Has anyone ever been or is a member of the CND?
I just cant agree with total nuclear disarmanent - it will never happen and should never happen. How can getting rid of nuclear weapons cause world peace?
You get rid of them and you also get rid of the deterrent that goes with them. Countries then go to war, build technology to defend themselves and kill the enemy, rebuild nuclear weapons, they use them and then we have a cold war all over again.
What needs to happen is all future nuclear production be stopped and nuclear nations to hand over (in stages) thier weapons to an international organisation. That way, the deterrent will still exist while the threat of nuclear proliferation and war will be less.
Share This Page:
CND
-
civvy_bivvy_bag
- Member
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Fri 21 Nov, 2003 2:38 pm
- Location: ABC
Last edited by civvy_bivvy_bag on Thu 22 Apr, 2004 11:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: CND
Something like the UN you mean? ...Oh hang on, didn't the US/UK just totally undermine the UN's authorityJon wrote:nuclear nations to hand over (in stages) their weapons to an international organisation.
Nuisance
Preferably a seperate organisation would be set up.
Today 8 countries posess nuclear weapons - US, UK, France, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, and China. Plus several nations are interested in developing these weapons, including Iran and North Korea.
Earler this year India and Pakistan were on the brink of war, with the possiblity of nuclear attacks a realistic scenario. China is now untouchable because of its active deterrent, therefore is free to commit human rights abuses. Iran with nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the Middle East while North Korea with nukes would put the entire Pacific in and would make its Stalinist regime untouchable. The US also has a huge arsenal of minature nuclear weapons while Russia remains an unstable state.
North Korea and Iran have lied to the UNIAEA and have gone untouched. However military action against them by the US (the only nation with the balls, or desire to do something about it) and other countries would result in war and outrage.
The UN and IAEA are flawed because they have laws but are not prepared to back them up with force. However, with the US, etc, with a nuclear arsenal, countries accross the world will always argue that they have the right to develop nulcear weapons in order to defend thier country. For example, how can you expect North Korea to comply completely and disarm, whatever it ha,s when thousands of US troops are stacked upon its border. They will say that they need a deterrent to deter American hawkes and protect thier people and country.
An international organisation could be set up with complete control of the worlds limited amount of nuclear weapons (a few hundred at most). These would be handed over in stages by nuclear nations, and the rest would be dismantled. Therefore, the deterrent would remain while no agressive first strike attacks would be possible by rogue nations (eg: if India and Pakistan went to war, it wouldnt turn nuclear). It would be impossible for one nation to order a nuclear strike.
All nations of the world would be members but would have to hand over any information about nuclear facilities and scientists, etc. Therefore, if the organisation detected nuclear proliferation, it could act immediatly with its own private military force to destroy the facilities and stop the production.
Nuclear proliferation will be ever present in the future. Every so often, another nation will gain nuclear capabilities, giving other naions a reason to follow suit. We need to limit thier production but not enough is being done about it. Wiping the world clean of nuclear weapons will only remove the deterrent and not the knowledge, as civvy, etc, put it. Nuclear wepaons need to be controlled by the world, and not by one man with the power to order a strike. By limiting nuclear wepaons to one organisation, nuclear war would be an impossiblity.
However, ovcourse this is only what I think shouild happen and asking nuclear nations to hand over thier weapons would be a near impossibility. After the Second World War, Stalin proposed that nuclear weapons should be controlled by a nuetral international organisaton which would prevent proliferation and would provide a deterrent to stop further wars. Ovcourse, the US rejected this idea because it wanted to keep its military superiority and become one of the worlds superpowers. If such an organisation was put in place, and if it worked, the threat of nuclear war would have never become a reality, nuclear proliferation wouldnt have taken place and wars such as in Vietnam and Korea may never have happened.
Countires such as Iraq invaded thier neighbours because they believe that the wider world wouldnt want to get invloved. What is needed is an organisation to shake its finger at aggressive nations and threaten massive military action if they did not back down. You may believe that the US does this in todays world, but the US's past has shown that it will allow invasions to take place if it serves its purpose.
Today 8 countries posess nuclear weapons - US, UK, France, Israel, Russia, India, Pakistan, and China. Plus several nations are interested in developing these weapons, including Iran and North Korea.
Earler this year India and Pakistan were on the brink of war, with the possiblity of nuclear attacks a realistic scenario. China is now untouchable because of its active deterrent, therefore is free to commit human rights abuses. Iran with nuclear weapons would be disastrous for the Middle East while North Korea with nukes would put the entire Pacific in and would make its Stalinist regime untouchable. The US also has a huge arsenal of minature nuclear weapons while Russia remains an unstable state.
North Korea and Iran have lied to the UNIAEA and have gone untouched. However military action against them by the US (the only nation with the balls, or desire to do something about it) and other countries would result in war and outrage.
The UN and IAEA are flawed because they have laws but are not prepared to back them up with force. However, with the US, etc, with a nuclear arsenal, countries accross the world will always argue that they have the right to develop nulcear weapons in order to defend thier country. For example, how can you expect North Korea to comply completely and disarm, whatever it ha,s when thousands of US troops are stacked upon its border. They will say that they need a deterrent to deter American hawkes and protect thier people and country.
