sought to invade.

Without America you would now be speaking Japanese and German!
 
What was the big emergency the US faced from the Japanese in WW2? Was there ever a real chance the Japanese would decimate the USA? Were there battles being fought in California, New York, etc? No. Not really. Not to the point of being conquered or decimated with puppet governments installed etc, the way the USA has done to other countries.

But the USA only does it to countries that lack nuclear weapons, hence the definite need for the regimes in power in these countries in order to stay in power. Seriously, North Korea is the "Axis of Evil" country that has nuclear arms... and the one the US hasn't sought to invade.

Without America you would now be speaking Japanese and German!

What, both at once?
 
]
Without America you would now be speaking Japanese and German!

Gotta love American revisionist history. The truth is that the USA came in late and contributed far less to the war effort against Hitler than many other nations, including ironically Russia.

The relatively little damage taken by the USA is actually one of the biggest reasons the USA became the world's top superpower afterwards.

And the Americans were always a far bigger threat to Japan than the Japanese were to America.

The last truly dire, desperate and brave war fought by the USA was probably the civil war against itself.
 
Back
Top Bottom