What would a world without nuclear weapons look like?
Some see nuclear weapons as an effective means to ensure peace and stability. Others see them as a threat to humanity and demand they be dismantled permanently.
Where do you stand? And why?
From the article Explainer: What would a nuclear war look like?
Unfortunately, in the near future there will be a serious increase in countries developing/acquiring nuclear weapons for themselves, as it is practically the only way to save their own country from outside invasion.
If Iran and North Korea didn't have nukes, the US would have swept them away yesterday.
Yes, nuclear weapons do save the day.
К сожалению, в ближайшем будущем будет серьезное увеличение стран, разрабатывающее / приобретающее для себя ядерное оружие, т.к. это практически единственный способ спасти собственную страну от вторжения извне.
Если бы Иран и Северная Корея не обладали бы ядерным оружием, США их бы смели еще вчера.
Да, ядерное оружие спасает.
Humans have gone from marginal creatures in Africa to apex predators covering the globe in less than 70,000 years. The blink of an eye in terms of evolution.
However, we still have the outlook of hunter-gatherers...... tribal and territorial.
Unless the thousands of nuclear weapons (all primed to be used within a few minutes) are eliminated, humans are destined to be a flash in the pan, whether it is within the next 50 years or so, or the next two hundred years.
It's incredibly disturbing that even highly educated, intelligent individuals do not register the peril the human race is in. Unless, as has been my experience, at a conversational level, people are told with dispassionate certainty that, because of the thousands of nuclear weapons primed for almost immediate use, (plus the close calls regarding their use that have occurred over the last 50 years or so) humans are destined to be a mere flash in the pan. I have observed that this approach causes, as it should, enormous discomfort in most people. It's as if, for once in their lives, they have been forced to bring this topic out of the bottom of their human denial mechanism.
It's very easy to give advice. However, I believe the only way nuclear weapons can be eliminated is through mass advertising campaigns to harness a mass movement of millions of people. It will not be quick or easy and may take a century or so.
I can assure you that there will be a world without nuclear weapons.
No one knows when this will be the case.
However, this does not necessarily mean that this future world will be any less frightening or scary. If man will be in this world, he will have invented a much more potent means, according to my current assessment. The exercise of power is based on fear, as Homo sapiens sapiens knows. The clever and sensible person will not abolish the A-weapons. Let us hope that Homo amantis will do so.
Ich kann Ihnen versichern, dass es eine Welt ohne Atomwaffen geben wird.
Wann dies der Fall sein wird, weiss niemand.
Lieder bedeutet dies nicht zwingend, dass diese zukünftige Welt weniger beängstigend oder erschreckend wäre. Falls der Mensch in dieser Welt sein wird, wird er nach meiner derzeitigen Einschätzung eine deutlich potenteres Mittel erfunden haben. Die Ausübung von Macht basiert auf Angst, dass weiss der Homo sapiens sapiens. Der kluge und vernünftige Mensch wird die A-Waffen nicht abschaffen. Hoffen wir, dass dies der Homo amantis tun wird.
Nuclear weapons are a fetter imposed on us that cannot be removed. We are so stupid, ignorant, and barbaric that we are incapable of governing ourselves.
核兵器は、我々に課せられた外すことのできない足枷です。我々は、愚かで無知で野蛮なため、自分達を統率する能力が無いのです。
Only stupid people think that these deadly weapons are a means of ensuring safety. We all know that these weapons were designed to destroy and destroy countries and kill people in the most heinous ways. If they really maintain peace, why are the major countries of Russia and the United States fighting wars in the territory of other weak countries? The answer is simply because these weapons are a means of ensuring the safety of major countries when they fight with each other and intimidating weak countries to seize their lands for the purpose of wars and others. These wars have not ended and will end only by eliminating the ideas of control and control of the world that developed countries dream of.
الغبي وحده من يفكر بأن هذه الأسلحة الفتاكة وسيلة لضمان الأمان فنحن جميعنا نعلم أن هذه الأسلحة صممت للقضاء على الدول وتدميرها وقتل الناس بأبشع الطرق. لو كانت حقا تحافظ على السلام، لماذا تخوض الدول الكبرى كروسيا و الولايات المتحدة الحروب في أراضي الدول الضعيفة الأخرى؟ الجواب ببساطة لأن هذه الأسلحة هي وسيلة تضمن أمان الدول الكبرى عندما تتحارب مع بعضها وتخويف للدول الضعيفة للاستيلاء على أراضيها بغرض الحروب وغيرها.. هذه الحروب لم تنته ولن تنتهي إلا بالتخلص من أفكار السيطرة والتحكم بالعالم الذي تحلم به دول العالم المتقدمة.