An international organisation could be set up with complete control of the worlds limited amount of nuclear weapons (a few hundred at most). These would be handed over in stages by nuclear nations, and the rest would be dismantled. Therefore, the deterrent would remain while no agressive first strike attacks would be possible by rogue nations (eg: if India and Pakistan went to war, it wouldnt turn nuclear). It would be impossible for one nation to order a nuclear strike.
All nations of the world would be members but would have to hand over any information about nuclear facilities and scientists, etc. Therefore, if the organisation detected nuclear proliferation, it could act immediatly with its own private military force to destroy the facilities and stop the production.
Nuclear proliferation will be ever present in the future. Every so often, another nation will gain nuclear capabilities, giving other naions a reason to follow suit. We need to limit thier production but not enough is being done about it. Wiping the world clean of nuclear weapons will only remove the deterrent and not the knowledge, as civvy, etc, put it. Nuclear wepaons need to be controlled by the world, and not by one man with the power to order a strike. By limiting nuclear wepaons to one organisation, nuclear war would be an impossiblity.
However, ovcourse this is only what I think shouild happen and asking nuclear nations to hand over thier weapons would be a near impossibility. After the Second World War, Stalin proposed that nuclear weapons should be controlled by a nuetral international organisaton which would prevent proliferation and would provide a deterrent to stop further wars. Ovcourse, the US rejected this idea because it wanted to keep its military superiority and become one of the worlds superpowers. If such an organisation was put in place, and if it worked, the threat of nuclear war would have never become a reality, nuclear proliferation wouldnt have taken place and wars such as in Vietnam and Korea may never have happened.
Countires such as Iraq invaded thier neighbours because they believe that the wider world wouldnt want to get invloved. What is needed is an organisation to shake its finger at aggressive nations and threaten massive military action if they did not back down. You may believe that the US does this in todays world, but the US's past has shown that it will allow invasions to take place if it serves its purpose.
The Best Is Yet To Come
Jon,
I understand that, but my point was that the UN was setup to protect states from unlawful invasion - therefore if some members of the UN wanted to say 'invade Iraq' they'd have to get approval from the UN that the action was OK.
Considering what has happened can you say with any certainty that a new organisation charged with maintaining the security of nuclear weapons would fare any better?
I'm not against you on this, but feel that since we undermined the UN we have actually contributed to making the world a more unpredictable place.
I understand that, but my point was that the UN was setup to protect states from unlawful invasion - therefore if some members of the UN wanted to say 'invade Iraq' they'd have to get approval from the UN that the action was OK.
Considering what has happened can you say with any certainty that a new organisation charged with maintaining the security of nuclear weapons would fare any better?
I'm not against you on this, but feel that since we undermined the UN we have actually contributed to making the world a more unpredictable place.
Nuisance
-
Sticky Blue
- Member
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Tue 18 Dec, 2001 12:00 am
- Location: Portsmouth, UK
- Contact:
The UN is about as useful as a bull with tits. The idea was good, but it fast became an East versus West forum, and went downhill from there. By the time it makes a decision on any thing major, the situation has usually got completely out of hand. Apart from the war in Korea, the UN has relied on mainly USA and Europe to provide troops for sorting its problems, the rest of the motley crew just sit and criticise.
Aye Owdun.
Aye Owdun.
My views on Nuclear Disarmament..
Now what follows is my opinion of Nuclear disarmament, I dont expect anyone to agree but it would be nice to get some feedback, if only to prove or disprove whether I am a psycho or not.
In England we ban guns but the scroats still have them to carry out there ilegal and in some cases Immoral activities, so the police develop Armed response teams to deal with them (somewhat inefficiently), I think my point is that Guns are therefore not banned are they
In a previous post somebody stated "the technology will still be there" or words to that effect. I applaude you, that would seem to be obvious but having read other posts it would seem that people have taken their eye off the ball in relation to this very important fact.
If the worlds super powers (for want of a better phrase) were to completely abolish nuclear weapons and therefore any deterant. All the civilised (and I use that term loosely) Nations would find themselves at the mercy of the international criminal fraternity.
Now I must confess I am drunk ( it is Xmas after all) so if I have muttered on I apologise, but I have read this entry at least 20 times before submitting it and it seems to make sense to me. lol
Anyway I have just decided that this is all a bit too serious for xmas day, so im gonna have another Jack daniels see ya laters and all the best for the forthcoming new Year
In England we ban guns but the scroats still have them to carry out there ilegal and in some cases Immoral activities, so the police develop Armed response teams to deal with them (somewhat inefficiently), I think my point is that Guns are therefore not banned are they
In a previous post somebody stated "the technology will still be there" or words to that effect. I applaude you, that would seem to be obvious but having read other posts it would seem that people have taken their eye off the ball in relation to this very important fact.
If the worlds super powers (for want of a better phrase) were to completely abolish nuclear weapons and therefore any deterant. All the civilised (and I use that term loosely) Nations would find themselves at the mercy of the international criminal fraternity.
Now I must confess I am drunk ( it is Xmas after all) so if I have muttered on I apologise, but I have read this entry at least 20 times before submitting it and it seems to make sense to me. lol
Anyway I have just decided that this is all a bit too serious for xmas day, so im gonna have another Jack daniels see ya laters and all the best for the forthcoming new Year
Ubique
