banning nuclear weapons tests

[pritchke]

Do you think the United States and other holdouts should ratify a treaty banning nuclear weapons tests?

VIENNA, Austria (AP) -- Japan's foreign minister on Wednesday urged the United States and other holdouts to ratify a treaty banning nuclear weapons tests, arguing that her country knows first hand the evil that such arms can produce.

read more: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20...175262-ap.html

[Timber Loftis]

Tell you what, when I'm president I'll make the great nation of Japan an offer: end whaling and sea turtle hunting and I'll cease nuclear weapons test. Otherwise, I want the option to drop a few tests on your country once you've finally killed off the last of these beautiful creatures so you can make crappy tasting stews, tortoise-shell trinkets, and verility potions.

[ 09-03-2003, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[johnny]

I'll vote for Timber.

[Stratos]

As long as they develope new kinds of nuclear weapons they will need to test them somehow.

Oh, and End whaling!!!! [img]graemlins/5bloodymurder.gif[/img]

[Animal]

Why do we need to continue testing of nuclear weapons? Don't we have enough already?

[Skunk]

Some nations who have already signed the NPT are continuing to develop new types of nuclear weapons in direct contravention of the articles of the NPT...

[Zero Alpha]

i voted no. just to be different . but seriously if they did 'stop nuclear testing' then the whole thing will still happen, but somewhere not covered by the treaty. space anyone? id rather have them open and controled rather than the possibility of nukes being moved around. :S

[Animal]

The question still arises as to why? Don't we have enough nuclear weapons to completely destroy the world? So why do we need to test more?

[Azred]

I agree with Skunk. There is nothing anyone can do against nations who sign a treaty and then subsequently break it (that happens all the time) and besides, what do you do about the nations who absolutely refuse to sign? Since some nations will continue to develop nuclear weapons, at least some others must do so also, even if just to keep pace with the technology. That is simply the "no-win" logic of nuclear weapons.

Personally, I don't see the need for nuclear weapons; they are far too destructive and wasteful. From a stategic point of view, it makes no sense to drop nuclear weapons on an enemy, because then you can't move in and conquer their territory.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Azred: Personally, I don't see the need for nuclear weapons; they are far too destructive and wasteful. From a stategic point of view, it makes no sense to drop nuclear weapons on an enemy, because then you can't move in and conquer their territory.

Yes, but in our modern world you don't want to conquer their territory. You merely want to get rid of economical competition for example. The wars that were about territorial gain are the wars of the past.
And even then it was not necessarily so. The Romans fought the Carthagians not for territory but for supreme power in the mediterranean sea. When they conquered Carthago they deliberately salted the soil and mixed it with rocks so that nothing would grow there anymore. Just to ensure no new power would arise from there.