Nuclear Dearmament?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

MAD is truly mad.

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

[Person012345]

I'm totally for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. The "but rogue states can have them" argument is worth nothing in my opinion, since if Iran for example launched a nuclear weapon, a retaliatory strike with a nuclear weapon would be lowering ourselves to their level, since scores of civilians would be killed and permanently injured. I also find the MAD argument stupid. "Forget diplomacy, let's make sure those Ruskies don't blow us into oblivion by making thousands of nukes that could annihilate the Earth hundreds of times over!" And besides, in the even that a nation with many nuclear weapons launches one at another nation with many nuclear weapons, is the victimised nation really going to start a nuclear war by sending one back? What purpose would it serve but to senselessly kill?

I agree with this, but I believe in nuclear peace. If I had a nuclear country under my control, I would keep them, make out as if the MAD doctrine applied, however in the event that an attack was launched against us I would seek to minimize civilian casualties and not launch a retaliatory strike.

We need more public nuclear bunkers. Just in case.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm totally for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. The "but rogue states can have them" argument is worth nothing in my opinion, since if Iran for example launched a nuclear weapon, a retaliatory strike with a nuclear weapon would be lowering ourselves to their level, since scores of civilians would be killed and permanently injured. I also find the MAD argument stupid. "Forget diplomacy, let's make sure those Ruskies don't blow us into oblivion by making thousands of nukes that could annihilate the Earth hundreds of times over!" And besides, in the even that a nation with many nuclear weapons launches one at another nation with many nuclear weapons, is the victimised nation really going to start a nuclear war by sending one back? What purpose would it serve but to senselessly kill?

I agree with this, but I believe in nuclear peace. If I had a nuclear country under my control, I would keep them, make out as if the MAD doctrine applied, however in the event that an attack was launched against us I would seek to minimize civilian casualties and not launch a retaliatory strike.

We need more public nuclear bunkers. Just in case.

So what's the point of keeping the nukes in the first place if you made it public policy that the nukes wouldn't ever be used, even in the event of a nuclear attack?

[Person012345]

I'm totally for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. The "but rogue states can have them" argument is worth nothing in my opinion, since if Iran for example launched a nuclear weapon, a retaliatory strike with a nuclear weapon would be lowering ourselves to their level, since scores of civilians would be killed and permanently injured. I also find the MAD argument stupid. "Forget diplomacy, let's make sure those Ruskies don't blow us into oblivion by making thousands of nukes that could annihilate the Earth hundreds of times over!" And besides, in the even that a nation with many nuclear weapons launches one at another nation with many nuclear weapons, is the victimised nation really going to start a nuclear war by sending one back? What purpose would it serve but to senselessly kill?

I agree with this, but I believe in nuclear peace. If I had a nuclear country under my control, I would keep them, make out as if the MAD doctrine applied, however in the event that an attack was launched against us I would seek to minimize civilian casualties and not launch a retaliatory strike.

We need more public nuclear bunkers. Just in case.

So what's the point of keeping the nukes in the first place if you made it public policy that the nukes wouldn't ever be used, even in the event of a nuclear attack?

Not public policy, you act like you would use them, thus keeping their deterrent properties.

[Yaltabaoth]

New Zealand has now been officially (legislatively) Nuclear-Free for 25 years now.
This has meant not only a total ban on nuclear warfare but also nuclear energy, including a requirement for all ships, aircraft and any other transport entering New Zealand's sovereign territory to declare definitively whether said vessel is either nuclear powered or armed.

For the same 25 years NZ has been completely excluded from ANZUS (an acronym that has ironically been maintained by Australia and the US, despite 2 of its 5 letters being absent).
New Zealand has also been excluded by the US from many regional trade agreements (also ironic due the the US being the only party in said agreements to not actually be "regional" to south-east Asia).

Meanwhile the US remains the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare, and Australia is the single biggest miner and exporter of uranium in the world.

And for 25 years, despite all the attempted punitive measures the US has tried to use to coerce NZ's cooperation with their nuclear regime, no party has ever been elected to Government in New Zealand which has held an anti-Nuclear-Free position.

