Nuclear Weapons: Yes or no?

[Marked 197]

In 1987 New Zealand enacted law so nuclear US ships could not enter our waters. There have been turmoil in the relationship of both counties because of it for years, with the US labeling us friends and not allies despite our contributions to many wars, and it's still going today as the US blocks NZ ships from entering Pear Harbor: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7208276/Kiwi-ships-kept-out-of-Pearl-Harbour

 

Going against all advice and putting principle above consequences, the Prime Minister of NZ at the time (David Lange) debated the position of NZ. Here are a few extracts from the transcript:

there is no moral case for nuclear weapons.

I hold that the character of nuclear weapons is such that their very existence corrupts the best of intentions; that the means in fact perverts the end. And I hold that their character is such that they have brought us to the greatest of all perversions: the belief that this evil is necessary – as it has been stated tonight – when in fact it is not.

There is, Mr President, a quality of irrationality about nuclear weapons which does not sit well with good intentions. A system of defence serves its purpose if it guarantees the security of those it protects. A system of nuclear defence guarantees only insecurity. The means of defence terrorise as much as the threat of attack. In Europe, it is impossible to be unaware of the intensity of military preparedness. In New Zealand, the visitor must make an effort to find a military installation or indeed any sign of military activity, although it does exist. There is no imperative in New Zealand to prepare for war; the result is that I feel safer in Wellington than I ever could in London or New York or Oxford.

The fact is that Europe and the United States are ringed about with nuclear weapons, and your people have never been more at risk.

There is simply only one thing more terrifying than nuclear weapons pointed in your direction and that is nuclear weapons pointed in your enemy’s direction: the outcome of their use would be the same in either case, and that is the annihilation of you and all of us.

The weapon simply has its own relentless logic, and it is inhuman. It is the logic of escalation, the logic of the arms race. Nuclear weapons make us insecure, and to compensate for our insecurity we build and deploy more nuclear weapons.

the world watches as two enormous machines enhance, refine their capacity to inflict destruction on each other and on all of us.

… I can smell the uranium on it as you lean forward!

And all of us, wherever we are, whatever we believe, live in fear of nuclear weapons.

all of you in Europe know that negotiating an end to nuclear weapons could hardly be more difficult. And then you have the hide to come here and say that New Zealand’s stance is somehow threatening the strength of the West in Geneva.

it is absolutely immoral, contrary to the whole ethos of humankind, to do that. You don’t get the checks and balances along the nuclear trail.

we have been told by some officials in the United States administration that our decision is not, as they put it, to be cost-free; that we are in fact to be made to pay for our action. Not by our enemies, but by our friends. We are in fact to be made an example of; we are to be ostracised, we are to be convicted of some form of heresy and put on probation.

the position of my country is a genuine long-term affirmation of this proposition: that nuclear weapons are morally indefensible.

 

So the point of discussion is this: Should we (counties around the world) hold nuclear weapons? Do you agree or disagree with Lange's points?

[Jon Bon 43]

I agree with him completely. And good on him and your whole country for standing up for that. A definite effort in a step towards a unified and peaceful planet. Glad to see you guys standing up to the bullies, my country doesn't do it very well.

[Bigace360 38]

I think what we should are world Nuclear Weapons for is to stop Comets and Metoers from crashing into the earth. If we know there coming a head of time. Use the rockets to stop them before they get even close to the moon, espiecally a comet because if that hits were fucked instead of using it on are own people. It's expensive to launch it that far, but in the long run it would worth it epecially if you stop the comet from hitting the earth.

 

My two cents.

[ForeverZer0 44]

@bigace: You have seen too many movies.

 

Obviously, the world would be a better place without nuclear weapons, that is without question. The problem now lies in the fact that various countries now have them. It is the equivalent of asking a country that only has guns to revert to swords and spears because guns are "morally wrong". As horrible as using nuclear weapons is, the mere possession of them is a deterrent of against another nation that also possesses them.

 

Like it or not, the technology and the knowledge to create nuclear weapons is not going away, nor are all the countries that have them suddenly going to dismantle them all. Sure, they may reduce stock, but full dismantling is not gonna happen. I don't think it is "wrong" to have them, but I doubt any country that ever uses them, especially in today's day, to actually solve any problems with that action. I just don't believe it be an issue of "morals" to carry the bigger stick. An issue of wisdom, maybe, but morals doesn't really apply in my personal opinion.