If there would be a nuclear war, the bunkers are also useless.you have to come out and everything is then contaminated.then rather be dead than miserable to languish there.
Wenn es einen Atomkrieg geben würde,nützen die Bunker auch nichts.Man muss ja herauskommen und alles ist dann verstrahlt.Dann lieber gleich tot sein als elend dahin zu siechen.
If you own something sooner or later you will use it.
Owning nuclear weapons will inevitably lead to their use, when you don't know, but it will happen. Do nuclear weapons prevent conflicts? I don't think so, I think they postpone them, thus increasing tensions , until we see no other solution but their use.
Selfishly I hope that this will happen far from the time of my existence.
Se possiedi qualcosa prima o poi la userai.
Possedere armi nucleari porterà inevitabilmente al loro uso, quando non si sa, ma avverrà. Le armi nucleari prevengono i conflittI? Io non credo, credo che gli rimandino, accrescendo così le tensioni , fino a far si che non si veda altra soluzione se non il loro uso.
Egoisticamente spero che ciò accada lontano dal tempo della mia esistenza.
Interesting but non-sensical question; nuclear arms DO exist. Equally interesting but non-sensical would be the question: What would the world without ANY arms look like. It is an idea, which in essence was proposed by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his treatise „On Perpetual Peace“ (Vom Ewigen Frieden) where he posits as a requirement for peace to eliminate all standing armies. So simple and unrealistic — no soldiers, no arms, no wars.
To reduce the risk of further wars, all states must disarm together. Not only nuclear weapons. States should not be allowed to maintain armies; the use of armed force would only be permitted within the framework of UN mandates - through a reformed Security Council in which all nations have a say - to protect populations.
Um das Risiko von weiteren Kriegen zu senken, müssen alle Staaten gemeinsam abrüsten. Nicht nur die Atomwaffen. Staaten sollten keine Armeen unterhalten dürfen; der Einsatz von Waffengewalt wäre lediglich im Rahmen von UN-Mandaten - durch einen reformierten Sicherheitsrat, bei dem alle Nationen mitbestimmen - zum Schutz von Bevölkerungen erlaubt.
Eliminating nuclear weapons will make war easier.
If every nation owned nuclear weapons, they would be meaningless.
Nuclear weapons are not the problem; war is the problem.
If we make war only with drones and artificially intelligent robots, people will not die, only things will be destroyed.
Even so, politicians who think of going to war are incompetent.
核兵器をなくせば戦争がやりやすくなる。
すべての国が核兵器を所有すれば、核兵器は意味のないものとなる。
核兵器が問題ではなく、戦争が問題。
ドローンや人工知能のロボットだけの戦争にすれば、人は死なず、物を破壊するだけの戦争になる。
それでも戦争をしようと考える政治家は無能。
A world led by one pole and led by America and Britain will not know stability with nuclear or without it. My evidence is that. See what Britain and America have done in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Tunisia, most recently Ukraine and the rope on the tractor. I do not know what is the reason for the intense hatred between America and Britain on the one hand and China and Russia on the other. The rest of the countries pay a high price for the follies and ambitions of those who consider themselves leaders (the international system). Use your nuclear powers to maintain security and spread peace, food justice and security among countries instead of conspiring and allied to kill more people without arguments only because they are from different races and sects.
عالم يقوده قطب واحد وتقوده امريكا وبريطانيا لن يعرف الاستقرار بالنووي أو بدونه ودليلي على ذلك انظر ماذا فعلت بريطانيا وامريكا بالعراق وسوريا واليمن وليبيا وتونس وآخرها أوكرانيا والحبل على الجرار. لا أدري ما هو سبب الكراهية الشديدة بين امريكا وبريطانيا من جهة والصين وروسيا من جهه أخرى، وبقية الدول تدفع ثمنا باهضا لحماقات وأطماع من يعتبرون أنفسهم قادة (النظام الدولي). استخدِموا قواكم النووية لحفظ الامن ونشر السلام والعداله الغذائيه والأمنيه بين الدول بدلا من التآمر والتحالف لقتل المزيد من البشر بدون حجج فقط لانهم من عروق وطوائف مختلفة.
Can it be that this text has been translated incorrectly from Arabic?
.
Is murdering people with an argument better than murdering people without an argument?
One considers, if one wants to fight the evil in which one becomes also evil, then the world does not become better but only more evil and consequently worse. Or one considers it mathematically: If the world consists of 10 humans and one of them is a murderer, then 1/10 thus 10% of mankind are murderers. If now one of him 9 goes and wants to avenge the murderer and murders him, then mankind consists of 9 people and one is a murderer. Consequently then 1/9, thus 11.1% of mankind is a murderer. The world has become so then worse.
Kann es sein, dass dieser Text falsch aus dem Arabischen übersetzt wurde?
.
Soll etwas das ermorden von Menschen mit einem Argument besser sein als das Ermorden von Menschen ohne ein Argument?
Man bedenke, wenn man das Böse bekämpfen will in dem man selbst auch böse wird, dann wird die Welt nicht besser sondern nur bösartiger und folglich schlechter. Oder man betrachte es mathematisch: Wenn die Welt aus 10 Menschen besteht und einer von denen ist ein Mörder, dann sind 1/10 also 10% der Menschheit Mörder. Wenn nun einer er 9 hin geht und den Mörder rächen will und ihn ermordet, dann besteht die Menschheit aus 9 Menschen und einer ist ein Mörder. Folglich ist dann 1/9, also 11.1% der Menschheit ein Mörder. Die Welt ist so dann schlimmer geworden.
The explainer is true. Because of WW2 we know the affects of nuclear weapons However in the end a world without nuclear weapons more then likely would not look much different then now because the point of developing nuclear weapons was to make a bigger bang to the advantage of the user who ever that may be. Unfortunately more then likely there would be something else developed to create that bigger bang.
Bestimmt Bresser. Heil dir Helvetia, hast noch der Soehne ja
wie sie St. Jakob sah, freudvoll zum Streit.
Si vis pacem, para bellum ("If you want peace, prepare for war" in French)
In my humble opinion.
Nuclear weapons have allowed armed peace. The cold war was a more peaceful period than the 2 world wars. I don't think we will have a third world war because the Super Powers are too strong to hit each other.
It would wipe out the world with the touch of a red button, they are aware of this danger and will not go that far in a madness of mutual destruction. We will see more and more "small wars", i.e. super powers and their areas of influence. Like the one between Ukraine and Russia. The big problem is this human chimera that we have created, which is the nation-state. As long as countries see themselves as enemies and territories to be conquered, we will have this problem. I am weighing my words, but I am beginning to believe that we need a real world government to solve the major problems of this century. Like global warming, the death of capitalism. We will have to reinvent ourselves and stop beating each other up. Let's kill capitalism and nation-states before they kill us. That's it, I may have gone too far in my thinking, I'll leave it there. And what do you think? I want to say that this is only my opinion and point of view, and I don't hold the absolute truth.
Si vis pacem, para bellum (« Si tu veux la paix, prépare la guerre » en français)
A mon humble avis.
Les armes nucléaires ont permit une paix armée. La guerre froide a été une période plus pacifique que les 2 guerres mondiales. Je ne pense pas que l'on aura une troisième guerre mondiale car les Super Puissances sont trop fortes pour se taper dessus.
Cela anéantirait le monde avec une simple touche d'un bouton rouge, ils sont conscients de ce danger et n'iront pas si loin dans une folie de destruction mutuelle. On verra de plus en plus des "petites guerres", cad des super puissances et ses zones d'influence. Comme celle de l'Ukraine et Russie. Le grand problème c'est cette chimère humaine que l'on a crée qui est l'Etat-nation. Tant que les pays se voient comme des ennemis et des territoires à conquérir on aura ce problème. Je pèse mes mots mais je commence à y croire qu'il faudrait un vrai gouvernement mondial pour résoudre les problèmes majeurs de ce siècle. Comme le réchauffement climatique, la mort du capitalisme. Il faudra se réinventer et arrêter de se taper dessus. Tuons le capitalisme et les Etats-Nation avant qu'ils nous tuent. Voilà, je suis allez peut-être allez loin dans ma réflexion, je laisse là. Et vous pensez quoi? Je tiens à dire que ce n'est que mon opinion et point de vue, et je ne tiens pas la vérité absolue.