Nuclear disarmament really isn't impossible. Sure, New Zealand is only one country, and to the best of my knowledge still the only nation in the world to adopt a wholly anti-nuclear position as fundamental legislative policy.

But I'd like to believe that a quarter of a century of anti-nuclear policy without a single interruption, can offer a glimmer of hope that a greater agreement might be achievable, and that it's more than just wishful thinking to attempt to do so.

[Illithar]

New Zealand has now been officially (legislatively) Nuclear-Free for 25 years now.
This has meant not only a total ban on nuclear warfare but also nuclear energy, including a requirement for all ships, aircraft and any other transport entering New Zealand's sovereign territory to declare definitively whether said vessel is either nuclear powered or armed.

For the same 25 years NZ has been completely excluded from ANZUS (an acronym that has ironically been maintained by Australia and the US, despite 2 of its 5 letters being absent).
New Zealand has also been excluded by the US from many regional trade agreements (also ironic due the the US being the only party in said agreements to not actually be "regional" to south-east Asia).

Meanwhile the US remains the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare, and Australia is the single biggest miner and exporter of uranium in the world.

And for 25 years, despite all the attempted punitive measures the US has tried to use to coerce NZ's cooperation with their nuclear regime, no party has ever been elected to Government in New Zealand which has held an anti-Nuclear-Free position.

Nuclear disarmament really isn't impossible. Sure, New Zealand is only one country, and to the best of my knowledge still the only nation in the world to adopt a wholly anti-nuclear position as fundamental legislative policy.

But I'd like to believe that a quarter of a century of anti-nuclear policy without a single interruption, can offer a glimmer of hope that a greater agreement might be achievable, and that it's more than just wishful thinking to attempt to do so.

banning nuclear energy to get rid of nuclear weapons is beyond stupid.

[Person012345]

New Zealand has now been officially (legislatively) Nuclear-Free for 25 years now.
This has meant not only a total ban on nuclear warfare but also nuclear energy, including a requirement for all ships, aircraft and any other transport entering New Zealand's sovereign territory to declare definitively whether said vessel is either nuclear powered or armed.

For the same 25 years NZ has been completely excluded from ANZUS (an acronym that has ironically been maintained by Australia and the US, despite 2 of its 5 letters being absent).
New Zealand has also been excluded by the US from many regional trade agreements (also ironic due the the US being the only party in said agreements to not actually be "regional" to south-east Asia).

Meanwhile the US remains the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare, and Australia is the single biggest miner and exporter of uranium in the world.

And for 25 years, despite all the attempted punitive measures the US has tried to use to coerce NZ's cooperation with their nuclear regime, no party has ever been elected to Government in New Zealand which has held an anti-Nuclear-Free position.

Nuclear disarmament really isn't impossible. Sure, New Zealand is only one country, and to the best of my knowledge still the only nation in the world to adopt a wholly anti-nuclear position as fundamental legislative policy.

But I'd like to believe that a quarter of a century of anti-nuclear policy without a single interruption, can offer a glimmer of hope that a greater agreement might be achievable, and that it's more than just wishful thinking to attempt to do so.

But that is an entirely stupid policy, imo. I mean, if you can feasibly transfer all power generation to clean and renewable energy as is, great, and it's fine. But if you can't, banning nuclear power would be stopping you from going forward and using less fossil fuels. Most countries of size will need some nuclear generation anyway if they are to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

[Buffett and Colbert]

I'm totally for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. The "but rogue states can have them" argument is worth nothing in my opinion, since if Iran for example launched a nuclear weapon, a retaliatory strike with a nuclear weapon would be lowering ourselves to their level, since scores of civilians would be killed and permanently injured. I also find the MAD argument stupid. "Forget diplomacy, let's make sure those Ruskies don't blow us into oblivion by making thousands of nukes that could annihilate the Earth hundreds of times over!" And besides, in the even that a nation with many nuclear weapons launches one at another nation with many nuclear weapons, is the victimised nation really going to start a nuclear war by sending one back? What purpose would it serve but to senselessly kill?

I agree with this, but I believe in nuclear peace. If I had a nuclear country under my control, I would keep them, make out as if the MAD doctrine applied, however in the event that an attack was launched against us I would seek to minimize civilian casualties and not launch a retaliatory strike.

