Would you support a complete unilateral disarmament of our nuclear weapons?

[NNN0LHI]

Americans are getting all in a huff over Iran and North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Nuclear weapons are Americas last line of defense. It is what keeps other countries from getting any ideas about invading us. It would be suicide to try. Iran and North Korea want this same peace of mind. Though I don't like nuclear proliferation of any kind, I don't blame them for coveting nukes after watching Bush's big move against the other axis of evil, Iraq. So, the question is would you support the unilateral dismantling of our nuclear arsenal as we expect others to do? I wouldn't.

Don

[wuushew]

1. I am surprised you didn't chime in on that NK thread

I am for disarmament to the level where any country does not have the ability to destroy the world. Russia and the United States currently have that ability.

[bryant69]

2. It's tricky.

Can you really put the genie back in the bottle? I mean would it make us more or less safe to unilaterally disarm?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[bvar22]

3. ABSOLUTELY!

We are the ONLY "Superpower". It is time to LEAD the World, not BULLY the World. I find the fact that we maintain a Nuclear arsenal to be immoral and obscene.

[anakie]

4. if you vote no

it means that you agree with other nations being able to develop and own nuclear weapons.

The rest of the world sees this argument and says to itself if the US can have nuclear weapons so can we.

Can anyone here argue that the mullahs in control of Iran are LESS sane than your man with his finger on the trigger. The same one who wants to develop tactical nuclear weapons. The same one who is an armageddonist. The same one who refuses to say anything about Israel's nukes.

What is the basis for the argument the US can have nukes but the rest of the world cant?

[LSdemocrat]

6. No, this question is about UNILATERAL disarmament

Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, Great Britain, France, and who knows who else would still have nuclear weapons under this scenario.

If there was a comprehensive and worldwide disarmament treaty with allowances for on-site inspection, then I might support disarmament, but anything short of that a small, but significant, number of nuclear weapons are a necessary part of the US defense system.

[dpibel]

5. Last line of defense against invasion??

C'mon.

"It is what keeps other countries from getting any ideas about invading us."

Two pretty damn big oceans keep other countries from getting such ideas.

A vast flotilla of warships and an enormous swarm of warplanes tend to dampen such aspirations.

A very substantial state-of-the-art standing army tends to give other countries pause.

I asked this in another thread, and I'll ask it again: Who is this great power waiting with bated breath to invade this hapless, near-defenseless country in which we live? There are only two countries in the whole, entire world with larger populations than the US. I don't see India fielding an expeditionary force any time soon. While China spends an enormous 50 billion a year on its military (less than 10% of the US budget for those not familiar with the figures) it may be a while before it's quite ready for a major trans-Pacific invasion.

Number 4 in population is Indonesia, which, last I heard, had neither a major military nor any particular designs on conquering this beleaguered country of ours.

For those further unfamiliar with the numbers, the population of Iraq is about 25 million (less than 10% the population of the US). You may think that represents a major invasion threat, but I'd love to know how. The mighty Kim Jong Il has under his thrall about 22 million souls. Perhaps you think they're comin' ta get us.

Look: the only reason the US was able to supply even the limited troops it did in WWII (before you squawk, look up the numbers--US v. Soviet, US v. Chinese, for instance) was because the Japanese and German fleets were tied down. If it had been just the US v. Germany, or just the US v. Japan, the US couldn't have got sufficient troops in theater to do jack.

What is with this great American fear of invasion? South America is suddenly join together and sweep up from the south? The Canadians will suddenly lose patience and send their mighty hordes against us?

The only country with enough nukes to pummel the US into submission is Russia (assuming that the former states of the USSR would join). What, precisely, do they gain by that? Irradiated landscapes are not much good.

So other than reducing the fears of the rest of the world that the US may commence nukin' any minute, I'm at a loss to see the loss of disarming.

But that's just me, the eternal optimist.

[NNN0LHI]

7. Our major cities (population centers) would have to be nuked first

About a dozen of them across America would bring us to our knees. We don't have enough hospital beds and medical staff in the whole country to handle the casualties from even one major city being nuked. And there are currently more than one country capable of doing that.

Don

[dpibel]

8. Hokay

More than one country = 2. Russia (8400) and China (390).

Well, four, I suppose, so long as you want to fear Britain (2-300) and France (a surprising 350).

India has 60-90 and Pakistan 24-48. I submit that, delivery systems issues aside, those numbers are inadequate to achieve your goal of taking out a dozen major cities (one nuke |= one city).

These figures from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_nuclear_weapons. If you don't like wikipedia, feel free to supply me with better numbers.

Then there's the fact that, according to http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/China/ChinaArsenal.html, China has only 20 ICBMs in its arsenal.

As to your scenario, let's assume that "they" take out those dozen major cities. Best I can figure, that's about 60 million people. A lot. It leaves about 210 million really, really pissed people. Are you suggesting that they'd just roll over and invite the bad guys in? Isn't this America, home of the brave, and all.

But more to the point, what has this hypothetical attacker accomplished? I mean, is this just somebody who hates us for our freedom, or did they have something more in mind than the obliteration of the US?

Generally speaking, wars are about resources or territory (or a combination of the two). There may have been some fought for pure braggin' rights, or just purely out of spite, but I can't call those to mind.

So, again: who's going to do this? If either Russia or China is looking for space/arable land, there are places much closer and easier to control. If the bad guys you posit are looking for resources, there are much better, easier targets. What--they're coming for our oil? For our amber waves of grain? Again, there are closer, softer targets. Maybe even ones where you don't have to wait for the fallout to clear before you can farm them.

There's only one country since WWII that has flitted about the world indulging in military interventions, and it's not going to invade the US because it's there already. I ask you again: who is this threat to US sovereignty, and what is their purpose for invading?

[DuaneBidoux]

9. Unilateral disarmament is stupid-especially if you're intent on making new

enemies all the time (like our newest enemy France who could probably wipe out our 25 largest cities quite easily).

I am in favor of a foreign policy which doesn't make every country feel like the only way to keep from getting invaded is to HAVE a nuclear weapon. Bush has now convinced everyone that the only way to guarantee not getting invaded is to build your own.

[Cleita]

10. There was a movement back during the Nixon

administration (amazing really) for disarmament. I think the big rub was the Soviet bloc and getting them on board. There was a fear that mini-potentate states would get nukes and apparently our wonderful diplomacy has virtually assured this decades later.