The more nations have nukes, the stronger peace on the planet Earth

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/nuclear-arsenals/
Very few, so far, but most devastating part of the arsenal is in USA and Russia. This is an intolerable situation, because the rest of the world is held hostage. Even poor nation like North Korea is never touched, because of her nukes. If every nation has nukes, regional conflicts would likely happen and nukes would be used. However, this would be an eyes opening experience in a smaller then WWIII scale. This would change political philosophy of the USA and make peace between major nations more secure. This would serve like a vaccine for preventing much worse problem.

 

No, that's (*)(*)(*)(*)ing stupid. Nukes are only good for peace if they are held by responsible governments. If we let every failed african country have nukes, they can't keep track of them and some crazy terrorists will get hold of them.

 

"only i can declare governments responsible", that arrogance - wow

 

"zimbabwe is a responsible government and should be allowed nukes". That's retarded, wow.

 

yep, me thinking its arrogant on your part to be the self-appointed declarer of responsible governments equals me wanting zimbabwe to have nukes

spot on smarty-pants!

 

how about "background checks" for nukes?

 

This is nuckin futs

 

The more countries that have nuclear weapons the most likelihood there will be nuclear war.

The only extortion by countries with nuclear weapons is to other countries with nuclear weapons. There are no instances of countries being "extorted" with nuclear weapons.

The OP message is absurd. Why not every person have a nuclear weapon? Same logic would apply as the OPer's logic.

 

We have a responsible government, but we are in wars for decades continually. If Saddam really had nukes, G. W. Bush would never invade Iraq and the world be a better place without ISIS. I would like Japan and Iran to have nukes. Both would become more independent and blackmail proof. South Korea should have it as well to deal with North Korea without our help.

 

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room."



Dr. Strangelove (would approve) or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

 

That's a very strange thing to support.

 

Apparently Obama agrees with you and has given the green light for Iran to get nukes and secure peace in the Mideast

 

This is the one of the least thought out proposals I have seen. Everyone having nukes would not stop wars because their will always be an imbalance of power. Do you think that a country like Somalia would be able to build an arsenal to match the US, Russia or China? How would they deliver these nukes? They do not have any intercontinental missiles or even an air force. What about countries in the midst of a civil war or at risk for being taken over by terrorists. Do you think the world would sit around while terrorist groups like ISIS try to take over Syria and Iraq, if those countries had nukes? What is to stop some third country on the brink of economic collapse from selling their nukes to the highest bidder? Also, doesn't having more nukes mean more chance of a nuclear accident?

 

The more nations have nukes, the more likely one will get lost, or go "missing", or get sold to the highest bidder.

 

It is a zippy pinheaded naive perspective detached from reality.

 

Please show what part of the Iran Deal give Iran nukes? On the other hand, it was a Republican president (Eisenhower) who first gave Iran nuclear training through the Atoms for Peace initiative.

 

Nice try but that was before Iran was run by radical islam

 

Still didn't answer my question.

 

The more nukes there are, & the more they proliferate among everyone in the world, the more likely we are to have a nuclear event. The odds of a crazy person getting control of a nuke goes up, the more people there are who possess them.

Of course, we could also go the MAD route, & issue a PND (personal nuclear device) to each person at birth, but they would likely not get past puberty before destroying the world.

This is even crazier than saying if someone 'feels' like they are a different gender than how were born, that is reality. Delusion runs strong in mankind, but letting anyone & everyone who wants to destroy the world have the tools to do so is beyond delusional.

 

We know for a fact that the ONLY reason that peace has lasted this long is because of Nukes. Without this fear of mutual destruction, nations like Russia and America would have waged a global war long ago.

I think that this is the essence of OP's post.


The best solution would be to do away with nato. As it creates sides and builds animosity. Give many of the functions of Nato to UN, which every developed country should be a part of.

When I say developed, I don't mean the official meaning. It's any country that has large industry and a large military. Meaning that they can wage a large scale war.

The problem is, this practically occurs today through natural processes. Well it should but some countries try to keep the lid on who they feel should have nukes. Which again goes back to OP's post which addressed the exceptionalism. They are just prolonging the inevitable. To build a nuke is a huge technological achievement. It requires many, many resources. A country must have enough technical and industrial development to even attempt do it. That being the case, UN could agree to ban the sharing of nuclear technology with underdeveloped nations since it could be used as a geopolitical tool.

If a country gets enough capability to create a nuke themselves than let them. Extend a full UN membership to them and seek cooperation. Meanwhile, the whole world, I mean the UN, will be watching them, ready to take action. We certainly have enough bases, ships patrolling, and missiles shields to stop any attack of a country who just developed nukes

 

No, prolifiration of nuclear weapon is not a cure against conlicts. Prolifiration of democracy is.

 

The prime case in point for having nuclear weapons is Ukraine. After the Evil Empire got dissolved the West talked the Ukes into giving up their Nukes on a false promise to support Ukraine's security. With no Nukes the Ukes got invaded by the Moskaylian barbarians. I told the Ukes back in 1993 not to agree to give up the Nukes.


It's like the NRA gun story in the USA - nothing stops a bad Russian like a good Uke with a Nuke .

 

Which nation is the US holding hostage exactly?

 

Indeed. Ukraine with nukes could have joined both eu and nato and russian could not do (*)(*)(*)(*) about it. But sadly, ukraine was fooled..

 

Let me have a nuke... I have a decent sling-shot. It could reach my neighbor who lets his dog (*)(*)(*)(*) wherever he feels like it. This is one dumb-ass thread.