Nagasaki seeks world ban on nukes.

[Ronin4hire]

I don't know...

While I too cannot see a world without nukes... I think we are merely products of our time...

I mean 200 years ago.. who would've predicted the collapse of European empires accross the globe? They wouldn't have seen it coming.

Future generations could make it happen while the constraints of our time period along with ourselves will be long gone.

Statements made by the city of Nagasaki might seem futile... but it's got to start somewhere.

I wish them good luck.

[JojoBizarre]

Humanity should have never used the nuke.

nuclear is not to be use for military purpose.

Thats my wish.

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

Yes. So you see the problem? Or do you think other people should actually disarm first?

Someone has to be the bigger man, MMM.

If America really had good intentions as the "world leader", it should prove it.

This is America "world leader" bullshit needs to stop i dont remember voting on a bill that asked regular citizens if you want to be the world leaders. There is no country who will be the bigger man as you say no one will disarm first which is why it will NEVER happen.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by Sinestra

There is no country who will be the bigger man as you say no one will disarm first which is why it will NEVER happen.

No one will disarm first perhaps out of goodwill... you're right about that.

But the more realistic possibility/hope is that nukes will be disarmed because they will be made redundant.

I can see an integrated global community as one way in which the nukes will become redundant... I mean it's a long way off of course but globalisation is a phenomenon which is occuring now (for better or for worse) and who knows to what extent it will have reached in 200 years time..

[Seanus]

Apparently, he has made some progress with Medvedev on this issue. Still, nukes are primarily bargaining tools. After all, why has Russia held onto theirs, being so expensive? I think there will be a lot of talking but not a lot of doing.

Needless to say, a world without nukes would be desirable but not entirely realistic. Imagine Iran with some and America without, it would be odd. How many nukes does the world really need? Imagine if we spent more on caring and less on killing

[RKitagawa]

It's about bloody time.
I don't believe this will happen anytime soon. I think it's all up to the US to take the first initiative, being the great power that they are. If the US gets rid of its nukes, It's not too far fetched to assume that other countries will follow their example. Of course, there will be those who don't. (which is the main reason no one takes the initiative)
But who knows. This may be the first step towards world peace.

[burkhartdesu]

The world will never be 'nuke free', because how are they going to dispose of the multi-million dollar warheads they have laying around?

[solemnclockwork]

Originally Posted by Tenchu

But police won't shoot children or just plain innocent people. There's a difference, a big difference.

There is nothing wrong with shooting and killing a known criminal. Killing innocent people... do I even have to say this?

Was I talking about "innocent People"? Cops are individuals who DO have the capability to choose to shoot who they want (crazy's). We still trust them to carry out there duty with the potential to end anyone life. You made a broad generalizing that everyone that had one is criminal. I will go father upon this, Let's replace criminal with soldier and use the same analogy. There is nothing wrong with using a weapon to kill a soldier.

First and foremost, you must decide if those people where innocent. We could decide that if you get drafted your innocent and do not deserve to be shot at. What about the people who build the tanks, the bullets, raise the next soldier?

Civilian DO have much to say as to what war they support. War has a price and if you DO NOTHING to prevent your country from being the aggressor (there is always a aggressor in war) you pay that price. That said, the only exception I would see would be children and less able adults, as such It's very much up the said country to protect them, while at the same time the country that uses such methods MUST live with the burden of killing said people.

All weapons are a double edge sword. they kill they defend. Nuclear weapons do fall under that category and they have stood as a blockage against massive wars. I'll push it more, you got a city you need to defend and you have a nuke which could possibly wipe out the enemy army, do you wast lives trying to defend that city or do yo use such nuke to wipe the enemy out saving YOUR troops lives while also saving the city? There is no easy choice in decisions to kill, or to save.

[Seanus]

We should also consider the actual aggressor Vs the perceived aggressor. Serbia was the perceived aggressor in the Balkans but that was only half of the truth.

The problem is that soldiers are afforded a wide latitude to shoot or not to shoot. Many soldiers have not been under an imminent threat to their lives but have shot and pled self defence. A civilian would probably never get away with that.

Descaling the nukes would be a token gesture that the Cold War is well and truly behind us but other things will flare up, like Russian subs and Georgia revisited. If Obama can prove that he wants to move away from the objectives of the PNAC then we will move forward. He is sensible enough to advise caution against an attack on Iran. He must use his nose in dialogue to test the water, that he isn't making too many concessions and coming across as weak.

[seiki]

I believe a world without nuclear warheads would be safer but I just do not see that happening. It would be a grand gesture to disarm the warheads of the u.s. apparently. Im just wondering why the u.s. would have to do it.

Is it paranoid to think that if we do it some countries will also do it but then also believe that some that are more extremist or that just got nukes would actually disarm??

What would we do with all of this nuclear material?