Skip to main content

Some uniniformed citizens say nuclear weapons are a threat to our safety. Nuclear weapons are not the problem. Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.

The problem is that all nations don't have nuclear weapons. Some nations are nuclear weapon free zones, inviting an attack from other nations.  If all nations had nuclear weapons there would be no fear of one nation attacking another.

In addition, if all nations equipped their citizens with smaller tactical nuclear weapons, neighborhoods would be safer. Neighbors wouldn't attack each other.

Better yet, if we equip every citizen with really small nukes, they can carry them to church, school, theathers, shopping malls, cars, and everywhere they go. There will be no personal attacks.

So, the answer is crystal clear. Equip everyone with nuclear weapons. All attacks will stop.

World peace will be acheived.

It's a no brainer.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  asdf (3+ / 0-)

    i assume it's pure coincidence that the concept of mutual(ly) assured destruction is often reduced to the acronym MAD.

    but it's always seemed pretty fitting / revealing to me.

    "i hear you're mad about brubeck ... i like your eyes. i like him too." -donald fagen

    by homo neurotic on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 04:15:33 PM PST

    •  MAD is a great acronym (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and the mutual capacity to make nukes gave the world peace between the two most powerful nuclear powers.

      I assume that the diary is a snark,  however, if every country did have nukes it probably would prevent most of the ongoing and the projected wars. A war against the people of Iran would be much more unlikely if they had real nukes.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:52:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Simply not so. Look at WWI. (0+ / 0-)

        The huge lesson of WWI is that nominally sensible and intelligent leaders can make catastrophic misjudgments costing millions of lives. This was bad enough when it 'merely' involved conventional artillery and machine guns. But with nuclear weapons, such misjudgment can lead to a rapidly escalating war of annihilation.

        This was bad enough when two large, organized, relatively sensible world powers were jostling for advantage. But now that nervous leaders in Pakistan, Israel, India and North Korea have their own fingers on the nuclear button, the chance of a catastrophic mis-step is vastly greater. The more nations possessing nuclear weapons, the greater the likelihood of a calamitous misunderstanding, or of a desperate leader who comes to believe he can launch a successful 'decapitating' first strike on an opponent.

        •  I have looked at WWI, and also at other wars (0+ / 0-)

          The only time in history that nukes were ever used was against a nation that did not have nukes. Only a nation that does not have to worry about a nuke retaliation would ever use nukes.

          Your idea that more nations with nukes vastly increases the "likelihood" of a calamitous" event is very rational. However, we now have two nuclear nations threatening a non-nuclear nation with war. And, if the war does not go well with those two nations, it is almost certain that they will resort to nukes to prevent their own serious losses.

          War is costly. Peace is priceless!

          by frostbite on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 07:18:59 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  WWI teaches that war is not always rational (0+ / 0-)

          The damn thing was on autopilot from the beginning.  Europe's rulers marched straight into it with eyes wide open as surely as they made hundreds of thousands of men march straight into machine gun fire: 19th Century tactics against 20th Century weapons.  A rat's nest of overlapping treaties meant to serve as a deterrent instead turned a regional spat into a continent wide war.  Supposedly the Kaiser even tried to pull Germany back once Serbia finally gave in to Austria's onerous demands, but his generals told him that the war machine quite literally could not be stopped.  German (and French) troops would reach the border and start shooting before any cancellation order would reach them.  The German generals even thought that stopping would leave their defenses in shambles with their enemies at full power, so the risk of not following through on a war was seen as too high.  France and Britain didn't have the excuse of a Nazi juggernaut with designs on world domination, but the propaganda machines were still working their populations into hysterics.

          To those who say the New Deal didn't work: WWII was also government spending

          by Visceral on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 08:28:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  let's form the national nukes association (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bhut jolokia

    we are being denied our liberties!

    The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

    by Laurence Lewis on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 04:17:00 PM PST

  •  Am (3+ / 0-)

    digging out for the silos in my back garden as I type. Screw small tactical I'm going for my own personal ICBM with full city leveling payload.

    All in the name of peace of course.

  •  haaaaa This is brilliant - (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bhut jolokia

    When I figure out how to tip...

  •  If nuclear weapons are outlawed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    howd, frostbite

    only outlaw countries will have nuclear weapons.  

    Political compass: -8.75 / -4.72

    by Mark Mywurtz on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 05:15:51 PM PST

  •  Put 'Em In Every School ! (0+ / 0-)

    Especially during football season.

  •  All snark aside, nuclear weapons have been (0+ / 0-)

    A positive thing for peace in the world.

    The existence of nuclear weapons was the reason that, for the first time in human history, the two most powerful nations, with interests in the same real estate, did not fight a war.

    In fact, no two nuclear powers have ever fight a conventional war... because the planners on both sides know that the losing country will use annihilation being preferable to one-sided annihilation.


    "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
    "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

    by Leftie Gunner on Fri Dec 28, 2012 at 11:17:27 PM PST

    •  We got lucky (0+ / 0-)

      We came closer than you think on several occasions.

      1961 - Berlin
      1962 - Cuba (everyone knows this one)
      1973 - Yom Kippur War
      1983 - Able Archer

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Sat Dec 29, 2012 at 02:02:38 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm aware of all of them. (0+ / 0-)

        Any of those situations would likely have led to war in the absence of nuclear weapons, and the terrifying calculus their existence imposes.

        The bloodiest war in human history was sparked by (1) the assasination of two people who very few people gave a shit about, (and whom nobody wanted to go to war over,) and (2) train schedules.


        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Sun Jan 06, 2013 at 05:59:31 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site