Try the political quiz
+

19 Replies

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Considering the potential for a three-way arms race, how should countries balance the need for national security with the risks of escalating nuclear weapon development?

 @9LKBY8J from Wisconsin  commented…2yrs2Y

The threat of total nuclear war is too dangerous and affects the entire planet not just the parties primarily involved.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

Do you believe that a country expanding its nuclear weapons poses a threat to global peace, or is it a form of self-defense?

 @9LKD4GG from South Carolina  commented…2yrs2Y

I think that opening that threat up to people is not a good idea. Whether people realize it or not, there are crazy people out there and people that do bad things. This will only increase the change of someone or a group of people to use these types of weapons, it puts the global at risk.

 @9LKC655 from Missouri  commented…2yrs2Y

 @SereneHareGreen from Ohio  commented…2yrs2Y

The use of the relatively tiny atomic bombs to end WWII can be interpreted with equal logic as a war crime or a practical means of ending a war that would otherwise linger on indefinitely at the expense of both sides of the conflict.

I'm sure the latter argument fails to resonate in Japan and I would like to see an international ban on any military action that deliberately targets innocent civilians. That we manufacture and store a nuclear arsenal capable of destroying our species is pathological.

What we should be seeking is an absolute eradication of every nuclear weapon in existence- but that would require the collective sanity of our species so cannot possibly happen.

Still, we have to try.

 @TealDeanNo Labelsfrom North Carolina  agreed…2yrs2Y

Weapons are developed to never be used, nuclear weapons even more so. Their best purpose is deterrence. It's not pathological, it's completely logical.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

What are your thoughts on the concept of 'no first use' policies for nuclear weapons? Do you think they are enough to prevent nuclear war?

 @9LKBZT4commented…2yrs2Y

We need this rules, the moment a nuclear attack is launched, the end of the world will begin.

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

How do you feel about the idea of one country significantly increasing its nuclear arsenal in today’s world?

 @9LKF3XM from Illinois  answered…2yrs2Y

 @ISIDEWITHasked…2yrs2Y

How would you react if your country was involved in nuclear arms negotiations with a nation openly expanding its nuclear capabilities?

 @LovesickSwiftForward from Illinois  commented…2yrs2Y

The problem with all such treaties is that there is no enforcement mechanism beyond that which exists already, even without a treaty, ie nuclear retaliation.

The US might feel bound, but would anyone trust any CCP promise?

In fact, does such a treaty have any real value, or just create an asymmetric obligation on us?

 @VenisonEliLibertarian from Rhode Island  commented…2yrs2Y

So what *is* the US stance, then?

Something like this?

1) We are deeply, deeply concerned that China is trying to close the 10-1 nuclear weapon/warhead gap with us.

2) But, we don't want to commit to a "no first-use" policy, i.e., we reserve the right to use nuclear weapons first - bomb a country with nukes to achieve some political-military objective.

 @AmusedFishPeace and Freedomfrom New York  commented…2yrs2Y

China appears to have left its policy of minimum deterrence behind. If the Biden administration is serious about arms control, it’s time to look for common ground with Beijing to build new agreements for a safer future.

 @MantisDennyRepublican from Colorado  commented…2yrs2Y

In the 90’s, Ukraine had the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet which they inherited from the USSR. In 1994 they were persuaded by the West under the Budapest Memorandum to exchange those nukes for aid & security guarantees. FFWD to 2022, Ukraine paid the price for abandoning their deterrent. They pay it every day since then. Everyone around the world made the nukes=security connection based what happened and continues to happen in Ukraine.

China clearly sees the value of multiplying their arsenal since it’s obvious the West will tiptoe around nuclear armed nations (Russia being the obvious example).

 @PassionateFr33m4rketDemocrat from South Carolina  commented…2yrs2Y

Russia will not be on the list who signed the treaty. It is already few years since Putin declared that Russia can use the nuclear weapons in dire situation even against non-nuclear nations.

But even if Putin signs the treaty can he be trusted? He guaranteed the territorial sovereignty of Ukraine once already.

 @TealBartForwardfrom Illinois  commented…2yrs2Y

Unlike Russia, China's economy is built on trade relations with the West, especially the US, so China has a built-in economic incentive not to strike the US with a nuclear weapon. Indeed, it's counterproductive for the US to engage in a trade war with China: the greater the bond, the less likely China would attack the US. Rather than all the sabre rattling from the usual suspects, the Biden Administration and its successor should be focused on mending the trade rift and strengthening the trade ties with China.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...