haha victor and david, i know you guys will respond to this....

personally I think nuclear weapons are immoral. Any possession and use of nuclear weapons is not justified at all. I look forward to the day when we can abolish our nuclear weapons, and live in a nuke-free world. I supposed that's too anti-realist of me, but it's a dream i think that is worth striving for.

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

*points and laughs at tm11

aaaaaahahahhahahahha!!!!

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

oh yes, i shall respond. BTW, Tommy used the phrase "nukes are immoral" because he used that exact phrase in one of his many LD speeches that he loves hahaha, jp. LD PRIDE! hahah.


i agree, though my man Double A-Ron (inside joke) will disagree with us there haha. Anyway, i think creating nuclear/weapons of mass destruction is pretty much the worst mistake of all mankind. It forces the beholder of weapons to be of at least some intelligence in their usage of them, thats a really big risk though and fortunately it's worked so far.

Furthermore, deterrence with nuclear weapons has become in a way obsolete. The mere possession of even a nuclear weapon that could create a threat regional is enough to start a nuclear war, and then the deterrence has become so ambiguous from country to country that all that is required for a nation to be a threat is to have some sort of nuclear capabilities. It's ineffective, and a countries size or stance in the world doesn't get factored in this at all, third-world countries could have as much nuclear deterrence as us, as far as i am concerned. In short, it upsets the power balance in the world, allowing small nations to be bolstered quickly by this technology. It's just really dangerous

If you think about it, people aren't afraid of our nukes as they are afraid of the United States military (so to speak). Which is exactly the point, nations fear our conventional deterrence far more than our nuclear deterrent. But even so, we have more nukes than the rest of the world, and they are on constant high-alert status circulating in subs and what-not ready to be fired at any time, despite our pledge of second-strike only (if we did pledge this hehe, i assume we do).

Then there's the problem of nuclear storage and leakage and suchl. Whats it called...Nunn-Lugar? Is that it? The one where we give a bunch of money to russia to properly store their nukes. Anyway, Storing nukes is always a risk, along with many others i'm sure other people will touch upon. The US and Russia have agreed verbally (there's no agreement on paper) that we'd get rid of 2/3 of out nukes, but we'd still have more than the rest of the world! US has around 15,000, and Russia around 10,500 (correct me if i'm wrong). Countries like India have like 15 i believe, you see how much we outnumber them still? We need to get rid of ALL of them. Cause ANY nuclear weapon is a threat.

Another thing, it's a waste of money, a LOT of money. Why do we keep proliferating if we have this hellafied ambiguous nuclear detterent all ready? So we nuke Russia 5000 more times than they will? Thats absurd, and i think pretty much all the people in the white house realize this, but it's a hard thing to stop.

What we need, is to go back to total conventional deterrence, like....XENOGEARS! yeah yeah. Huge Mechs that will replace soldiers and stuff. Just an idea haha, anyway i could write a lot more on this subject but i wrote more than i thought i would all ready. Victor, tommy, or someone continue.

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Last edited by PsychoSnowman on 05-28-2002 at 09:59 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

The fact that we have nukes poses a problem as Sir has addressed. I feel that they are incredibly immoral, maybe we should just fake build nukes...... sounds good to me, maybe they should be made out of tupperware as well (tm knows).... what if somone in this room tells.... well enough of that. Seriously nukes are wrong, they threaten millions without need. Our no first use policy is useless because we continually have nukes pointed at other nations. Conventional deterrants are a much better idea if they must be used at all since they can be directed to destroy such a small target. I believe we can get them to destroy such a small radius as 10 feet or something ridiculus like that. Just an idea

__________________
We're Hard Hitting
Always been Cool as Hell
Got trees in my mirror so my car don't smell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

quote:

---

Originally posted by heyitsdean
Conventional deterrants are a much better idea if they must be used at all since they can be directed to destroy such a small target. I believe we can get them to destroy such a small radius as 10 feet or something ridiculus like that. Just an idea

---

Our glorious and intelligent President George W. Bush has thought of this as well! His practical solution was to order the construction of "small nukes" hahahaa, thats the stupidest thing i think i've heard him say. haha

__________________
Long messages do not equal aggravation of any sort,
rather they reflect nothing more than a response of insight
that should always be read in a matter-of-fact tone.

"Those womyn that seek equality with men, lack determination."

