WTF? Reduction of nukes doesn't make us safer?

[wolfgirl]

Source: CNN Website

Quickvote

Would a reduction in U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons make the world a safer place?


No 51% 2781
Yes 49% 2652


Total votes: 5433
This is not a scientific poll

Read more: http://edition.cnn.com/

---

Unbelievable!

[dennis4868]

1. They also did this poll today.....

Source: CNN Website

Quickvote

Is today Friday?


No 51% 2781
Yes 49% 2652


Total votes: 5433
This is not a scientific poll

People are stupid....that's why the repubs have a chance in every election!

[karynnj]

19. These types of polls are not just not scientific, they are usually pushed by one side or the other

Here it is RW Republicans who are against the START treaty, because apparently they forgot St Ronnie was for it.

[Sal Minella]

2. Not as unbelievable as Kyl

saying that voting for the treaty would send the message to "the American people" that we are "coddling human rights abusers." (heard the sound bite on NPR this morning)

Now how he arrived at that, I have NO idea.

[The Wielding Truth]

7. It's the opposite argument . No matter how insane, they make a case for the

opposite. Against the President and Our Party. They have no drop of integrity. The Republican scrum just want to win.

[Pavulon]

3. US and Russian nukes are not the ones I worry about

third worlders like india and pakistan are a real concern. That said we should reduce the stockpile and use the plutonium to fuel reactors for power generation.

[eleny]

4. Ignorance is bliss

[The Wielding Truth]

5. And the world has just turned upside down....... unbelievable.

:crazy:

[Renew Deal]

6. Are we really "safer" if they still exist?

Also, do most people fear being killed by a nuke?

[sally cat]

8. Instead of being able to destroy the planet 500 times over it's only 400.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. This is why it's not 'safer'.

Safer means a WHOLE lot less, to none.

[Drale]

9. Well I've heard many historians

say that we where never safer then during the cold war, and I see where they are coming from. The US and the Soviets where the major powers, yes we were always on the brink of world destruction, but both super powers kept all the other countries in line on one side or the other.

[Posteritatis]

12. That sort of situation could probably be "reasonably" maintained with a smaller number of them, too

There's a strong incentive not to use them when the result would be three quarters of the American and Russian populations turned into glass, but there'd also be a pretty strong one if using them would "only" result in, say, five percent of them suffering the same fate, which was the case for a good chunk of the early stretch of the Cold War anyway. Britain and France actively used that policy themselves, maintaining enough of an arsenal to make sure Moscow and St. Petersburg would vanish no matter what happened to them, which is a good deterrent on its own unless you assume the other side is led by cartoonishly insane supervillains.

My big hope is that the balance from the Cold War was such that a few generations have grown up with great-power warfare generally off their mental radar. It seems that way, since there hasn't been such a thing on a large scale since the forties and on any scale since 1969, but it's still certainly a finger-crossy sort of situation. We're six decades into the longest period of no general great-power warfare in the unabridged history of ever, and I desperately hope most of the major players are getting used to it despite the noises about planning otherwise (which often are, in their own twisted way, reasonable precautions).

[Crowman1979]

10. This poll is BS since the viewers of CNN are either old or bedridden.

Seriously, who the hell trust TV news anyway. Nobody under 30 would give a fuck if CNN went out of business.

[montanto]

13. Reduction? Hell I'd vote no.

9600 (on our side) reduced to what? 9586? 9000? 8000? 4000? 1000? 50? 1?

Say reduced to 1 (each) and I'd say the world would be a safer place through "reduction."

[bossy22]

16. until some power announces they ave 100

than everyone else is pretty much screwed

[CJvR]

14. First strike capability.

As long as it is a reduction that opinion have some sound foundations. As long as both sides had 10 times the weaponry needed to wipe the other off the map it was quite simply impossible to launch a successful first strike. With the arsenals reduced that is no longer true so somewhat ironically reduced arsenals means a greater chance to actually "win" a nuclear exchange. In addition reductions of the leading powers nuclear stockpiles will allow the up and coming powers to reach significant levels of armament much sooner in relations to the major powers. The Naval treaties between the wars are a good example, Japan's fleet could never have reached the strength relative the USN & RN without those fleet reduction treaties.

[bossy22]

15. YES!!!!!!

hats off to your sir for a logical strategic analysis.

What you say is 100%, and i will add there is a danger in multipolar worldwide military parody (when the major countries military's are of similar strength). This lead to world war 1 and eventually to world war 2. We havent had a major war since partly due to the fact there were two countries in the world that were so dominant militarily that no country in their right mind would think they would have a chance of winning a war against them

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Until somebody, say, an ex-movie star, says repeatedly that a nuclear

war could be winnable. Then, all bets are off.

BTW, what happened to Japan's fleet?

[Spider Jerusalem]

17. An elimination of them would, a reduction, not so much.

Reducing stockpiles from 500 fifty-megaton warheads to 50 fifty-megaton warheads leaves more than enough to devastate a huge number of major cities and kill hundreds of millions of people.