Because as long as most people in the west think it is fear that 70 nations attack one single country, those single nations need nuclear weapons to defend them self.
Those who dont have nuclear weapons will end up being controlled or attacked by USA(52 nations) and NATO until they control them.
So the question is really:
Why am i against that USA and NATO shall control this whole planet and every single nation on it?
I bet Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen and many many other nations wish they had nuclear weapons a long time ago.
Its better to be bombarded with false propaganda like North Korea is,
then it is to be bombarded with real bombs..
(image source: i no longer remember, its a meme that have been all over facebook for a long time)
Yea...i agree wtih you...thanks for your post ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Thank you. :)
Actually i did not expect anyone to dear to say that they agreed with me on this one.. ;)
It is not exactly political correct to say you are against nuclear disarmament.. ;)
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I understand what you say, I also see it as unfair that some countries have it and others do not. It is the same as when talking about regulations for global warming, and is intended to prevent less developed countries from building greater industrial capacity.
But we must also understand the danger of a nuclear weapon falling into the wrong hands, which in turn is better to prevent more countries from embarking on a nuclear program.
The best, and what the world powers are presently doing, is to try to create a system that can neutralize the deployment of nuclear weapons.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Nuclear weapons means no symmetric warfare. I'm an American so I stand to benefit directly from there not being a symmetric war, ever. I'm no fan of war, but I see it as a brutal necessity. If war should happen, I would not like to be involved. And I will never be forced to involve myself in a war if all of my country's wars are one-sided curbstomps on practically undeveloped nations. The alternative? Mechanized modern armies fighting other mechanized armies in a battle of attrition. How many millions died in WWI? How many more millions died in WWII? How many hundreds of millions would have died in WWIII if there wasn't an enormous arsenal of nuclear weapons preventing an escalation of conflict beyond some paltry proxy wars? And how many decades would have elapsed before WWIV? Think about it.
The way I see it, nuclear states put an abrupt stop to war between developed nations. And that's a blessing so great that few can even comprehend, much less appreciate it. It was an end to the cycle of destruction and rebuilding that shaped the previous few centuries. It was an end to the growing numbers of casualties that each cycle brought. When the first ICBM was tested, we hit the bottom. We can disarm, and climb, but we will fall again to the bottom. I'd prefer if we avoided that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
People like you give me hope, that USA might one day become something else then a big legal terror nation.
Its also important that Americans understand that when 52 nations go to war against one single country, that is not war, but a pure slaughter.
And since they usually get help from NATO it is in fact usually around 70 nations against one single country.
Those who talk about that as a "war" have no idea, and have been brainwashed by their Reuters news.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Yes, but it is a bigger problem, when conventional war is avoided, the ruling elites remain in power. Are not wars that ended all the past regimes?
With these political and diplomatic wars, the elites remain in power and secure their control. These people are not interested in killing a few in the Middle East to remain in power, so they want peace, not for people not to die, but to secure themselves in power.
An elite with an indestructible power ends up becoming tyranny, because power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is at that moment that you should ask yourself if you would rather die as a rebel or live as a slave. Or is it better to live in peace as a slave, or to fight a war for freedom?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Wall of text incoming; you have been warned.
The "ruling elite" remains in power regardless if war is fought or not. Real power never changes hands, friend. Someone might convince you that the war you're fighting is a slave rebellion. But after your blood is spilled you're given a new master. You're Russian. Kill the Tzar. Get a Commissar. Was it worth it? You're German. Hitler's dead and so is the Gestapo. But now you have to deal with the Stasi. You wait awhile. The USSR collapses. Now the Stasi are gone. But the EU controls your country. Was it worth it?
You're a Venezuelan communist. The landed gentry controls your country, so you nationalize all your country's resources. Capital flight ensues. Your people starve. Foreign funded guerillas try to unseat your government. Who are they funded by? Allies of the landed gentry whose property you stole. An international coalition arises to indict you for the crimes against humanity that your government committed. Besieged from without and from within, the socialist government you attempted to construct violently collapses. The guerilla warlords become the new landed gentry. Was it worth it?
Think before you act. If your government is so tyrannical and terrible that you truly MUST attempt to overthrow it because the alternative is certain death, go ahead and do so. But don't dress it up as a slave rebellion. You're simply trading masters. If you'd call me a slave just because I pay taxes, fine, I'm a slave. But compared to the peasantry of the past I am overfed and underworked, such are the wonders of technology. And though the elected government is, in a philosophical sense, equivalent to a rapacious thief, it does not lay at my feet an unbearable burden. So I bear it. And the shadow government, which I did not elect, which saw fit to appoint itself centuries before I was born, and which influences politics on a scale so massive that I cannot readily comprehend it, is completely unassailable. The shadow government is so pervasive and invisible that sometimes I think it might be a force of nature, like gravity or the invisible hand of the free market. So why would I fight? I would die for nothing but false promises. I am not a utopian. Slavery is measured on a continuum; my slavery coefficient is low enough that I barely notice it.
The way I see it there is no way to have complete freedom if you live on a planet with more than one person. There will always be something you can't own, something you can't do, and somewhere you can't go, unless you enslave everyone else. In the event of a rebellion, the likelihood that I would become Commissar of The World is so astronomically slim that I choose peace and mild slavery over war and abject slavery.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Although it seemed a very good answer, I never said that we were slaves, that would be an insult to the slaves of the past.
If the elite that today governs most of the major countries is irrevocable, which is not today, then it will become tyrant.
The elites of the past are not the same as now, the monarchs became that tyrannical elite that was already overthrown.
If you choose slavery over war, then you will have slavery and then war. Because the latter is inevitable, and when it arrives, the people who chose slavery will be forced to fight because, as you said, the artenative will be a sure death.
Today we are not at that point, but it is the same forces of nature that placed that elite that will make people overthrow it.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Interesting...that eye-opener.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit