Petitioning the Prime Minister

[Bonam]

I understand the concept well. Before we even had these weapons, there was not a need for MAD. Would you not agree that the world would be a better place if we didnt need MAD?

Not needing MAD and not having MAD are two different things. I would argue that had nuclear weapons not existed, there would have been a very high probability of an all out conventional war between the US and the USSR, rather than the Cold War staying cold for its whole duration. Such a conflict could have dwarfed WWII in terms of casualties. By their mere existence, nuclear weapons made each side realize that there could be no victory, no outcome save complete death and annihilation of both sides, to any such conflict. I say that nuclear weapons prevent war and are a force for peace, so long as they are in the hands of nations that value their own survival more than the death of their enemies. Entities that value the death of their enemies more than their own survival should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Edited May 22, 2010 by Bonam

[sleepyguy1]

Not needing MAD and not having MAD are two different things. I would argue that had nuclear weapons not existed, there would have been a very high probability of an all out conventional war between the US and the USSR, rather than the Cold War staying cold for its whole duration. Such a conflict could have dwarfed WWII in terms of casualties. By their mere existence, nuclear weapons made each side realize that there could be no victory, no outcome save complete death and annihilation of both sides, to any such conflict. I say that nuclear weapons prevent war and are a force for peace, so long as they are in the hands of nations that value their own survival more than the death of their enemies. Entities that value the death of their enemies more than their own survival should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

You can speculate what could have happened all you like. But you cant deny MAD has outlived its usefulness.

[Bonam]

But you cant deny MAD has outlived its usefulness.

Yes I can.

[sleepyguy1]

Yes I can.

Youre welcome to do it all you like.

[Shady]

Youre welcome to do it all you like.

As I've already pointed out, your petition to the Prime Minister has been rendered moot.

OTTAWA — A historic nuclear disarmament treaty between the United States and Russia is being praised by the Prime Minister's office as a "positive development" for peace.

[bush_cheney2004]

Not needing MAD and not having MAD are two different things. I would argue that had nuclear weapons not existed, there would have been a very high probability of an all out conventional war between the US and the USSR, rather than the Cold War staying cold for its whole duration.

Mostly true, except for the millions who died in proxy wars (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Angola, etc.). The concept of MAD didn't really apply to using tactical nuclear weapons, save for obvious escalation to using the big boys. It can be argued that nuclear weapons also saved trillions over the course of the Cold War compared to the cost of conventional armies. Nuclear weapons do not need employment benefits and do not have dependents.

Such a conflict could have dwarfed WWII in terms of casualties. By their mere existence, nuclear weapons made each side realize that there could be no victory, no outcome save complete death and annihilation of both sides, to any such conflict.

Agreed, but early on the Americans could have leveraged nuclear weapons to even greater advantage. First strike options were/are still factors in operations analysis and war colleges, but less so than before when it was a primary strategy.

I say that nuclear weapons prevent war and are a force for peace, so long as they are in the hands of nations that value their own survival more than the death of their enemies. Entities that value the death of their enemies more than their own survival should be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Agreed....nuclear weapons are here to stay, if only to be able to say, "Nuke 'em 'til they glow!"

[Alta4ever]

I understand the concept well. Before we even had these weapons, there was not a need for MAD. Would you not agree that the world would be a better place if we didnt need MAD?

Really do we not know the historical relevance of the dreadnought and naval limits put in place after the great war. The limits that were put in place left both Britain and America at a severe disadvantage while rouge nations disregarded those treaties.

With the bomb, WW2 probably would not have ended in europe when it did, after rolling through Germany, it most likely would would have continued with Stalin. The Bomb kept the bear at bay.

[M.Dancer]

Nuclear weapons should be taken away from governments and given into the hands of ordinary citizens.

If you make nuclear war impossible, you make conventional war inevitable

Being killed by an atomic weapom is much worse than being killed by a landmine.

[Bonam]

Being killed by an atomic weapom is much worse than being killed by a landmine.

Actually being killed by a nuclear blast in close proximity is probably one of the best ways to go. Instantaneous complete vaporization, totally painless due to its speed.

[Alta4ever]

Actually being killed by a nuclear blast in close proximity is probably one of the best ways to go. Instantaneous complete vaporization, totally painless due to its speed.

I was thinking the same thing.

[August1991]

I dont see how potentially waging mass genocide in the blink of an eye and reducing the world to an irradiated wasteland constitutes civilization. If we disarm everyone, than we have taken a rather large step towards world peace. The police in my neighborhood can keep their guns. At least with guns I dont need to run a Geiger counter over a glass of wate. r everytime a shots are fired.

"The police in my neighborhood can keep their guns." but the US cannot have nuclear weapons.

WTF?

----

I happen to see the US as a good force in world history. Without the US, I think ordinary people in the world would live worse lives.

IMHO, I am happy that the US government has many sophisticated nuclear weapons and other governments know this.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually being killed by a nuclear blast in close proximity is probably one of the best ways to go. Instantaneous complete vaporization, totally painless due to its speed.

Dying from the radiation afterwords though would be a nasty way to go.

[Topaz]

Really? How many times did Bush use nuclear weapons? Oh that's right. Zero times.

What's sad is that you're worried more about what a democratically elected leader of a free country might do, opposed to say leaders in Iran, or Pakistan, or China, etc.

But even when he's no longer in office. It all comes back to Bush to you people. Sad.

However. There really isn't any need for this petition. Because as I've already linked to, the Prime Minster has praised the START treaty a while ago.

There was an article on the web years back that talked about the time when Bush wanted to go into Iraq, and he wanted to nuke Hussein and PM Blair talked him out of it instead they came out with the UN section 1444, I think, that said Hussein had to let all of his palaces to be search and they knew he wouldn't so the invasion was on.

[Shady]

There was an article on the web years back that talked about the time when Bush wanted to go into Iraq, and he wanted to nuke Hussein and PM Blair talked him out of it instead they came out with the UN section 1444, I think, that said Hussein had to let all of his palaces to be search and they knew he wouldn't so the invasion was on.

*cough* Bullshit *cough*

[bush_cheney2004]

....But even when he's no longer in office. It all comes back to Bush to you people. Sad.

LOL! I guess they can stop worrying about Truman, Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan....they're all DEAD!