What if......A nuclear free world?

[Chinese-Dragon]

Nope we are humans and not animals.
Morality exists in humans and not in animals.Humans and animals negotiate ‘conflict' by fundamentally different means. According to Darwinian evolution we select for behaviours that minimise conflict and strengthen social ties but in animal kingdom it is ‘you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours'.
Human beings negotiate conflict through socially created values and codes of conduct.So NO we dont have to behave like animals or use "feral attacks" as an excuse to possess nuclear arms.
And as somebody said "We use nuclear weapons everyday ...to deter our potential foes and provide reassurance to the allies to whom we offer protection."America being one big brother who keeps more than what it needs to protect itself because they're supposedly protecting their younger "siblings".

You seem to know about this issue than I do, so I will defer to your knowledge sir.

I would argue though that humans are still basically animals underneath. Sure we have social norms and legal frameworks, but at the end of the day our "base motivations" come from our more animalistic side, what in psychology they refer to as the "Id".

For example, according to the Henderson-Brooks report, Nehru started the 1962 War with his Forward Policy, at a time when China was in the middle of the worst famine in our entire history (the Great leap forward).

If we were not in the middle of a famine, and we were as militarily strong as we are today, do you think Nehru would have dared to start a war with us? No, because of "fear", which is one of our most basic and animal emotions.

He saw we were weak and collapsing from our worst famine in history, just like a wolf looks at an animal with a broken leg.

That's why countries want to be strong. So when we are at our weakest, and when the wolves come calling, we can pull out a sword (nukes/army) and let them know that they will be coming to Hell with us. And due to fear, the attackers may not risk it.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Then there would be only 5-6 countries in the world eventually.

 

[xunzi]

Why is there a misconception that if small states obtain nuclear weapon will mean parity with nuclear superpower? People need to understand that in the real world having nuclear weapon is just the 1st step, albeit a very big step, but still it is just the initial step in the nuclear war game. Once you possess nuke, you need to possess 2nd-strike capability; otherwise, your small nuclear possession is quite useless. In the end, the country with large land mass and 2nd-strike capability will continue to win over small nuclear states in an all-out war.

 

[thesolar65]

Then there would be only 5-6 countries in the world eventually.

You mean 5 continents to be exact?.....And where would you live in?.....

 

[Skull and Bones]

You mean 5 continents to be exact?.....And where would you leave in?.....

In the winning nation, and make it substantiate it's position better.

Five nations will be USA, USSR, China, Australia and EU. All others are doomed to fail. Maybe India, but chances are meager.

 

[thesolar65]

@DRAY @Skull and Bones @Indischer @Dem!god @scorpionx @Peter C @gambit @levina @Jaanbaz @Marshmallow @Sidak @Chinese-Dragon @chak de INDIA and others for funny comments:

Another hypothetical not so serious question (as to day is Sunday) :

If you have to live in your own country not leave it and you are given only one chance to do the tectonic shift and allowed to take your country any where, then Where would you like to shift it and surrounded by whom and why?.....

 

[Skull and Bones]

@DRAY @Skull and Bones @Indischer @Dem!god @scorpionx @Peter C @gambit @levina @Jaanbaz @Marshmallow @Sidak @Chinese-Dragon and others for funny comments:

Another hypothetical not so serious question (as to day is Sunday) :

If you have to live in your own country not leave it and you are given only one chance to do the tectonic shift and allowed to take your country any where, then Where would you like to shift it and surrounded by whom and why?.....

Latin America, as the nations are weak, and the girls are hot.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Another hypothetical not so serious question (as to day is Sunday) :

If you have to live in your own country not leave it and you are given only one chance to do the tectonic shift and allowed to take your country any where, then Where would you like to shift it and surrounded by whom and why?.....

I would want China to be on a separate continent, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Because that way the shipping routes make it easy for us to have an economic boom.

Or maybe close to Africa and the Middle East for oil resources.

 

[Ayush]

more war.

 

[Levina]

Ahh Mr.Dragon you're way too smart.You've taken this discussion in a direction which happens to be your expert and comfort zone.

You seem to know about this issue than I do, so I will defer to your knowledge sir.
I would argue though that humans are still basically animals underneath. Sure we have social norms and legal frameworks, but at the end of the day our "base motivations" come from our more animalistic side, what in psychology they refer to as the "Id".

But we are the "evolved" animals, arent we??
We condemn feral attacks and fracas.
Going back to our animal instincts would only harm our society more.Polygamy should be an ideal example.

