BSM1
What? Me worry?
There have been times in world history where we successfully negotiated the drawback of nuclear arms.
Care to elaborate?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There have been times in world history where we successfully negotiated the drawback of nuclear arms.
The Bay of Pigs is the only incident that comes to mind, but nuclear weapons were not seriously considered as an option till all the yelling stopped.Care to elaborate?
The Bay of Pigs is the only incident that comes to mind, but nuclear weapons were not seriously considered as an option till all the yelling stopped.
Isn't it interesting that all these treaties managed to come to pass without the aid of meaningless online petitions?According to Wikipedia on nuclear disarmament,
Key treaties
Only one country has been known to ever dismantle their nuclear arsenal completely—the apartheid government of South Africa apparently developed half a dozen crude fission weapons during the 1980s, but they were dismantled in the early 1990s.
- Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) 1963: Prohibited all testing of nuclear weapons except underground.
- Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)—signed 1968, came into force 1970: An international treaty (currently with 189 member states) to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. The treaty has three main pillars: nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology.
- Interim Agreement on Offensive Arms (SALT I) 1972: The Soviet Union and the United States agreed to a freeze in the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) that they would deploy.
- Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) 1972: The United States and Soviet Union could deploy ABM interceptors at two sites, each with up to 100 ground-based launchers for ABM interceptor missiles. In a 1974 Protocol, the US and Soviet Union agreed to only deploy an ABM system to one site.
- Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty (SALT II) 1979: Replacing SALT I, SALT II limited both the Soviet Union and the United States to an equal number of ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and heavy bombers. Also placed limits on Multiple Independent Reentry Vehicles (MIRVS).
- Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) 1987: Created a global ban on short- and long-range nuclear weapons systems, as well as an intrusive verification regime.
- Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)—signed 1991, ratified 1994: Limited long-range nuclear forces in the United States and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union to 6,000 attributed warheads on 1,600 ballistic missiles and bombers.
- Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II)—signed 1993, never put into force: START II was a bilateral agreement between the US and Russia which attempted to commit each side to deploy no more than 3,000 to 3,500 warheads by December 2007 and also included a prohibition against deploying multiple independent reentry vehicles (MIRVs) on intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)
- Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT or Moscow Treaty)—signed 2002, into force 2003: A very loose treaty that is often criticized by arms control advocates for its ambiguity and lack of depth, Russia and the United States agreed to reduce their "strategic nuclear warheads" (a term that remained undefined in the treaty) to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012. Was superseded by New Start Treaty in 2010.
- Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)—signed 1996, not yet in force: The CTBT is an international treaty (currently with 181 state signatures and 148 state ratifications) that bans all nuclear explosions in all environments. While the treaty is not in force, Russia has not tested a nuclear weapon since 1990 and the United States has not since 1992.[50]
- New START Treaty—signed 2010, into force in 2011: replaces SORT treaty, reduces deployed nuclear warheads by about half, will remain into force until at least 2021
Well it was tried and the liberals decided that what law enforcement was doing was unconstitutional.Great. The U.S. wants to ban nuclear weapons around the world but can't even get illegal guns off the streets of major cities like New York or Chicago. Clean up your own backyard first.
That is before the vote. It's July 7th. Again I'm keeping my body crossed.Doesn't sound like it from the following
North Korea fires ballistic missile, South Korea says
Another worthless unenforceable move by a worthless orginizationWell July 7th came and went and here's what happened:
The United Nations prohibits nuclear weapons | ICAN
Canada possessed nuclear weapons until 1984. When it disarmed itself of them. Canada and weapons of mass destruction - WikipediaOnly one country has been known to ever dismantle their nuclear arsenal completely—the apartheid government of South Africa apparently developed half a dozen crude fission weapons during the 1980s, but they were dismantled in the early 1990s.
Thank you for correcting Wikipedia (with Wikipedia) and thank you for the feedback... I think the main idea is just to become more peaceful.Canada possessed nuclear weapons until 1984. When it disarmed itself of them. Canada and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia
I would sooner invest in highly sophisticated and technologically advanced systems that track and destroy/neutralize multiple incoming ICBMs as they streak towards their targets. Rather than spending money on expensive nuclear weapons delivery systems. The only time my nation would launch a nuclear strike is if it has already been nuked into oblivion. Since every morning, the UKs Trident subs surface and check the UK still exists, by listening for UK radio broadcasts, if it doesn't the captains of each sub have to open a safe and read a letter from the Prime Minister which will urge them to take a particular course of action, since central British command may be wiped out entirely.This means essentially launching the entire payload of nukes over a number of hours at the suspected enemy in reprisal, which would probably be Russia or else sailing to the nearest/safest intact allied port and handing the sub over to them. Which will be of little use to the people of the UK, already been nuked, and mean indiscriminate fiery death to millions of Russian citizens in large cities that the Trident missiles will no doubt target.