Nagasaki seeks world ban on nukes.
 

First off, I would like to say that I'm not the biggest fan of our current president, Obama. However, I am on his side regarding his views on this issue.

There's no point in copying & pasting the entire article over here, so I'll just provide a direct link: Nagasaki seeks world ban on nukes | The Japan Times Online

What are your thoughts on this, and what do you think it could lead to?

Go!

I'm going to have to agree with Obama on this one, even thoguh I really dont think he is the greatest Prez we've had >.>

Do you think the world will ever be "nuke free?"

Nuke free as in Atom Bomb free? Or Nuke Free as in ???

Nuke, as in "Nuclear Warhead."

Or, yes, the Atomic Bomb.




Anyways, my short answer is "no."

Pandora's Box has been opened. I don't think we will ever be nuke-free.

How would I find such a box and how would I know that it has been opened?

It's completely unrealistic, IMO. Let's say America and the west disarm. The Russians, North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, etc will almost definitely keep some or all of their nukes, which means there is no longer any balance of power and M.A.D. While it's an unenviable position to be in, we are, in a way, the world's policeman, and disarming the police while not being able to totally and permanently disarm the criminals is a recipe for disaster. Only a fool would believe we should really disarm. The nuclear cat is long out of the bag, and there's no putting it back in anymore... too many people and nations know how to build nukes now that disarming would be suicide.

I agree with this, although I agree with the sentiments of Pres. Obama and the Mayor of Nagasaki.

We have gone 64 years without one of these devices being used in an act of aggression, and I hope that trend continues for as long as humanly possible.

All people who have nukes are prepared to mass murder. They're all criminals. Don't expect anyone to recieve your "world police" view too well. That's half the reason some countries want nukes to begin with...

Anyway, in this world, I don't think it'll happen. Not while everyone's still fighting for power and money. All countries with nukes have to become friends before anyone of them should be expected to disarm. This includes the US President shaking hands with Iran and N. Korea, yes.

It's stupid to expect others to disarm when you won't.

It is also stupid to disarm when others are building new ones.

It's not even worth arguing as it'll never, ever happen. Even countries (whether it's the US, UK, North Korea, Israel, Russia, etc) that SAY they'll disarm would probably covertly keep a small number of them "just in case". We don't live in a utopia.

And don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not arguing against preventing nuclear proliferation. There can be reductions of nuclear stockpiles and the prevention of bomb-making materials from falling into the wrong hands, but there will never be a world with no nukes.

Of Course the world will be nuke-free someday....after they'll invent something better.

So in that line of thinking police (not trying to relate the US to police, but you should get what I mean) would be criminals because they carry firearms and prepared to shoot someone?

You cannot put the hat back in the bag when Nuclear tech is so widespread.

Think of this in one way, if the day comes when certain technologies make nuclear attacks ineffective expect massive wars to take place. Unless they invent something that could do more or equal amount of damage.

It works under the same thought that a if you know someone has a gun, your less likely to mess with them, take away that gun and your on equal terms.

Yea the world is about as likely to give up nukes as i am to give up my xbox 360.

The world will be rid of Nukes as soon as humanity gets rid of its war like nature. A lepord cant change its spots humans have always been good at killing each other.

My fear is as our technology increases so will the types of weapons of mass destruction we will create.

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.

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?

LOL, this is just what I was thinking.

I'm betting on some kind of electrical pulse bomb which destroys every living thing with water in its body in a single blast, yet doesn't damage the enviroment or resources there... I mean, who wants to nuke an oil field? LOL

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.

Humanity should have never used the nuke.

nuclear is not to be use for military purpose.

Thats my wish.

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.

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..

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 :)

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

I say send them into the sun.

Even if its just talking its better than someone pushing a damn button. I highly doubt we will see world peace in our lifetime but there is nothing wrong with having hope. Sometimes hope is all you need but there are times where you still need to be realistic.

The only way nukes would be removed is when a more potent weapon replaces it. Hate to be the bearer of bad tideings, but that's how it is.

Haveing world peace and the like sounds nice, but it isn't practical because too many evil people want power. Some say those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I don't think history repeats itself because no one learned anything, I think it keeps repeating because evil keeps trying to asert itself.

Not as stupid as throwing your gun away while your sworn enemy has a knife in his hand and is repeating over and over, "I want to kill you, I want to kill you," ignoring human nature, or indulging in some asinine, juvenile notion that if we all just hold hands the world's problems will go away.

The world is safer because of nukes, I know it sounds stupid but before nukes you had two massive WW's that killed over 100 million combined. While you have had alot of little wars and flare ups since then, we have had nothing like those old WW's because people are afraid to go "total war". No point trying to win a fight when nothing is left to win.