Russia successfully tests long-range missile

Must be easy to do the maths.

Since 1945, the nuclear bomb caused many deaths. Not directly maybe, but dont tell me that these weapons have no influence on our evolution.

Just think about the ressources wasted to build and develop these weapons.

And using such weapons against a country like Saudi Arabia or Syria (and others of course) would be a defeat. How can a civilization survive after killing so many innocent people?

We live in an open world. We cant afford to use all our destructive power. We barely can use the destrive power of conventional weapons.

And about Iran, I believe their official version, I think that they dont want the nuclear bomb because it's against their values.

It's the only country I know who said that nuclear weapons are immoral weapons.
 
I honestly dont see your point. Sorry.

There is a school of thought saying that nuclear weapons saved lives. But I cant accept this conclusion.

Mankind spent a lot of ressources in the production of this weapon. We have enough nuclear bombs to send mankind back to stone age. This is a very dangerous potential. We will have to deal with it. And we could have used these resources to do something else...

And by looking in a direction, you find nothing in another direction. We followed the path that led us to the Cold war. And we are still on that path.

Now, there may be another path, where nuclear weapons are a waste of ressources. And we are not even walking in this direction.
Rather than to use military power to control resources like oil etc... We could have been working on reasearch for other energy sources to avoid confrontation.

Having nuclear weapons is a proof of weakness. Not a proof of strength.
The need to have such tools is a proof of failure.
 
@LeMask-I think you are right about the way things SHOULD be, but Schmack is
right about the way they ARE.
 
LeMask, i think Amanda clarified it a little.

I would certainly love to live in a world, where they don't need nuclear weapons and thus they don't exist. That is a world where there is no need for 'total insurance' because there is global trust in it. But let's face it, mankind has never been like that, neither yesterday, nor today, nor it will be tomorrow.

Maybe i don't like the whole idea of WMD, but i would never eliminate them untill radical religions, ideologies or other philosophical teachings exist and remain popular. If people were totally pragmatic and rational, we wouldn't need weapons at all. So, as you've said...
LeMask said:
Having nuclear weapons is a proof of weakness. Not a proof of strength.
The need to have such tools is a proof of failure.
Click to expand...
I fully agree on that. But to believe in working on reasearch for other energy sources to avoid confrontation means to be not just naive, but in case with politicians - criminally negligent.

Puting philosophy aside, i can assure you, nuclear arsenal costs unthinkable money, but against the background of total military spendings it's not that much. In case with Russia, for instance, it is about 18% ($10 billion) in year 2009. Boeing Defense alone has an anual revenue 6 times bigger. If America didn't have nukes, it would be 60 times bigger. Maintaining nuclear weapons makes it possible to put higher stakes on nuclear strategy in national defense, thus to reduce total conventional spendings. And it's Russia with the world's largest arsenal. If one can afford to possess nuclear weapons, it means he has money for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top