We need more public nuclear bunkers. Just in case.

So what's the point of keeping the nukes in the first place if you made it public policy that the nukes wouldn't ever be used, even in the event of a nuclear attack?

Not public policy, you act like you would use them, thus keeping their deterrent properties.

Governments can't keep a secret.

[Person012345]

I'm totally for nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets. The "but rogue states can have them" argument is worth nothing in my opinion, since if Iran for example launched a nuclear weapon, a retaliatory strike with a nuclear weapon would be lowering ourselves to their level, since scores of civilians would be killed and permanently injured. I also find the MAD argument stupid. "Forget diplomacy, let's make sure those Ruskies don't blow us into oblivion by making thousands of nukes that could annihilate the Earth hundreds of times over!" And besides, in the even that a nation with many nuclear weapons launches one at another nation with many nuclear weapons, is the victimised nation really going to start a nuclear war by sending one back? What purpose would it serve but to senselessly kill?

I agree with this, but I believe in nuclear peace. If I had a nuclear country under my control, I would keep them, make out as if the MAD doctrine applied, however in the event that an attack was launched against us I would seek to minimize civilian casualties and not launch a retaliatory strike.

We need more public nuclear bunkers. Just in case.

So what's the point of keeping the nukes in the first place if you made it public policy that the nukes wouldn't ever be used, even in the event of a nuclear attack?

Not public policy, you act like you would use them, thus keeping their deterrent properties.

Governments can't keep a secret.

I can. Basically, everything would be exactly the same as it is now, except all I'm saying is that if I were in charge of the U.S. as soon as hearing the nukes were on their way I'd activate emergency evacuation plans and not give permission to launch retaliation. Assuming that the president has to give permission. Which he would in my system if he doesn't now.

[Krytenia]

So we're all peace on earth and shit

And then they come. Like seriously, how the fuck are we supposed to mop the floor with ET without nukes?

Bacteria.

[South Lorenya]

If nukes continue to exist, given enough time, they WILL be used. Remember, the US (A) was clearly the stronger side in both iraqi wars as well as a potential war with iran and (B) supposedly held the moral high ground, yet our leaders refused to rule out using nuclear weapons (Iraq 2003, Iraq 2003, Iraq 1991, Iran 2006).

If even the americans can't be trusted to refrain from nuking enemies, who the hell can be?

[Georgism]

So we're all peace on earth and shit

And then they come. Like seriously, how the fuck are we supposed to mop the floor with ET without nukes?

Bacteria.

I vote computer viruses.

Wait, no, that doesn't work. They still used Nukes afterwards.

[Yaltabaoth]

But that is an entirely stupid policy, imo. I mean, if you can feasibly transfer all power generation to clean and renewable energy as is, great, and it's fine. But if you can't, banning nuclear power would be stopping you from going forward and using less fossil fuels. Most countries of size will need some nuclear generation anyway if they are to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

New Zealand is a small country in terms of land-mass, but has a proportionately huge coastline. It's also constantly battered by harsh winds, many coming straight from the Antarctic continent with nothing but ocean in between. Further to this it's also highly geo-thermically active, as it exists practically on the edge of a tectonic plate.

For that last reason alone, nuclear power would be an insane option for NZ to adopt - but also because there are so many alternatives in wind, hydro-electric and geo-thermal technologies that are considerably less environmentally impactful and dangerous.

Sorry, but to my mind (as a Kiwi, if that wasn't already obvious) any pro-nuclear policy in NZ would be, in your words, entirely stupid.

[Person012345]

So we're all peace on earth and shit

And then they come. Like seriously, how the fuck are we supposed to mop the floor with ET without nukes?

Bacteria.

^ This.

[Person012345]

But that is an entirely stupid policy, imo. I mean, if you can feasibly transfer all power generation to clean and renewable energy as is, great, and it's fine. But if you can't, banning nuclear power would be stopping you from going forward and using less fossil fuels. Most countries of size will need some nuclear generation anyway if they are to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

New Zealand is a small country in terms of land-mass, but has a proportionately huge coastline. It's also constantly battered by harsh winds, many coming straight from the Antarctic continent with nothing but ocean in between. Further to this it's also highly geo-thermically active, as it exists practically on the edge of a tectonic plate.

