Stack asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 1 decade ago

Should the US disarm our our nuclear stockpile?

Currently, we boast about 5,500 warheads in our arsenal. So the question is, why keep these weapons of mass destruction while running the risk of catastrophic results such as a nuclear accident, proliferation, or an actual nuclear war?

If we fight a war and win it with H-bombs, what history will remember is not the ideals we were fighting for but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan who ruthlessly killed every last inhabitant of Persia.

-Hans A. Bethe

..And these atomic bombs which science burst upon the world that night were strange even to the men who used them.

H. G. Wells, The World Set Free, 1914

Source: http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n2702...

Update:

scaerdry- You give no evidence as why it would be dumb. Please provide an actual argument.

Prowd- You're right, it is hypocritical to have a massive arsenal that could blow the earth to smithereens several times and not allow other countries to have one nuke. If we disarm them, not give them to them, then it ends the hypocrisy. Diplomacy is effective and should be used more often, but, because of ignorant war-mongers like your self, it is not.

Anthony W- Your false paranoia is astounding. Please post some valid arguments that have something to provide to the richness of this debate.

Joe S- I agree, they are an instrument of fear. But history has shown how fear can escalate. As JFK said, "Thank God for Bobby Kennedy," for his actions at narrowly preventing nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Next, there's no problem if they are in our silos? Incorrect. Ask Japan about that.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    it should be done as early as possible.

    but if one country destroys, it is of no use. all the countries simultaneously destroy nukes.

  • Anonymous
    5 years ago

    Why are you sweating temp employees? Isn't that what Bush & Cheney are? The apparatus of the federal behemoth is what you should be decrying. Instead you focus on the figureheads and ignore the real policymakers that collect (and manipulate) the data that is fed to the temps (Bush & Dick) to get the desired decisions. Then when the temps (B&D) don't 'go along and get along', they're fed into the press meat grinder. Do you think the temps had anything to do with 9/11? HELL NO! But it's a foregone conclusion someone did. The stock of the four target airlines plummeted in the days leading up to the attack! The whole 9/11 thing was a ruse to get the temps to chase their tails for 8 years instead of restoring the Republic. Bush had good intentions, but not very good common sense. I'm not a Clinton guy, but he saw the trainwreck coming and lobbed a few tomahawks and called it a day. He wasn't stupid enough to get dragged into a 100 year war. Ok, that was then, this is now. Should we be at war? HELL NO we shouldn't be at war. Islamofascists didn't send landing crafts to storm our beaches. They didn't send heavy bombers to bomb our factories or cities. What did they do? They attacked what they considered to be the nerve centers of the West's financial emire. How should we have responded? We should have attacked the religious nerve center of Islamofascism. 17 of the 19 9/11 suicide attackers were Saudis. Conveniently, Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. You do the math. And after you figure out what we should have done, think of the repercussions: We would not have been attacked again for another 200 years. Islam is nothing more than a means of controlling populations of people. Much like educational propaganda, communism and money-supply manipulation. It's about nothing more than getting people to believe, fear, follow their greed and/or submit. Don't be a mind-numbed robot of right or left. Start thinking for yourself. And use your brains, not your hormones. First impulses are usually wrong. Don't follow the crowd, figure out where the crowd will end up and set up a kiosk to sell them what they need when they get there.

  • 1 decade ago

    The US wont. But if the superpowers like the US, Russia, China, India all agree to disarm all of our nuclear stockpile that'll be a big win for all humanity.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Only if we could make absolutely certain that every other nuclear nation also disarms and that an international program be instated to provide retraining for nuclear scientists (along with close observation)

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Nukes aren't a conventional weapon, they are a political weapon. They act as a both deterrent and power booster. Having nukes in OUR arsenal poses no risk of nuclear war. In fact, it prevents it.

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't want to be a dirty realist, but what happens when we disarm our nukes and other countries don't disarm theirs? We're not Canada, you know. We've pissed off a lot of people and they'd be thrilled to know that we have no way to retaliate.

  • 1 decade ago

    No we need to give them to every other country in the world because it's hypocritical if other countries like Iran and Libya can't have nukes but we can. Then we need to disband the military because if we just talk really nice and apologize to everyone no one will want to hurt us.

    Source(s): A smarts liberall.
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    bush paid north korea $400 million.

  • 1 decade ago

    You be the first in your neighborhood (especially if it's the "hood") to throw your doors wide open in a gesture of universal peace and love.

    Get back to us, (or have your "next of kin" get back to us).

  • 1 decade ago

    No. Not as long as we have a President that supports N. Korea and Iran more than he supports his "supposed" country.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.