For example, according to the Henderson-Brooks report, Nehru started the 1962 War with his Forward Policy, at a time when China was in the middle of the worst famine in our entire history (the Great leap forward).

If we were not in the middle of a famine, and we were as militarily strong as we are today, do you think Nehru would have dared to start a war with us? No, because of "fear", which is one of our most basic and animal emotions.

He saw we were weak and collapsing from our worst famine in history, just like a wolf looks at an animal with a broken leg.

Correction: It was a dragon with a broken leg which was still capable of breathing fire.

That's why countries want to be strong. So when we are at our weakest, and when the wolves come calling, we can pull out a sword (nukes/army) and let them know that they will be coming to Hell with us. And due to fear, the attackers may not risk it.

This is just an excuse.
Even as hundreds of millions of people across the globe go hungry the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear forces.The production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear forces diverts vast public resources away from health care, education, climate change mitigation, disaster relief, development assistance and other vital services. From what I've gleaned annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at US$105 billion ....or $12 million an hour.
The fact is that the world today is over armed and peace is under funded.
If all the countries were to give away their nuclear arms then where's the need for an attack on the neighboring country???

@DRAY @Skull and Bones @Indischer @Dem!god @scorpionx @Peter C @gambit @levina @Jaanbaz @Marshmallow @Sidak @Chinese-Dragon and others for funny comments:

Another hypothetical not so serious question (as to day is Sunday) :

If you have to live in your own country not leave it and you are given only one chance to do the tectonic shift and allowed to take your country any where, then Where would you like to shift it and surrounded by whom and why?.....

I would drift my country to a gap between Africa and south America.I think that's the best place to be.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

This is just an excuse.
Even as hundreds of millions of people across the globe go hungry the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear forces.The production, maintenance and modernization of nuclear forces diverts vast public resources away from health care, education, climate change mitigation, disaster relief, development assistance and other vital services. From what I've gleaned annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at US$105 billion ....or $12 million an hour.
The fact is that the world today is over armed and peace is under funded.
If all the countries were to give away their nuclear arms then where's the need for an attack on the neighboring country???

Men and their ego!!!
Why cant men ever think beyond winning wars and oppressing the weaker??

You know what, I agree. I have always liked the idea of having women as national leaders, like Empress Wu Zetian.

But since most countries in the world seem to be led by men, and power-hungry ones at that, the chances of global nuclear disarmament are about zero in practical terms. Unless something BIG happens to shift the paradigm, like the invention of some new kind of technology that renders nuclear weapons obsolete.

 

[Skull and Bones]

Men and their ego!!!
Why cant men ever think beyond winning wars and oppressing the weaker??

It is in nature of how life evolved, to be dominating over others of it's own kind and have more control over the resources. The fine example will be how trees grow taller to get maximum sunlight.

 

[thesolar65]

Latin America, as the nations are weak, and the girls are hot.

Just as I suspected, Your answer will involve girls!!

 

[Levina]

You know what, I agree. I have always liked the idea of having women as national leaders, like Empress Wu Zetian.

Destroying comes easy to men but not women,she would not hurt what she gives birth to and nurtures.Thats the difference I guess.

But since most countries in the world seem to be led by men, and power-hungry ones at that, the chances of global nuclear disarmament are about zero in practical terms. Unless something BIG happens to shift the paradigm, like the invention of some new kind of technology that renders nuclear weapons obsolete.

What next ????
Hmmm
how about this ???

It is in nature of how life evolved, to be dominating over others of it's own kind and have more control over the resources. The fine example will be how trees grow taller to get maximum sunlight.

Survival of the fittest do you mean??
Nope dont worry the speed with which our species has been acquiring self destructive weapons ,we would not have to "fight" for our survival, as in another 500yrs our planet would have been wiped off this solar system, courtesy human greed and nuclear war.

 

[OrionHunter]

Then the strong would run over the weak. Same as today, same as yesterday, and same as tomorrow.

The only thing you can do to save yourself is not to be weak. Nuclear weapons are just one of many things, the most important though being economic and then military strength.

I agree. Mutually assured destruction or MAD is the great leveler in an asymmetric situation. Nukes are the only weapons to ensure that.

Had it not been for nuclear deterrence between the Soviet Union and America, the world would have been consigned to an unending cycle of war, violence, and bloodshed.

It is ironical, that peace prevails only due to nuclear weapons!