Warning: "continue" targeting switch is equivalent to "break". Did you mean to use "continue 2"? in /homepages/43/d388007368/htdocs/zaxecivobuny/wp-includes/pomo/plural-forms.php on line 210
My stance on nukes. | I like koalas.
browser icon
You are using an insecure version of your web browser. Please update your browser!
Using an outdated browser makes your computer unsafe. For a safer, faster, more enjoyable user experience, please update your browser today or try a newer browser.

My stance on nukes.

Posted by on September 12, 2007

I just watched B is for Bomb on youtube. I would like to say that I disagree with the video. Vroman got me to see the light on the positive side of nukes a few years ago, and I haven’t heard or come up with any significant contrary evidence since. Here’s what I believe:

Nuclear weapons might be the greatest instrument of peace ever devised.
We would probably be safer if every country on earth had nukes.
We certainly would never want to un-invent nukes.
Nuclear disarmament is a mistake.

5 Responses to My stance on nukes.

  1. seifertim

    Apparently, Russia just tested a bomb that is just as powerful as a Nuke, but without all the nasty side-effects…

  2. teflonspyder

    Eh, same with bullets. Bullets are these tiny little things often weighing less than an ounce. Even when used in the most terrible and efficient manner possible the damage dealt is completely insignificant on any literal non-human scale. The FEAR of a bullet on the other hand – just a single bullet – is often enough to motivate large groups of people in desirable or predictable ways. The personal threat it represents is enough to remind people why certain things are important in the greater scheme of things where bullets don’t matter but people do.
    Nukes are like that. Just bigger.

  3. jarredeyes

    I see your point.

    Then there are the groups of people that have no fear of retribution or their own death, let alone the death of many nameless others, and would attack countries in possession of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are certainly no deterrent for them and they will always be around. I guess we could try to herd them into one place and nuke them all but others would be born and replace them; that or people who were fearful before would want revenge and that would eradicate any fear they had had. Etc., etc., etc.

    I haven’t seen that B is for Bomb thing so I hope I am not saying anything that is in it. That would be rotten.

  4. rainedoutlife

    I’m not sure that nuclear disarmament is a mistake, but I am damn sure that it is a practical impossibility. I don’t necessarily want to place the future of the planet into the hands of human error, but I suppose that is already the case. Mutually assured destruction does make sense in terms of a reason for peace, except that sometimes people fuck up. I’m not just talking about one man and an ‘oops’. Sometimes whole cultures or nations fuck up.

    People aren’t always as predictable as we hope they are and certainly not predictable enough that I would like everyone to have access to weapons of mass destruction.

  5. Anonymous

    washington spokespeople who rail against nuclear proliferation, just want to make the world safer for their conquering armies

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *