Philosophical Vegan Forum

garrethdsouza wrote:Apart from America, pretty much every country has done exactly that after getting nuclear weapons. Apart from tests,nothing to anyone else. It's more for deterrence of invasions etc imo.

I concur. What do you think of anti-missile technology research as an alternative?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Would being allies with a nation with a nuclear arsenal be superior to having them yourself?

It's a free lunch.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Would being allies with a nation with a nuclear arsenal be superior to having them yourself?

It's a free lunch.

I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I apologize, but could you elaborate?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I apologize, but could you elaborate?

I think he means yes. It's like having a lunch (nuclear weapons) that you don't have to pay for.

Kyron wrote:

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I apologize, but could you elaborate?

I think he means yes. It's like having a lunch (nuclear weapons) that you don't have to pay for.

If true, yes. But also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain ... free_lunch

So as of now I'd say that my nation would not own nuclear weapons if I had notable allies with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, I still am having trouble seeing why having an arsenal of expensive and destructive weapons to prevent logical (of varying degrees) nations from exploiting or attacking me.

A third option has been added. Please revisit the question to consider it.
If you have any other suggestions for options, I'd be happy to add them.

I think I would personally put myself in the situation of trying to make the other nations get rid of their nuclear weapons. Not owning nuclear weapons would therefore be logical, as hypocrisy is never a good thing when trying to persuade people (just look at the climate change discussion between China and the US).

-

I think tin-pot dictators owning a few nukes like North Korea is a good defence against invasion if you can build it faster than any country can amass the public will to invade and so forces other countries to only deal with you through diplomacy.

I don't think anyone else should own nukes today, because as soon as someone actually uses a nuke they would simply be invaded by many countries to create a change of government or they would be ousted very soon after for committing such an evil act.

In the past when the world was divided into such big blocks and you couldn't be assured of your government being ousted if you used nukes to destroy the enemy, maybe in that case it was good for preventing open war with soviet and american troops.

-