Nuclear Weapons

[JAStewart]

I'm doing an essay on the feasibility and desirability of abolishing nuclear weapons.

 

Interestingly to me, I've come to the conclusion that it's not possible to get rid of them and not desirable too.

 

What's everyone's thoughts on it?

[whalsa]

I agree. Since the technology already exists, even if all the countries that currently possess nukes decided to get rid of them it would be really difficult if not impossible to guarantee that any rogue states/organisations could not develop their own ones.

 

As well as that there is plenty of nuclear capable countries that would be completely against abolishing them as they consider them as vital deterrence to any possible aggressors eg Israel vs its Arab neighbours.

[unlinkedstudent]

One line conclusion:-

 

The desire to abolish is there but the feasibility isn't.

[Ghostrider]

You can't "un-invent" them.

 

As it is everybody lives in low level paranoia hoping that those who have them will never use them.

 

Were all that exist decommissioned and destroyed, everybody would then live in low level paranoia hoping that no-one was secretly building any.

 

Pretty much a rock and a hard place. The Pandora's Box was opened, we've got to live with the result, there is no "good" option.

[Gibber]

they consider them as vital deterrence to any possible aggressors eg Israel vs its Arab neighbours.

 

They didn't stop Egypt and Syria attacking Israel on Yom Kippur 1973.

[Skunnered]

^^No, but they might just stop Iran letting off a neuc at Israel or someone else in the future.

[Gibber]

Perhaps using conventional weapons to stop Iran's nuclear project rather than relying on Israel's nuclear deterrent (which did not deter a non nuclear Egypt and Syria) is a better plan. Like the Osirak raid on Iraq in 1982 or whenever it was.

[Para Handy]

I will never understand these people who think, that giving up our nuclear weapons.

The people in the middle east will think to themselves “O the infidels have giving them up so we will do the same†The mad mullahs in the middle east cant wait to get there hands on them and anyone in the west are targets. And that applies to any weapon they can get there hands on.

[Evil Inky]

I will never understand these people who think, that giving up our nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the thinking is that since Germany, Japan, Canada, and Brazil ( to name four countries without nuclear weapons ) seem to get by without them, we could get rid of ours and spend the money on schools, hospitals, or tax cuts instead.

[JAStewart]

I will never understand these people who think, that giving up our nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the thinking is that since Germany, Japan, Canada, and Brazil ( to name four countries without nuclear weapons ) seem to get by without them, we could get rid of ours and spend the money on schools, hospitals, or tax cuts instead.

Nuclear umbrella, anyone?

[Skunnered]

I will never understand these people who think, that giving up our nuclear weapons.

Perhaps the thinking is that since Germany, Japan, Canada, and Brazil ( to name four countries without nuclear weapons ) seem to get by without them, we could get rid of ours and spend the money on schools, hospitals, or tax cuts instead.

If I understand the original question properly, we are being asked to consider the feasibility of getting rid of ALL nuclear weapons. For sure, a few individual countries, such as the UK, could get rid of them providing some other friendly country has them and promises to "guard" us if necessary. But that's not the same thing as getting rid of them world-wide, and I really don't see how that's possible.

[Evil Inky]

For sure, a few individual countries, such as the UK, could get rid of them providing some other friendly country has them and promises to "guard" us if necessary.

New Zealand aren't under the US nuclear umbrella ( according to the link JAStewart posted ), and don't seem to have suffered any ill-effects as a consequence.

[JAStewart]

Which is why they're such a major player in the world.

[ArabiaTerra]

they consider them as vital deterrence to any possible aggressors eg Israel vs its Arab neighbours.

 

They didn't stop Egypt and Syria attacking Israel on Yom Kippur 1973.

It's debatable whether Israel had nukes in 1973, and the whole point of deterrence is that your potential enemies have to know that you have them and the means to deliver them.

 

Also, the Israeli's managed to stop the Arabs with conventional forces before they broke through into Israel proper. If the Arabs had broken through then we might well have seen a nuclear fireball over Damascus or Cairo. (Assuming they did have the bomb at that time.)

[Skunnered]

I don't think anyone wants to threaten New Zealand because they tend to keep their noses clean. It's interfering little busy-bodies like the UK that everyone loves to hate that needs protection!