Isn't nuclear disarmament the sensible thing to do? And shouldn't the policy be something else besides MAD?

Question

We only need 30 nukes. After that, it only gets ridiculous. During the cold war, we wanted all our nukes as a deterrent from the 'evil' empire of the soviets taking over if they completely obliterated us. Therefore the mutually assured destruction MAD pact. This to me, is quite ******* crazy.

Russia almost nuked USA in 1995 by ACCIDENT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjwcqwwso...

But I think that our policy should be quite different because (1). Russia is not an evil empire, and even if you thought it was before, its not now, its capitalist now.

So if we were to 'think' we were getting nuked by Russia...what purpose would be of nuking them? destroy 100'ds of millions of human beings?

I think the policy should be MUTUALLY unassured destruction (MUD), by which each country says it won't nuke the other if its nuked....because its going to get ****** anyway either way (the same exact way)....and revenge is futile since both Russia and USA have same ideology.

revenge?

I don't think revenge factors at these scales...if you kill MILLIONS OF people and obliterate the entire US population....what good is it, to kill MILLIIONS of Russians?

The decision was probably made by 10 wackjobs and approved by the president. So how can millions take revenge against 10? It doesn't make sense to kill millions of innocent people for revenge. And they would probably be tortured after US was obliterated by Russians themselves out of such a crazy decision and obliterating the world economy.

There is no purpose for MAD--Not economically for the world, nor China...Nor Russia.

So why don't we just agree not to nuke on a MASSIVE scale---Its obvious to me...

even if a russian missle by 'mistake' destroyes a US city, I s till think we should not retaliate.

To avoid these annoyant retardations from the past. We should just disarm all nuclear weapons and keep 35-40 of the small ones, such as tactical ones, in case we need to use against terrorist nations.

At least humanity will survive that way...if we keep thousands we fall into the risk...that after say, 400 years, we may lose track of them..

lets destroy 99% of our arsenals (Russia, China, USA)

and only keep those which could be used against terrorist nations. If the main powers have disagreements...then we resolve them the old fashioned way and we play rock-paper-scissors, or go conventional war.
18 hours ago
I mean...what is WORSE, than getting completely nuked? nothing...

so lets choose that 'nothing' which say, we are taken over by Russia, supposedly and they enforce backwards communism? so what...they don't ahve the manpower to take us over...its starkingly obvious today...we would revolt, and since we have the most advanced weapons in 'conventional' warfare...we would push them out.

There is no purpose for nuclear weapons at this scale. Nuclear weapons helped establish the peace we have today. I don't think it would go away if we took the nukes away.

The worst possible scenario is nuclear warfare...even being taken over by the chinese, and enforced censorship, is actually a better alternative.

Btu concidering this is impossible due to our conventional military warfare (especialyl in space)...we would push them back...Not to mention these scenarios are ridiculous nowadays...coutnries like china are not interested in military superiority, but the economy.

We create a
18 hours ago
bigger problem with nukes, than we set out to solve.

Nuclear warfare on these scales is a big nono, it makes ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE. And we should disarm 99% of our stockpile now.

Answer 1

I am sorry...when you keep adding comments to the question, it becomes impossible to answer in any logical way. I do not watch youtube videos because most of them are just propaganda.

My answer to your original question is...of course its the sensible thing to disarm all nuclear weapons in all countries, but its unrealistic to enforce such a thing. Do we just take the word of each country...that sounds like a foolish thing to do? Do we go to war to enforce this...obviously no. United Nations inspectors and sanctions are useless...might as well pee in the sea.

Answer 2

You should ask this question in the current events area... just a suggestion.

My take though: Nuclear weapons are completely useless. Unless of course you are a terrorist.