TOKYO, Aug 6 (Reuters) - Japan on Sunday marked the 78th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing on Hiroshima, where its mayor urged the abolition of nuclear weapons and called the Group of Seven leaders’ notion of nuclear deterrence a “folly”.
The only way we will ever remove nuclear weapons will be when we remove the threat from invasive and terrorist actions of other countries. We need an international force that is set up just to protect the status quo of borders around the world. With that we also need an answer to terrorism from foreign states. As soon as you make it impossible for an invasion to take place then you can guarantee that some states will head straight to terrorist acts for intimidation. Until all countries sign up to this, we must keep the deterrent.
Imagine how could be saved if we removed the need to spend on defence. Currently we spend $2.2t across the world on killing each other. It is a shocking waste.
I don’t know. I am confident that money will find a way. Look at the cost of the Ukraine war on China as well as Russia. It is in no one’s financial interests to commit to a war these days. Putin is indicative of the world’s weak spot. When individuals use their state for personal gain, everyone looses. If the world used a combined effort to prevent invasions by forcefully pushing invaders back into their countries, then even these types of actors can be neutered.
How would you prevent the US from doing such things? That would mean turning Europe against its biggest ally and it’s not something I see feasible, giving they are the country that most wars and invasions has caused, and the fact that throughout history Europe hasn’t done anything to prevent such things tells me it’s not something that’s going to change. Your example only works because it’s a common enemy for both the US and Europe.
How have nuclear weapons helped us against invasive and terrorist actions?
Has it somehow stopped conflicts between major powers (NATO, Russia, China)? No more than would be expected from countries that don’t really order each other and aren’t pursuing aggressive territorial expansion that threaten each other.
Has it ended all wars? Obviously not, given that Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine all happened.
Has a nuclear deterrent made nations more peaceful? No, but globalization has.
A nuclear deterrent exists solely to discourage other nuclear-bearing countries from trying to cripple you. The only steady-state for this is that everyone who is under threat by a nuclear-bearing country will eventually develop nuclear weapons.
In recent history: the Americans because of the Nazis, the Soviets because of the Americans, the British because of the Soviets, the French because of the Soviets (and, to some degree, the British), the Chinese because of the Americans AND the Soviets (they really got unlucky here), the Israelis because of literally everyone (extra unlucky), the Indians because of the Chinese, the Pakistanis is because of the Indians, and the North Koreans because of the Americans. And of course, today Iran is trying to build up a nuclear arsenal to combat Israel’s nuclear arsenal.
All your policy will do is incentivize everyone to develop nuclear weapons.
I really do not understand your comments? I am in favour of removing nuclear weapons. I also understand why we cannot without a unilateral understanding among all nations.
What is very obvious is that if we do not move in that direction, then some clown will learn how to make them, and then we will have a nuclear war.
Why does the removal of nuclear weapons predicate itself on countries agreeing on borders? As it stands, countries develop nuclear weapons solely because they’re afraid that nuclear weapons will be used against them (or, you’re North Korea and the West has already expended their entire sanctions repertoire to go after human rights violations and now has no recourse against nuclear weapons development).
Countries may fight over borders, but the involvement of nuclear weapons turns what should be a localized dispute into a global one with world-ending consequences.
Terrorism is the product of the West financing such groups in proxy wars.
Pretty stupid generalisation. Terrorism comes from many areas including governments. Putin’s attack on citizens in the UK was state terrorism against his own people.
Yes, Western governments that fund terrorist groups in “enemies of the State” that later turn against the US and the US “needs” to go an invade those countries to “liberate” the region.
You are right, they’re only the biggest and more illustrious example of such behaviour.