For that last reason alone, nuclear power would be an insane option for NZ to adopt - but also because there are so many alternatives in wind, hydro-electric and geo-thermal technologies that are considerably less environmentally impactful and dangerous.

Sorry, but to my mind (as a Kiwi, if that wasn't already obvious) any pro-nuclear policy in NZ would be, in your words, entirely stupid.

As I say, if you can do it without nuclear, go for it.

[Yaltabaoth]

As I say, if you can do it without nuclear, go for it.

Fair enough, you did say that.

My original point though (which I may not have expressed so well, in retrospect - it's late and I'm a wee bit drunk), was that the policy has survived intact for a quarter-century, even though we're still being punished for it - even supposedly anti-nuke Obama hasn't given the slightest indication of acknowledging NZ's sovereign right to make such a choice.

Maybe I'm being a sook, but I find it frustrating that the only officially anti-nuke country in the world is so fundamentally ignored, in an age when international wars are being waged in the name of "controlling rogue nations" and curtailing the spread of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

[Tekania]

New Zealand has now been officially (legislatively) Nuclear-Free for 25 years now.
This has meant not only a total ban on nuclear warfare but also nuclear energy, including a requirement for all ships, aircraft and any other transport entering New Zealand's sovereign territory to declare definitively whether said vessel is either nuclear powered or armed.

For the same 25 years NZ has been completely excluded from ANZUS (an acronym that has ironically been maintained by Australia and the US, despite 2 of its 5 letters being absent).
New Zealand has also been excluded by the US from many regional trade agreements (also ironic due the the US being the only party in said agreements to not actually be "regional" to south-east Asia).

Meanwhile the US remains the only country in the world to ever use nuclear weapons in warfare, and Australia is the single biggest miner and exporter of uranium in the world.

And for 25 years, despite all the attempted punitive measures the US has tried to use to coerce NZ's cooperation with their nuclear regime, no party has ever been elected to Government in New Zealand which has held an anti-Nuclear-Free position.

Nuclear disarmament really isn't impossible. Sure, New Zealand is only one country, and to the best of my knowledge still the only nation in the world to adopt a wholly anti-nuclear position as fundamental legislative policy.

But I'd like to believe that a quarter of a century of anti-nuclear policy without a single interruption, can offer a glimmer of hope that a greater agreement might be achievable, and that it's more than just wishful thinking to attempt to do so.

banning nuclear energy to get rid of nuclear weapons is beyond stupid.

Indeed, I myself oppose nuclear arms proliferation (ironic given that I may or may not have had my "finger on the button"). But I'm not opposed to nuclear energy in general.

[The Neues Reich]

The idea is good, but is not a logical resolution to world problems. The Western countries will never fight each other again, or at least not for a long time. However, extremist countries in the Middle East and in Asia are potentially risky nations to be allowed to have nuclear weapons. If we outlaw nukes, outlaws will have them. If we want to protect ourselves it must be done with force.

[Great Nepal]

Unless US and Russia destroys all of there nuclear stockpile, NO for Nuclear Dearmament. And I dont see those nations doing it anytime soon.... so until then, no.

[Chumblywumbly]

If we outlaw nukes, outlaws will have them.

If we outlaw cucumbers, outlaws will have them.

[Krytenia]

If we outlaw nukes, outlaws will have them.

If we outlaw cucumbers, outlaws will have them.

You can take our lives, you can take our nuclear arsenal, but you can never take...OUR PHALLIC VEGETABLES!!!

[Person012345]

If we outlaw nukes, outlaws will have them.

If we outlaw cucumbers, outlaws will have them.

That's not a particularly convincing argument, since only an incredibly enterprising outlaw could destroy an entire city with a cucumber.

[Conserative Morality]

Deterrence is all-important.

[South Lorenya]

If we outlaw nukes, outlaws will have them.

If we outlaw cucumbers, outlaws will have them.

That's not a particularly convincing argument, since only an incredibly enterprising outlaw could destroy an entire city with a cucumber.

It's at least as convincing as Neues Reich's argument. *shrugs*

[Shia Majority]

I love when we Americans get upset over nukes.

It's fun.