[Rajaat99 3]

I agree with ForeverZer0.

An object is just an object, it's how you use it which is moral, or not. However, it is New Zealand's right to restrict the presence of nuclear weapons in their territory. I honestly don't see how the United States could be offended by New Zealand's decision, but our government is weird over here.

[Marked 197]

However, it is New Zealand's right to restrict the presence of nuclear weapons in their territory. I honestly don't see how the United States could be offended by New Zealand's decision, but our government is weird over here.

New Zealand does have the luxury of being too small to matter. No one would attack us (unless our allies lost, I would imagine), no one ever has, so there's no reason for NZ to have nuclear weapons. The US's justification was that NZ should do their part in the world for "peace", and it was a matter of standing up to a bully and taking the consequences. NZ doesn't stand up to wrong anymore. It bends over. We let the FBI invade our country and shit on ours laws (the arrest of Kim Dotcom, who i hope sues our government). That's what happens when you elect a multi millionaire to a Prime Minister. What does a person with too much money want? Power. He's a corrupt prick. Now I'm getting off topic

[Rajaat99 3]

It's ok, the U.S. government is a bully. It's sad because most Americans don't know that. Our media doesn't tell us a lot, the web is the only way we find out the truth, that's why the government is trying it's hardest to "regulate" it. However, most people don't take the time to find out anyway, because they just don't care.

[ThatOneGaijin 0]

I think NZ has the right to do what they want deem necessary. It bothers me that the US would get butt hurt over this. If you came into my house and I asked you not to bring your gun inside would you get offended and throw a fit? It's the same concept.

 

In my opinion nuclear weapons do not create peace. they create fear and uneasiness. I wish they didn't exist at all. The whole "guy with the bigger stick" mentality is what got us in this pickle. War will happen, it's unavoidable. And with technology doubling in advancement every 5 to 10 years it might be only a matter of time before something even more dangerous than nuclear weaponry is created.

[ForeverZer0 44]

I think NZ has the right to do what they want deem necessary.

 

Agreed. I think every country should be allowed to do what please, so long as it does not have negative consequences on other countries. Its the same idea of a bunch of families in a neighborhood. It is not the business of one to tell the other how they ought to do things. The USA has is has this mentality that they are somehow the "police of the world" or some shit, which is the reason many other countries dislike us. I think of some of the stuff that they do, and then think how I would feel if were to try and do the same to the USA.

 

In my opinion nuclear weapons do not create peace. they create fear and uneasiness. I wish they didn't exist at all. The whole "guy with the bigger stick" mentality is what got us in this pickle.

 

Pretty much the entire world would agree with this, but its an inevitability, has been since the dawn of civilization, and to base your actions on some idealist idea is nothing less than stupid. A country cannot be so naive to base its defense policies on ideals. If you know your enemies have guns, you would be stupid to choose a knifes to defend yourself with.

[ForeverZer0 44]

Double posting because editing does not work. My post was parsed strangely and it cut some words out, and I apologize if some of it does not make sense.

 

The "edit" post function is parsing HTML, BTW. This is a very serious security risk in case any of the admins might want to do something about it...

[Marked 197]

Isaacol is the host manager, so really I'm the only admin who takes care of that stuff. I'd like to disable the editor and go back to the old one, but for now we're stuck with this editor which actually does write html in order to show what some bbcode will look when posted. The html is converted to bbcode when sent to the database and then back to html when displayed, so there's no security risk. I'm pretty confident of that. Sometimes it messes up and you cans see the html tags and things, I've got that a few times. Are those errors gone for you now? I'm assuming they're random.

[ThatOneGaijin 0]

Oh I agree, zero. I'm not saying get rid of them because, let's face it, that will never happen. It in a sense creates peace but at the same time is rather unnerving. Regardless, technology will continue to advance and the "sticks" will keep getting bigger. Not really for it or against it. I just know it's inevitable.

Edited August 25, 2012 by ThatOneGaijin

[ShinGamix 1]

The world needs a common enemy because if the world wasn't fighting within itself there is no telling to what we could do or would have already done. Where did it get to the point that we need weapons that will kill millions of people in a minute or so and ruin the area with nuclear radiation for about 100 or so years. Also the nukes are so bad that just being near them and the radiation is bad for you. I guess Nuclear power is okay but all the reactors should be built underwater so if the reactor goes any level of critical they could be flooded over and keep the land itself safe. I call it the "Atlantis Effect".