Which non-nuclear nations SHOULD acquire nuclear weapons?

Darth Rotor said:
Stick to the scenario, would you?

The point is to consider a subset of arms (...) known as nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
OK, the answer is: all atom bomb countries should immediately destroy their nuclear weapons, and _after_ they have done so, all countries should be strictly obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons.
 
Taiwan needs nuclear weapons and a missile shield, but it needs to develop it in secret. Ditto for South Korea. China lets North Korea build nukes so the balance of power must be offset.
 
JJM 777 said:
OK, the answer is: all atom bomb countries should immediately destroy their nuclear weapons, and _after_ they have done so, all countries should be strictly obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

And we should just assume all countries will comply. If they don't comply, what would you do; ask them nicely to stop? If they ignore you, would you ask them sternly to stop?
 
Astrodude said:
And we should just assume all countries will comply. If they don't comply, what would you do; ask them nicely to stop? If they ignore you, would you ask them sternly to stop?
Click to expand...

And herein we learn why pacifism just doesn't work. It's a classic case of mistaking the ends for the means. It makes the false assumption that reason the violent regimes of the world haven't stopped being violent is because the idea just never occurred to them and they will do so the instant someone else gives them a good example.

Bob: Well I think it would be a better world if everyone renounced violence.
Ted: Of course it would be, that's almost self evident. But that doesn't answer the question of how we achieve such a world.
Bob: Well everyone just should!
Ted: Okay and what about those individuals and groups that choose not to do so? By defining force to stop force as bad, you leave no recourse. So how would a pacifistic nation deal with an aggressive one? How would they make the other country stop being aggressive?
Bob: Errr..... well... errr... Well they just should!
Ted: Right, I get that, I agree but how do we effect that change?
Bob: Errr...

It's self defeating to define fighting to make the world a better place, be "fighting" either literally physical fighting or intellectually, because it assures those that don't follow your rules will win.
 
Last edited:
shadron said:
Defensive nuclear weapons? In what case, other then MAD, can you consider nukes to be defensive weapons?
Click to expand...
Used tactically, e.g. against ships, submarines or aircraft/missiles or operationally against naval formations for example.
 
Yeah I mean there's nothing magical about nuclear weapons, it's just a way of making an explosion. And some designed or even fielded small nuclear that have lower yields then some large conventional explosives.

Not every nuclear weapon is a world ending super bomb.
 
Well, the fallout from a "dirty bomb" is certainly no picnic. Then there is the concern about so-called "suitcase nukes," basically the fact that more advanced forms of nuclear weapons can be remarkably small for their explosive force. Nukes may not be "world ending super bombs" but they can rather seriously mess up a city and possibly the surrounding area downwind.

It is not the end of the world that people fear, it is the end of their world.
 
shadron said:
Which is, of course, offensive. But that is what you are saying, right?
Click to expand...

Any weapon can be defensive if it can be used to defend you, by definition.

They seem to be quite successful as defensive weapons in terms of major state vs state war but not remotely useful against asymmetric wars.

I'm not at all in favour of states like the US, UK and France getting rid of their nukes. Conventional wars are too winnable.
 
Last edited:
Probably South Korea. It's a deterrent to the nuclear-armed and hostile neighbor to the north.

Perhaps Taiwan, due to China's stated intentions towards them.

I'm larely thinking of this from an American standpoint, as it would help prevent the U.S. from being involved in hostilities involving nuclear-armed countries. But it's also probably in those countries' best interests not to be militarily dependent on the U.S.
 
Canada. They have really big bears up there. And moose. You have no idea how big moose can get. Gotta have some way to defend themselves against rampaging moose and bears. And beavers, sneaky little buggers.
 
Lancashire! The North will rise again!

Holland, Finland and Poland. The first because if they nuke someone then they must have really, really deserved it. The second because of their large hostile neighbour to the east and the last because of their large hostile neighbour to the west. Plus they all end in "-land".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom