Weapons of Mass Destruction

[caesar777]

North Korea is developing nuclear weapons and we don't like it.

Iran seems to be doing the same and we want to stop them.

Are we heading for a nuclear war?

Let's lead by example, outlaw all nuclear weapons and get rid of our own.

Other countries want nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves from us, who they see as aggressors. The USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger after all.

If Russia for example, was the only country with nuclear technology would we listen to them telling us not to develop our own? Of course we wouldn't!

[Accountable]

You're right about the last statement, for sure. I don't think the highly unlikely event of us disarming will slow down other countries' developing their own weapons at all.

[caesar777]

You are right, of course. Would you ever use nuclear weapons?

[retepsnikrep]

Take your pick:-

Atomic Bombs courtesy of Terrorists.

An Asteroid, Small but Effective.

Smallpox.

We are under threat of extinction as never before. All of us at once , which is a great comfort. Singled out by a sharp little meteorite and smitten at the bus stop is no good. You don’t want everybody else, bending over you, fit and well and all are thinking thank goodness it was him and not me. With a whizzing asteroid it is them as well, so serves them right.

With this asteroid strike, what happens is it fails to get light one morning and is pitch dark at half past ten. Putting aside the usual interior decorators and new authors the news programme on television tells us what has happened. An asteroid had struck Earth in the vicinity of New Zealand last night. It is estimated that it was fifteen kilometers across. The experts among you will know that is enough, that’ll do for all of us. First thing we do is nip up the Co-Op for a hundredweight of flour and a giant bag of rice. It is hopeless, the Co-Op is a seething mass of fighting humanity. You pick up a tin of shoe polish some distance away but that’s all you can get. If you try to get anything else you’ll get a broken leg which will not help.

Back home, break up your fences, and the shed, and pile up the wood in the lounge for a fire. Rip out the gas boiler and thank providence you have got a chimney. You will burn the doors and most of the roof as well before long. It is usual in these cases. Dig a deep hole in the conservatory to try to reach water. After six feet you achieve a sandy scum. Laughing.

You won’t last long though, no-one will. You may wrap yourself in the loft insulation but it will get too cold. The new ice age is here in a few days. About the same time as the food runs out. Pretty depressing at this stage. If the asteroid had been under ten kilometres across you may have survived, but it wasn’t. This asteroid does for mushroom spores and blue whales alike.

It’s never as bad as it seems though. There may be no asteroid. Smallpox may get you. I can see that mad scientists might make an unstoppable virus which works beyond their wildest dreams and they are the first to die. Slumped over their benches with the spilt test tube on the floor. A lump under the arm is the symptom so everybody has got one hand inside their coat. Then a look of surprise and down we all go. We catch it by looking at each other so it is fairly contagious. It also is caught by not looking at each other.

The Terrorists surprise packet will be a disappointment. I’m for the all or nothing Armageddon, but this one won’t hurt anybody. The suitcase of enriched uranium they got on the black market is a ‘sting.’ It’s ground up pencil lead mixed with Araldite. You can’t waste a million on blowing up a bit of desert as a test so Al Qaeda only has a weapon of mass ridicule.

They will keep trying. They are a bit ambitious with their quest for ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ They should start on ‘Weapons Which Will Make Your Arse a Bit Red if it Catches you Wrong.’

Peter

[Accountable]

caesar777;492890 wrote: You are right, of course. Would you ever use nuclear weapons?
Never say never, BUT ... don't fear the guy who wants a lot of nuclear weapons; fear the guy who only wants one.



Here's where the power of capitalism should be applied. Send in the salesmen! Stock these guys up with the latest and greatest of nuclear weaponry and guidance systems. They will fall in love with what they have, just as we did - just as the Soviets did, and will strut around showing off their shiny powerful toys and never fire a shot.



When the governments have it, they won't want the guerillas to have it. That would be too dangerous, wouldn't it? Ergo, if you don't want the terrorist wackos to have it, make sure the governments get lots.

[Majenta]

unfortunately, a government in one's eyes is a terrorist threat in another's - who has the right to say which countries' governments are responsible enough to own nuclear weapons...? Not george dubbleya, that's for sure...

[caesar777]

No-one should have nuclear weapons, but if one has then everyone will want.

Outlw them at the UN, then all nations use conventional arms on any nation that does not comply.

I'm being idealistic again, of course this would lead to nuclear war, not peace as intended.

[koan]

retepsnikrep;492909 wrote:

They will keep trying. They are a bit ambitious with their quest for ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction.’ They should start on ‘Weapons Which Will Make Your Arse a Bit Red if it Catches you Wrong.’

Peter


:wah:

Why don't they use the expressions "Weapons of Minimal Destruction" or "Weapons of Sufficient Destruction"? If there is a grading system at work I like to know the full spectrum.

[anastrophe]

at the end of the cold war, the US had in excess of 23,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled. today, the total stands at about 5,700 weapons, with about another 3,600 classified as spares (that is, not maintained in a state of readiness, and may eventually be destroyed). production of new warheads ceased in 1989.



so, in the last 17 or so years, the US has reduced its stockpile by about 75%.



we're doing our part in good faith. perhaps if other countries followed our lead, we'd get to a world without nuclear weapons.



for the record, russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the US, currently.

[caesar777]

anastrophe;493146 wrote: at the end of the cold war, the US had in excess of 23,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled. today, the total stands at about 5,700 weapons, with about another 3,600 classified as spares (that is, not maintained in a state of readiness, and may eventually be destroyed). production of new warheads ceased in 1989.



so, in the last 17 or so years, the US has reduced its stockpile by about 75%.



we're doing our part in good faith. perhaps if other countries followed our lead, we'd get to a world without nuclear weapons.



for the record, russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the US, currently.


Just one nuclear weapon in the world is one too many. Don't congratulate yourselves for only having 9,300 of them, enough to kill everyone on this earth I'm sure.

[Galbally]

caesar777;492771 wrote: North Korea is developing nuclear weapons and we don't like it.

Iran seems to be doing the same and we want to stop them.

Are we heading for a nuclear war?

Let's lead by example, outlaw all nuclear weapons and get rid of our own.

Other countries want nuclear weapons in order to defend themselves from us, who they see as aggressors. The USA is the only country to have used nuclear weapons in anger after all.

If Russia for example, was the only country with nuclear technology would we listen to them telling us not to develop our own? Of course we wouldn't!


To answer each of your questions in turn.

1. Are we heading for a nuclear war? I think that there is a very distinct possibility of a limited nuclear war in the next 2 decades, either between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, America and Iran, or America and North Korea. The first two are the most likely, the U.S. is the least likely to use these weapons as they have the most to lose by doing so, but its not out of the question by any means. If Iran develop the ability to deliver a Nuclear weapon on Israeli soil, there will be a war between Iran and Israel, and it could well be likely, that seems to be the way things are going at the moment, (and its the real worry of Iran's program, and Israels long open secret about having about 300 Nuclear missiles with a 800-1,500 km ballistic radius). Any of these scenarios is of course would be dreadful and lead to unbelievable civilian casualties and innocent loss of life, the political fallout could well spark much worse conflicts and possible global war, but that is beside the point at the minute.

2. In terms of the traditional nuclear countries unilaterally disarming, obviously it would be (at least, but not only, in terms of a gesture of humanitarianism) a good thing, but politically and militarily, it wouldn't make much difference, (and would also be unwise). Iran is arming because of Israel primarily, not the US, (though of course the U.S. and Iran are also famous enemies, but Iran has lived with the reality of U.S. military supremacy since the revolution). What gauls them most is the presence of Israel, (and the lessons of the Iran-Iraq war, or the U.S. position on North Korea or Taiwan, which is that Nuclear powers do not get invaded by others), and unfortunately they are also miscalculating the probable reaction of Israel and the U.S. to their acquisition of a bomb (as well as non shia-muslim states like Eygpt or Saudi Arabia that no more want a Nuclear Iran than the U.S. Russia, or Europe do). India and Pakistan have the bomb because of their antipathy for one another and the status their leaders believe it gives them (in which, to some extent, they are correct), North Korea is a pretty mad state, and its Nuclear program is part of its strategy of blackmailing other's based on its offensive capabilities and its fear of U.S. invasion (which goes back to the Korean war, and is of course, at this stage, not realistic), I am not sure that the North Koreans would care if everyone else disarmed, they certainly wouldn't if it was something they could use to generate cash.

The only people at this stage to have completely disarmed are the South Africans, it was a good move, both in a cynical and an enlightened way by the South Africans, they didn't need the deterrent once they had abandoned apartheid (they have no major enemies capable of attacking them in their region), they saved themselves a lot of money, and earned the international respect of many people for their move. The British and the French will not give up their deterrent, its part of Europe's overall defence system (whatever people might think), and to leave Europe without the capability to respond to a WMD attack by anyone (including Russia or even the U.S.) would be folly of the highest order in my opinion. As it stands, any attack on Europe by anyone could result in the attacking country being completely destroyed within 12 hours by practically undetectable, submarine-based Nuclear weapons, that is not a deterrent that is going to be abandoned any time soon I assure you.

I think disarmament works as a process between major state players like the U.S., Russia, and China, because they all have their own spheres of influence, and now that the cold war is over, having massive stockpiles of weapons and a first-strike philosophy is not needed (its horrendously expensive as well as being morally dubious). But the logic that applied to the end of the cold war does not really apply here, in Iran and Israel's case, those states are deadly enemies and will never disarm except by being made to by force (another dubious choice).

The most pressing question that all of this begs is what will happen if Iran does successfully test fire a Nuclear or even atomic fission weapon? Its hard to know, but I think personally that the Israelis would react immediately with force, (with the tacit approval of the U.S.) and that the resulting conflict could well become a limited but horrible nuclear one, it might sound far-fetched, but I think not. I am not a militarist, though I am also not a pacifist, I think that the reality of these weapons is horrible and quite terrifying, but they exist and we can't make them not exist. Given the current geopolitical situation its also unrealistic to expect countries to give up their nuclear weapons at this time, I really do hope that some day humanity will be able to deal with conflicts of interest and ideology in a way that doesn't result in war of one kind or another, unfortunately I don't think that such a state of affairs will be reached for a long time. I do respect the fact that people hate nuclear weapons and their potential for destruction though, they are horrible weapons and of that there is no doubt.

[anastrophe]

caesar777;493242 wrote: Just one nuclear weapon in the world is one too many. Don't congratulate yourselves for only having 9,300 of them, enough to kill everyone on this earth I'm sure.


i'll congratulate us plenty, thank you very much. We're getting rid of our nuclear weapons, while other countries build new ones, or try to build them. if you want to dismiss any positive accomplishments, feel free; i suppose i'll dismiss the UK's very small reductions in their nuclear stockpile as well. i agree, one nuclear bomb in the world is too many. i also think one RPG in the world is too many. and one tank in the world is too many. and one rifle, and one gun, and one knife, and one club.



now, if you'd like to revisit reality, where rational thought occurs, then perhaps we might have an actual discussion.

[Galbally]

I think that both the U.S. and the Soviet Union are to be given credit for the fact that they did significantly reduce their arsenals, and managed to de-escalte their conflict with one another in the 1980s, the Russians were pragmatic about their declining power, and the Americans were also pragmatic in realizing that they did not require such a large arsenal any more once the iron logic of nuclear confrontation was broken by detente. Again, realistically, neither side would completely disarm, as there are other power in the world apart from the US and Russia, and also they were still if not enemies not complete allies either (after all the British have never disarmed in reciprocation to the U.S., and they are the U.S.'s closest allies).

I also think that people forget that if the U.S. had not acted as a military player in Europe and South East Asia after WWII, Japan would definitely have acquired nuclear weapons once the Chinese had, and the West Germans would certainly have done the same in reaction to the Soviet occupation of Europe up to the line of the Oder and the Danube (the French and British would have accepted this as West Germany would have been the front-line of any future conflict between East and West). So, in many ways, the Americans have managed to keep the peace in many regions of the world, while admittedly also gotten involved in some pretty dubious foreign policy adventures also.

[Galbally]

koan;493024 wrote: :wah:

Why don't they use the expressions "Weapons of Minimal Destruction" or "Weapons of Sufficient Destruction"? If there is a grading system at work I like to know the full spectrum.


I like that, its a witty take on armageddon (humour is probably the only adequate response to such situations)?

Perhaps we should have "Weapons of Regrettable but Justified Levels of Tolerable Destruction or WRJLTDs?" You could write it on the side, would lighten the mood! :wah:

[caesar777]

anastrophe;493348 wrote: i'll congratulate us plenty, thank you very much. We're getting rid of our nuclear weapons, while other countries build new ones, or try to build them. if you want to dismiss any positive accomplishments, feel free; i suppose i'll dismiss the UK's very small reductions in their nuclear stockpile as well. i agree, one nuclear bomb in the world is too many. i also think one RPG in the world is too many. and one tank in the world is too many. and one rifle, and one gun, and one knife, and one club.



now, if you'd like to revisit reality, where rational thought occurs, then perhaps we might have an actual discussion.


If you can feel good that your country has reduced the amount of times that it can destroy all the world's inhabitants I'm happy for you. I suspect that the true reasons for this disarmament are financial, after all, what is the point in being able to kill everyone more than once when once will do just fine?

Please do criticise the UK's nuclear arms policy, I do all the time.

We are agreed that all weapons should be gotten rid of, so let us start with the one which can cause the most deaths and move on to tanks, guns and clubs later.

[koan]

Galbally;493468 wrote: I like that, its a witty take on armageddon (humour is probably the only adequate response to such situations)?

Perhaps we should have "Weapons of Regrettable but Justified Levels of Tolerable Destruction or WRJLTDs?" You could write it on the side, would lighten the mood! :wah:


You asked for it.

Weapons of Regrettable but Justified Levels of Tolerable Destruction

by koan

At an early age Tobias noticed that he took delight in small but violent actions. It began the day that he was forced to cut his own toenails. Fresh from the shower, he held the impliment of destruction in shaky hands and captured the first nail between the metal vice. Convinced that the first would be the most difficult he closed his eyes and squeezed. The nail made a small snapping sound that was pleasing to his ear.

When he opened his eyes, Tobias expected to be sickened by the dull, lifeless clipping before him but was astounded at the clean cut he had made. The nail lay in an almost perfectly symmetrical semicircle on the floor. Cautiously but with anticipation he moved to the next. He took more pride this time. By the fifth nail he considered it an art form and was glad he'd saved the big toe for last. It required two cuts and more planning. Knowing that he had come to enjoy this vile act was only a minor nagging concern at the back of his mind. He knew that it was necessary. Someone had to do it and it might as well be done properly.

And so it was that Tobias slowly watched his tolerance for violence grow to a dull level of mastery in a world not of his making.

This thread is a chronicle of the unmaking of Tobias.

[anastrophe]

caesar777;493763 wrote: If you can feel good that your country has reduced the amount of times that it can destroy all the world's inhabitants I'm happy for you. I suspect that the true reasons for this disarmament are financial, after all, what is the point in being able to kill everyone more than once when once will do just fine?
once again, you approach it from the irrational stance, rather than rational. again, you're happy to dismiss positive actions in the right direction, in order to bitch about something that's been the case for some forty years. yes, yes, we all know that nuclear weapons can kill lots of people, and that the added up power of the existing arsenals is more than are needed to theoretically kill every person on the planet many times over. therefore, it seems, getting rid of excess nuclear weapons is meaningless, not a good thing, not a positive thing to do, not action in the right direction. okey dokey.



Please do criticise the UK's nuclear arms policy, I do all the time.

We are agreed that all weapons should be gotten rid of, so let us start with the one which can cause the most deaths and move on to tanks, guns and clubs later.


we are certainly not agreed that all weapons should be gotten rid of. you misunderstood the construct i presented, but that's hardly surprising.



the weapons, ultimately, are not what matter. the intent of those who hold them is what matters. feel free to explain in detail how to disarm a person who is capable of choking someone to death.

[caesar777]

anastrophe;493910 wrote:

the weapons, ultimately, are not what matter. the intent of those who hold them is what matters. feel free to explain in detail how to disarm a person who is capable of choking someone to death.


You are right, the intent is what ULTIMATELY matters. Every body is capable of chocking another to death, but only a few of us wish to.

If a man has the desire to kill another he will be more likely to if he has a knife, rather than using his bare hands.

If he has a gun then he is more likely still, and may even go on a spree as we sometimes see, as in the Dunblane massacre.

The greater the power of his weapon, the more people he can kill. Therefore fewer weapons equals fewer murders. Compare the homicide rates in the UK, where guns are not legal, to the US, where they are.

[anastrophe]

caesar777;493916 wrote: You are right, the intent is what ULTIMATELY matters. Every body is capable of chocking another to death, but only a few of us wish to.

If a man has the desire to kill another he will be more likely to if he has a knife, rather than using his bare hands.

If he has a gun then he is more likely still, and may even go on a spree as we sometimes see, as in the Dunblane massacre.

The greater the power of his weapon, the more people he can kill. Therefore fewer weapons equals fewer murders. Compare the homicide rates in the UK, where guns are not legal, to the US, where they are.


that's an entire other debate you're bringing up. fewer weapons does not mean fewer murders, that's demonstrable (never mind that the firearm homicide rates in the UK have been rising steadily since guns were banned, while they've been falling for more than a decade here in the US). within the context of this issue, it's quite clear that while the US has thousands of nuclear weapons currently, we have not used them in more than sixty years, and at that time of use, we only had one or two nuclear weapons.



i can see no rational argument that would suggest that it's good for non-nuclear countries to begin building nuclear weapons.

[caesar777]

anastrophe;493932 wrote: i can see no rational argument that would suggest that it's good for non-nuclear countries to begin building nuclear weapons.


Then if USA had none you would not want to begin building them?

[anastrophe]

caesar777;493960 wrote: Then if USA had none you would not want to begin building them?


i'm not sure why you persist with questions that aren't meaningful in reality. but i'll indulge, sure. if the US had never had nuclear weapons, I'd not want us to build them. fair enough?



now, in the real world, we have nuclear weapons, as do a dozen or so other countries. ideally, all existing nuclear powers reduce their nuclear arsenals until we reach a point where we all have precisely one nuclear weapon. at that time, we can have a worldwide celebration as we all simultaneously disarm each of our last nuclear bombs.



sadly, there's countries like iran and north korea that aren't particularly interested in disarmament.

[caesar777]

anastrophe;494000 wrote: i'm not sure why you persist with questions that aren't meaningful in reality. but i'll indulge, sure. if the US had never had nuclear weapons, I'd not want us to build them. fair enough?



now, in the real world, we have nuclear weapons, as do a dozen or so other countries. ideally, all existing nuclear powers reduce their nuclear arsenals until we reach a point where we all have precisely one nuclear weapon. at that time, we can have a worldwide celebration as we all simultaneously disarm each of our last nuclear bombs.



sadly, there's countries like iran and north korea that aren't particularly interested in disarmament.


Then we should impose sanctions on them, or if necessary topple their governments, as we did in the case of Iraq when we thought they had "weapons of mass destruction".

I am sure that is what will happen to Iran and were it not allied with China, North Korea too. If the big players, USA, China, Russia etc would agree to get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, then smaller countries would have to aswell.

[anastrophe]

caesar777;494016 wrote: Then we should impose sanctions on them, or if necessary topple their governments, as we did in the case of Iraq when we thought they had "weapons of mass destruction".

I am sure that is what will happen to Iran and were it not allied with China, North Korea too. If the big players, USA, China, Russia etc would agree to get rid of ALL nuclear weapons, then smaller countries would have to aswell.


that's certainly not a given.

[caesar777]

anastrophe;494018 wrote: that's certainly not a given.


I think it is. India and Pakistan are keen to keep their western allies, and I doubt that North Korea would take on the whole world, with or without nukes.

[anastrophe]

caesar777;494023 wrote: I think it is. India and Pakistan are keen to keep their western allies, and I doubt that North Korea would take on the whole world, with or without nukes.


north korea might not want to, but kim jong mentally-il might pull the trigger anyway.

[Galbally]

koan;493781 wrote: You asked for it.

Weapons of Regrettable but Justified Levels of Tolerable Destruction

by koan

At an early age Tobias noticed that he took delight in small but violent actions. It began the day that he was forced to cut his own toenails. Fresh from the shower, he held the impliment of destruction in shaky hands and captured the first nail between the metal vice. Convinced that the first would be the most difficult he closed his eyes and squeezed. The nail made a small snapping sound that was pleasing to his ear.

When he opened his eyes, Tobias expected to be sickened by the dull, lifeless clipping before him but was astounded at the clean cut he had made. The nail lay in an almost perfectly symmetrical semicircle on the floor. Cautiously but with anticipation he moved to the next. He took more pride this time. By the fifth nail he considered it an art form and was glad he'd saved the big toe for last. It required two cuts and more planning. Knowing that he had come to enjoy this vile act was only a minor nagging concern at the back of his mind. He knew that it was necessary. Someone had to do it and it might as well be done properly.

And so it was that Tobias slowly watched his tolerance for violence grow to a dull level of mastery in a world not of his making.

This thread is a chronicle of the unmaking of Tobias.


I was actually being lighthearted K, I didn't mean to be inappropriate, I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. :rolleyes:

[spot]

Galbally;494191 wrote: I was actually being lighthearted K, I didn't mean to be inappropriate, I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. :rolleyes:We're being serious in this thread? I had no idea. If anyone would like me to join in then I'd be happy to but given past experience I doubt my welcome.

[Galbally]

spot;494194 wrote: We're being serious in this thread? I had no idea. If anyone would like me to join in then I'd be happy to but given past experience I doubt my welcome.


I don't mind, though of course I can't speak for anyone else. I'm not sure if there is any other way to deal with nuclear apocalypse other than humour, its far too serious a subject to get serious about, if you know what I mean, I think Dr Strangeglove summed it up nicely, for everyone.

[koan]

Galbally;494191 wrote: I was actually being lighthearted K, I didn't mean to be inappropriate, I'm sorry if you got the wrong end of the stick. :rolleyes:


All that work to satisfy a request and I get the feeling you aren't grateful.

[Galbally]

koan;494201 wrote: All that work to satisfy a request and I get the feeling you aren't grateful.


No, it was a good post, thoughtful, I just didn't want you to think I am some sort of rampant militarist, I am not a pacifist by any means, but I am not an unthinking person about what the reality of weapons or violence really are, on any level. Its just my way to approach these things with humor sometimes, what else can you do?

[koan]

Galbally;494218 wrote: what else can you do?


That's a dangerous question. :wah:

[Galbally]

koan;494362 wrote: That's a dangerous question. :wah:


Indeed, I have found there are many dangerous questions, one is "what way do you think our relationship is going?, another is "how come this has happened". Or, "do you think there is something we can do to make things better?". The one "is it alright if I say what I actually think?" is another, but there are many more. In fact, to some people, all questions are potentially dangerous, and these (to my mind) are the most dangerous people of them all.

[koan]

Galbally;494376 wrote: Indeed, I have found there are many dangerous questions, one is "what way do you think our relationship is going?, another is "how come this has happened". Or, "do you think there is something we can do to make things better?". The one "is it alright if I say what I actually think?" is another, but there are many more. In fact, to some people, all questions are potentially dangerous, and these (to my mind) are the most dangerous people of them all.


Then there is the dangerous question "What is Kim Jong Il all about?"

for answer watch this

(warning: nasty language)

[BTS]

caesar777;493916 wrote: You are right, the intent is what ULTIMATELY matters. Every body is capable of chocking another to death, but only a few of us wish to.

If a man has the desire to kill another he will be more likely to if he has a knife, rather than using his bare hands.

If he has a gun then he is more likely still, and may even go on a spree as we sometimes see, as in the Dunblane massacre.

The greater the power of his weapon, the more people he can kill. Therefore fewer weapons equals fewer murders. Compare the homicide rates in the UK, where guns are not legal, to the US, where they are.


Either way, is it the man or the WEAPON that killed?



Seeing as you brought up guns and the supposed UK gun ban that has helped reduce crime in general is malarkey.

It did just the oposite......it increased as did Australia's.

HUH go figure.

Might this be the SAME result if we banned Nukes?



HOMICIDES WAY up after 1997 ban in UK..........



'Homicide' - Long-term national recorded crime trend

[spot]

I've no idea what that chart's meant to represent, BTS, but it's not UK gun homicides. Tell us where you got it and what it was labelled as.

[BTS]

spot;494969 wrote: I've no idea what that chart's meant to represent, BTS, but it's not UK gun homicides. Tell us where you got it and what it was labelled as.


It represents exactly what it says.. homicides went UP in the UK AFTER guns were taken away. So my point is simple. If that is the case might that not happen if we banned nukes......





http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk



This is where the chart came from........

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page40.asp





If you have another stat that differs........ then do tell......

[spot]

BTS;494985 wrote: If you have another stat that differs........ then do tell......The removal of guns from UK hobbyists didn't include any from the underworld. What the chart - taking it at face value - suggests to me is an upward continuing trend of homicides from all sources for the following four years and then (as a coarse suggestion) that the number of weapons in the underworld finally started to diminish and the trend was reversed. All nonsense, of course, but the deaths in the graphs are (from memory of the last time this was discussed) predominantly domestic crimes and chiefly the result of knife attacks, with very little to do with guns at all. Again from memory (there'll be a thread here where I produced the figures) the number of homicides involving gun use is under a hundred annually in England and Wales.

[caesar777]

Even if the chart were accurate the murder rate is still much lower than that of the US. If homicides are rising in the UK imagine how much worse they'd be if guns were widely owned.

My point still stands. More guns= more murders,

more nukes = more chance of nuclear war.

[Accountable]

More nukes, less chance.



BTS, don't you have that Florida stat about looser gun control reducing crime?

[BTS]

caesar777;495221 wrote: Even if the chart were accurate the murder rate is still much lower than that of the US. If homicides are rising in the UK imagine how much worse they'd be if guns were widely owned.

My point still stands. More guns= more murders,

more nukes = more chance of nuclear war.


SO what if it is lower than the US...............

They (UK murder stats) were lower before the ban too.........

FYI,,,,,,,,,,,,More murders AFTER the ban..........









SOOOOO

Your point is?







My point=............. You disarm the citizens and the homicide and crime rate escalate.............



JMO



GOTTA NUTHER?

[caesar777]

Accountable;495249 wrote: More nukes, less chance.



BTS, don't you have that Florida stat about looser gun control reducing crime?


If there were no nukes there would be no chance.

A few years ago I saw a story on the news of a brit who went to the US on holiday.

Late one night he was mugged in the street. He went to the nearest house and banged on the door to ask for help. The door was opened by the home owner who had a gun in his hand. He shot the brit, mistaking him for a criminal. He later died.

If guns were not legal the home owner would not have been holding one and the holiday maker would still be alive.

More guns = more shootings,

More nukes = more chance of nuclear war.

[Galbally]

I though this was about weapons of mass destruction, not firearms?

[BTS]

spot;494989 wrote: The removal of guns from UK hobbyists didn't include any from the underworld.


So outlaw nukes, then what??

Do you REALLY think they will ALL just go away......

Or will the underworld (as you put it) keep them?

[spot]

BTS;495602 wrote: So outlaw nukes, then what??

Do you REALLY think they will ALL just go away......

Or will the underworld (as you put it) keep them?Where are you getting this equivalence between guns and nukes? It makes no sense to me at all. Neither does the suggestion that any underworld holds these things.

Countries with nukes can't get overrun, that's a reasonable starting point. The more countries which can't get overrun the better, in my book. It's not a question of stockpiling thousands of devices, it's a question of holding a few dozen with practical delivery systems. I don't want them to all go away at all, I want invulnerable nations which can each follow their own internal distinct philosophy without external threat to their strategic interests.

[BTS]

spot;495604 wrote: Where are you getting this equivalence between guns and nukes? It makes no sense to me at all. Neither does the suggestion that any underworld holds these things.



Countries with nukes can't get overrun, that's a reasonable starting point. The more countries which can't get overrun the better, in my book. It's not a question of stockpiling thousands of devices, it's a question of holding a few dozen with practical delivery systems. I don't want them to all go away at all, I want invulnerable nations which can each follow their own internal distinct philosophy without external threat to their strategic interests.


I didn't start the nuke to gun equivalence ..

If you look I was responding to this:

http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showt ... post493916



And my point still stands.........

Take away guns..=..MORE crime

Take away nukes.....=..... ?



How does that go.........?

Oh yah!!!!!!!



"NEVER bring a knife to a gun fight"





I do agree with your point:



"Countries with nukes can't get overrun, that's a reasonable starting point. The more countries which can't get overrun the better, in my book."



I think that says it ALL spot, we would ALL would like to live in a world where wars and nukes were not needed but we both know it ain't gonna happen. We are improving on the situation since the cold war ended. And that is a good thing, in my book..........



Like Anastrophe said:



"at the end of the cold war, the US had in excess of 23,000 nuclear weapons stockpiled. today, the total stands at about 5,700 weapons, with about another 3,600 classified as spares (that is, not maintained in a state of readiness, and may eventually be destroyed). production of new warheads ceased in 1989.



so, in the last 17 or so years, the US has reduced its stockpile by about 75%.



we're doing our part in good faith. perhaps if other countries followed our lead, we'd get to a world without nuclear weapons.



for the record, russia has a larger nuclear arsenal than the US, currently."

[Accountable]

spot;495604 wrote: Where are you getting this equivalence between guns and nukes? It makes no sense to me at all. Neither does the suggestion that any underworld holds these things.



Countries with nukes can't get overrun, that's a reasonable starting point. The more countries which can't get overrun the better, in my book. It's not a question of stockpiling thousands of devices, it's a question of holding a few dozen with practical delivery systems. I don't want them to all go away at all, I want invulnerable nations which can each follow their own internal distinct philosophy without external threat to their strategic interests.
AHA!! :yh_idea I think you've hit Caesar's real agenda, Spot. He wants global government. Global government is not possible if countries have the means to resist. Outlawing nukes makes nations vulnerable to attack. Thus, they will unite in collective defense (but against whom?). Soon, all will come under one umbrella of commanality. Not sure how he thinks they will all choose his brand of umbrella, but there it is.



How'd I do, Caesar?

[caesar777]

Accountable;495671 wrote: AHA!! :yh_idea I think you've hit Caesar's real agenda, Spot. He wants global government. Global government is not possible if countries have the means to resist. Outlawing nukes makes nations vulnerable to attack. Thus, they will unite in collective defense (but against whom?). Soon, all will come under one umbrella of commanality. Not sure how he thinks they will all choose his brand of umbrella, but there it is.



How'd I do, Caesar?


1/10.

I do want global govt. but through choice, not force. Anyway, that's a completely different argument.

First I want world peace and disarmament.