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be wrong."
-Cromwell

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

"small nukes" yes i heard of that and i fear y the hell he is our president. i wish that fag wasnt in office but thats not the thread.
I believe that nuclear weapons are just as immoral as guns and other weapons that threat lives. But the nuke threats millions to keep millions safe. america had to make more and more nukes to counter the number of nukes made by russia. the more russia made it threatened america and the more america made it threatened Russia. Thus putting them in a stalemate. i kno these weapons hav the power to destroy this planet but also keeps us safe from a nuclear holocost from starting since no once would be stupid enough to fire first. Its a chain reaction once one fires the world fires and then whoever is left standing is the victor.I believe the nukes are a necessary evil as of now since all this terrorists warning but wit all these conflicts someone will be desperate enough to start it and these nukes made by humans will destroy humans off the face of this planet. ok maybe that wont happen but heck it will kill alot of people :huh:

__________________
the fool is the one who thinks he is wise, yet the wise one is the one who thinks he is a fool

Remember the heros
Remember the lives
Remember the day
God bless

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

it will be a long and hard road to abolish nuclear weapons... but there are many things we can do to realize this vision..

[haha this is where i list all the cases from the 2k1-2k2 year, david, victor, anyone else, correct me if i'm wrong about this stuff]

de-alerting : we decomission the weapons by dissassembling them, or at least taking them off of LOW (launch on warning)... this helps to decrease risks of accidents, and would be a good idea for a country like russia who's tech. is dated... did you know that the u.s. has been within 90 seconds of launching a nuclear weapon, just because someone once confused a training video for an actual attack. Russia's been just as close, over things that were just as stupid.

CTBT - comprehensive test ban treaty- we've signed it, but haven't ratified it, if we did, then we cannot test nuclear weapons. It's unfortunate for us and other countries that other countries won't ratify it because we haven't. ratifying the ctbt would decrease horizontal and vertical proliferation.

Agreed Framework/ other diplomatic devices - this is hella imperialist, and in principle, this is founded on racist practices... but if you want to stop horizontal proliferation, take actions to stop other countries from getting the nukes. example: the agreed framework of the clinton administration where we give N. Korea 2 light-water nuclear reactors that can't be used in a nuclear fission device such as a bomb, and in return they promise us not to proliferate, plus there was aid packages from other nations tied in to make the deal sweeter for Korea... but we haven't come through yet, and niether has anyone else..

there are many more, but i'm gonna put this on hiatus for now, i gotta work on an IB oral presentation on authenticity and "Indianness"

others argue that nukes are good and they have worked.... well the truth is they have, but at what cost? we've wasted millions and millions of dollars, time, and energy just so we can kill... and we're not the only ones who are guilty...
sure, others like John Mearsheimer of U of Chicago argue that proliferation is good because it forces countries to make deals and find the middle ground, because once a nation-state has nukes, it can make claims and then back those claims up. there's a lot more to this side, and both sides do have valid points, but i'm gonna put this on hold now too heh, i'll be back though, this won't be like evo... (so sorry btw)

The future is still bleak at this point, but things are getting better, as you may or may not know, bush and putin are going through with their deep cuts agreement. This is a good step, but we have a long way to go.

__________________
word is bond

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I'll put in my 2 cents also

On the general subject of nuclear weapons, i believe that disarmament and treaty signing is just a whole bunch of shit that would not get rid of the nuclear threat in the world.
The main concern nowadays is with terrorism and their factor in using nukes. Now, with the deterioration of the russian nuclear missile program and because of the intense depression that russia is going through, many of the former-soviet scientists are underpaid, and most are in a state of poverty. Thus, terrorists, who have a fair amount of funding from middle-eastern states such as IRaq or Iran, are able to pay these scientists that are, for the most part, desperate to feed their families. I remember reading a card with a quote by a russian scientist basiclly sayin that, "What do I care that a country in the west would get attacked with a nuclear bomb? I have kids to feed, immediate problems that i have to fix now, and because these terrorists are offering me a solution, i'll take it."
Thus, on to my main point, policy actions such as CTBT or Disarm only affect the state of the "lawful" world. It does nothing to prevent what happens underneath the surface, in relation to rogue groups and terrorists. In fact, i believe that if someone wrote an aff on that, it would be highly successful because for the most part, it is true. It is hard fact. Outlaw organizations that do not submit to international law are the most dangerous ones out there and are quite capable of obtaining a nuclear weapon and detonating it.

IMO, that is the threat in the world today, and the most realistic.

Onto the subject of deterrance and morality. The moral kritik tied into the Disarm aff is a whole bunch of shit also =). First off, morals are something that is never constant, it is a social construct used to explain and personalize the idea of justice. however, "morality" for each person is different. That is why there is disagreement, and that is also why using morality as an argument is such a problem. Also, I have a Firebaud (or something) card that basiclly states that by forcing morals on someone through discourse such as the 1ac, one is commiting the worst evil in the world by snuffing out true freedom of ideas and beliefs and making others conform to such a standard. Cool counter-kritik to use =)

__________________
ni pour ni contre; ça m'est égal

"The weight of this sad time we must obey,/ Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say./ The oldest hath borne most; we that are young/ Shall never see so much, nor live so long."
King Lear (V.3.300-304)

Last edited by Crazydeb8ter on 05-29-2002 at 02:19 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged