« BACK TO FORUM
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Andrew Anhvu Do
Joined: May 16, 2009
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 20
Country: Canada
Province/State: Ontario
City: Toronto
|
An Uneasy Nuclear Peace?
June 26, 2009 - 09:50 PM
|
|
It would be nice for a world without nuclear weapons. Yet, the cynics in all of us will probably concede that it almost seems like a naïve pipedream and after all, we’d like to think of ourselves as not naïve.
These were the sentiments that Barack Obama echoed in a speech delivered in Prague. In it, he stated that he wished to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons” and before many could accuse him being naïve, he quickly added that “I’m not naïve” as to diffuse the inevitable criticism that in fact, he is naïve as he apparently, or so the argument goes, does not take into account that nuclear weapons actually conducive to peace.
The link between possessing nuclear weapons and peace sounds rather absurd but it is a rather interesting, if not counter-intuitive argument. The argument goes that states that possess nuclear weapons will exercise restraint in resolving international conflicts in accordance to the logic of "mutually assured destruction" (as we all probably learned in high school) As such, states will resort to diplomacy over force as force will entail risking nuclear annihilation. This assumes that state leaders will act "rationally" and place the survival of their state as a prime objective, whether implicit or explicit. There is more to this argument but this is basically the gist of the argument.
I bring this argument up as I'm curious as to your thoughts. I'm not exactly convinced by this line of reasoning (I tend to think that proponents of this argument are ironically quite naive in believing all decision-makers will act "rationally" but I bring this up as it is a very interesting argument that is taken quite seriously among a number of academics, government officials and commentators. I think people ought to be aware of when discussing nuclear disarmament. Your thoughts?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
redmamba
Joined: May 2, 2004
Posts: 5
Poster Rank:
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 26
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Nairobi
|
Re: An Uneasy Nuclear Peace?
June 27, 2009 - 06:27 AM
|
|
As you put it:
"The link between possessing nuclear weapons and peace sounds rather absurd but it is a rather interesting, if not counter-intuitive argument."
The possibility of a lunatic using nuclear weapons in the near or distant future is given. However, the likelihood of such a lunatic finding the courage to do so is limited by the fear of possible self annihilation; when others strike back.
Like your head line goes; this state of affairs is rather uneasy. The tricky situation or state of affairs is compounded or made even more delicate by those advocating for "positive application of nuclear technology" in energy production.
The situation would be more capricious if more nations would acquire nuclear weapons. If that happened, then the possibility of world annihilation by a self conceited lunatic increases.
We have to continue dreaming, and naively hoping that at some point human beings will realize the futility in self aggrandizement. If that ever comes to be, then the ideal solution of doing away with all nuclear weapons; despite having the technology, will then be tenable.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
prieten47
Joined: Oct 26, 2006
Posts: 24
Poster Rank:
Talkative
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 50
Country: Japan
Province/State: Hokkaido
City: Sapporo
|
Re: An Uneasy Nuclear Peace?
June 30, 2009 - 05:48 AM
|
|
andrewdo89 wrote:
I bring this argument (Mutually Assured Destruction) up as I'm curious as to your thoughts. I'm not exactly convinced by this line of reasoning (I tend to think that proponents of this argument are ironically quite naive in believing all decision-makers will act "rationally"* but I bring this up as it is a very interesting argument that is taken quite seriously among a number of academics, government officials and commentators. I think people ought to be aware of when discussing nuclear disarmament. Your thoughts?
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has indeed "held up the peace" from 1946 until today. Formerly very hostile countries like the USA, the USSR and the PRC were too afraid to use atomic weapons against each other because they feared a retaliatory strike. They resorted to non-nuclear proxy wars against each other instead.
Interestingly, there were some "near uses". During the Korean War, the PRC had no nuclear weapons and General McCarthur who was in charge of the United Nations' war effort strongly urged President Truman to use nuclear weapons against the invading Chinese army which had come to the rescue of the defeated North Korean army. Truman said no and fired General McCarthur.
President Nixon wrote in his memoirs that Leonid Breshnev asked him whether it would be okay if the USSR nuked the PRC during a border skirmish involving some islands in a river between the two countries. Nixon claimed he told Breshnev it was not okay.
The problem with MAD is that today there those who "are dying to die" for their religion. We have already seen what they are capable of in New York City and the destruction they are causing in Pakistan now. Suicide is not a deterrent to them, it is a "priviledge," their gateway to "heaven." Of course, they are mistaken, but there is no convincing them. I think it is only a matter of time before they get ahold of a nuclear weapon and use it.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Shorooq
Joined: Jul 3, 2009
Posts:
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 16
Country: Jordan
City: Amman
|
Re: An Uneasy Nuclear Peace?
July 3, 2009 - 05:21 PM
|
|
Well to say the truth I think he either is naive or he thinks people are naive, either ways nuclear weapons will be present and will not disappear until the US actually stops making them in the first place, it's a leading country, and other countries would automatically say it's allowed and start doing it as well, and in the other hand the US is not the only government that have the right to worry about it's citizens and safety, so when I see my neighbor walking around with a big gun, I will own a gun so I would protect myself in case that neighbor went crazy and came to shoot me and my family, so that's what I think of the matter, and I hope I haven't been a source of annoyance to you in anyway.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Justin Lawrence
Joined: Aug 5, 2009
Posts: 1
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 15
Country: Canada
|
Re: An Uneasy Nuclear Peace?
August 6, 2009 - 11:03 AM
|
|
In our world nuclear weapons do seem to enforce the peace that we all want, but it is an uneasy peace. Governments in terrorist hotspots have been known to become corrupt and attack,without motive, their peaceful neighbours. The scary part about this is that these "corrupt nations" have acess to nuclear arms and can use them as they see fit. America says this can never happen, that the peace treaty between the countries of the world holds them still from taking aggressive action, but this treaty is only an obstacle in the road. it does not say "act peacefully or face total destruction"and so there is no enforcing law binding nations to the peace treaty. And that is what worries those who can see it. Now we know that they can launch their nuclear arms whenever, eliminating a future threat, because by the time any nation realizes the treaty is broken it will be far too late.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
« BACK TO FORUM
|
Forum Jump:
|
All times are GMT-05:00
|
» Check that you are logged in!
You cannot create new threads in this forum
You cannot post replies in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot edit/delete your posts in this forum
|
|
Administrators:
Liamjod
Moderators:
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
|
|
Home
Community
