Alright, I'm sittin here watchin C-SPAN and there is this discussion going on about Nuclear Weapon proliferation and "Nuclear Zero". "Nuclear Zero" (or "Global Zero") is the idea of pretty much having all nations reduce their nuclear stockpiles to zero and hunt down and destroy any rogue weapons. Personally, I think that nuclear weapons should be a primary agenda of every nation. I don't necessarily mean stockpile build-ups (although it would happen) but just as a primary budget and focus for every government. Nations would then, by necessity, put more security on every aspect of their nuclear programs, thus reducing many of those MIA nukes in the former USSR states. People who assume that governments would even voluntarily not have nuclear weapons are naive to begin with, without even having to believe that it would be more safe globally than it is now. There are nukes out there in the hands of some pretty dangerous individuals right now that were the result of just the USSR losing control of some of their stockpiles twenty years ago. How does every country on the planet cutting budgets and closing branches of their armed forces make it safer? I don't know, I'm not as high as when I started typing. I guess I'm just trying to start a discussion on the pro-nuclear side of the debate, and I wanted to see if there were any takers. *** Also, don't be afraid to leave out other WMDs of choice. Especially Syria, who is buffing up their chemical weapon stockpiles even now! Have fun!
I don't think nuclear weapons are necessarily bad, just that the playing field we have now results in a lot more civilian deaths then, let's say, nuclear space wars. So as of right now, where use of them will result in deaths of a lot of innocent people that don't even want to be involved, they're not very practical. But such is war. Demoralize the enemy until he just won't fight anymore, and what better way to do that then wipe an entire city off the map in a blink of the eye. That being said, I'm pro-WW3. Looking at it from a higher perspective it's more like a restart button to the corrupt world we live in. And while the world that's left behind may not be better, in terms of quality of your surroundings, a post-apocalyptic world might instill certain values in people that we just don't have anymore. But I don't value much of what society has to offer nowadays, so it's easy for me to say I'd be glad without it(in it's current form). That and humans aren't really that special. If we can cull the forests for harmful coyotes, we can cull the Earth for harmful humans. You might not see yourself as harmful, but neither do the coyotes.
Major lol. So you honestly think that a WW3 will kill greed, stupidity, jealousy, hatred, etc? The elite will always be the elite because of those basic human qualities that they exploit.
'Global zero' will never occur while we still operate Earth as sovereign nation states. The ability to ensure M.A.D and obliterate entire cities in the blink of an eye gives nations so much power that they will never fully relinquish it. Obviously in the ideal world no one would have Nukes, but then again no one would have weapons what so ever. This will obviously never happen. Virtually all animals engage in violent actions towards each other, it's part of nature to show dominance over another life form. We've just taken it to a whole new technological level.
But it will take a long time for it to build up again to the level it is today. The poor will flourish, for a time, and then the cycle will begin again. I know it's inevitable for greed and corruption to occur, but that doesn't mean you just sit by at let it happen. In this day and age it will take a 100% re-start, a global wipe. Stone age onwards. Those that do survive will obtain the survival skills that most people lack today. Think of it like going to the dentist every 6 months for a cleaning. The earth has got all these cavities and they need to be drilled out. Same with all the bacteria living on our bodies. We can co-exist as long as they stay contained to a certain number. But once they start expanding and building cities all over our bodies, digging mines for fleshy resources into our skin, chopping down our forests of hair leaving our skin bald, most people would say that's a problem and needs to be dealt with immediately.
I don't want to say that I think nuclear war is what I am supporting here. I believe that there will never be a global, nuclear WWIII. I can only see the use of them in the situations of terrorists or rogue nations with crazy dictators firing one off at their neighbors or detonating one in Washington D.C. or something similar. That is why I support countries putting more effort into their war effort. It will do a better job of globally policing nukes than any current plan. Also, a rogue state going nuclear is far more preferable to a terrorist with a suitcase-nuke. In the case of nuclear retaliation, a nation would be completely annihilated in a quick night, whereas if it is a terrorist group it would become another bogged down war, only this time with %100 more U-235! Yay!
I dont think we should totally get rid of nuclear weapons. There are other applications for nuclear bombs than for war..like space travel LOL @ anyone who could bring themselves to say they are FOR a 3rd world war..