Thank you, gentle reader, for these food for thought. Indeed, the borders of nation-states are getting tighter and tighter for us. We saw this clearly during the pandemic, which produced a de-globalization that is affecting geopolitics and global stability. As long as we all remain interconnected, we cannot afford more wars. What will happen when that is no longer the case? It is clear that to address the great challenges of our century, from energy supply to global warming to lethal weapons control, we should all act together. Yet national interests still seem to prevail in most of these issues, which is why we are starting to talk about nuclear energy again and why nation states are increasing military spending. I think the threat of nuclear conflict exacerbates this trend, even though it is true that one of the reasons why a war between the U.S. and Russia-and a world war in general-is very unlikely is precisely the existence of nuclear warheads that would wipe out the entire planet. This is a red line that no one, yet, dares to cross. But if nation-states are strengthened at the expense of a global community, will it always be so?
La ringrazio, gentile lettore, per questi spunti di riflessione. In effetti i confini degli stati-nazione ci stanno sempre più stretti. L'abbiamo visto con chiarezza durante la pandemia, che ha prodotto una de-globalizzazione che sta avendo effetti sulla geopolitica e sulla stabilità globale. Finché rimaniamo tutti interconnessi, non possiamo permetterci altre guerre. Cosa succederà quando non sarà più così? È chiaro che per affrontare le grandi sfide del nostro secolo, dall'approvvigiornamento energetico al riscaldamento globale al controllo delle armi letali, dovremmo agire tutti insieme. Eppure gli interessi nazionali sembrano prevalere ancora nella maggior parte di queste questioni, è per questo che si ricomincia a parlare di energia nucleare e gli Stati nazionali aumentano le spese militari. Credo che la minaccia di un conflitto nucleare inasprisca questa tendenza, anche se è vero che uno dei motivi per cui una guerra tra USA e Russia - e in generale una guerra mondiale - è molto improbabile è proprio l'esistenza di testate nucleari che spazzerebbero via l'intero pianeta. Questa è una linea rossa che nessuno, ancora, si permette di varcare. Ma se gli Stati nazionali si rafforzano a scapito di una comunità globale, sarà sempre così?
If we consider that a good nation-state is nothing more than a good city that offers its inhabitants protection and order within its walls, then in uncertain times we will probably see the strengthening of some nation-states and the disintegration of others.
Wenn man bedenkt dass ein guter Nationalstaat nichts anderes ist als eine gute Stadt die ihren Bewohnerinnen und Bewohnern innerhalb der Stadtmauern Schutz und Ordnung bietet, dann werden wir wohl in unsicheren Zeiten ein Erstarken von manchen Nationalstaaten erleben und andere werden Zerfallen.
@Sara Ibrahim, glad to read that you are so confident.
One dilemma is that in complex systems like the government of a large country, the public hardly has a clue who is ticking and who is in charge. Consequently, the risk is very high that one day sociopaths, narcissists, sadists and other sick minds will be in charge. In case of conflict, they will press a red button and destroy the whole world rather than admit defeat and submit to another system. One does not have to go back so far historically here. How many Japanese committed hara-kiri at the end of the 2nd World War? How would history have gone if the Japanese had had intercontinental missiles with nuclear warheads?
Maybe it would be good to discuss when people, who always want to get their way, cause a reduction of security for the general public with their attitude of mind?
@Sara Ibrahim, erfreulich zu lesen dass sie so zuversichtlich sind.
Ein Dilemma ist, dass bei komplexen Systemen wie die Regierung eines grossen Landes die Öffentlichkeit kaum einen Durchblick hat wer wie tickt und wer das Sagen hat. Folglich ist das Risiko sehr hoch dass eines Tagen in diesen Soziopathen, Narzissten, Sadisten und andere kranke Geister das Sagen haben. In einem Konfliktfall werden diese dann eher auf einen roten Knopf drücken und die ganze Welt zerstören als eine Niederlage ein zu gestehen und sich einem anderen System unter zu ordnen. Man muss hier geschichtlich gar nicht so weit zurück gehen. Wievele Japaner begingen gegen Ende des 2. Weltkrieges Harakiri? Wie wäre die Geschichte verlaufen wenn damals die Japaner Interkontinentalraketen mit Atomsprengköpfen gehabt hätte?
Vielleicht wäre es gut mal darüber zu diskutieren ab wann Menschen, die sich immer durchsetzen wollen, mit ihrer Geisteshaltung einen Sicherheitsabbau an der Allgemeinheit erwirken?
A first step would be for the nation states to hand over their monopoly on the use of force to an international organization. In this way, they would gain in security.
Ein erster Schritt wäre, dass die Nationalstaaten das Gewaltmonopol an eine internationale Organisation abgeben. Sie gewinnen damit an Sicherheit.
The USA, NATO and some European states providing weapons systems and satellite intelligence to Zelensky have made him strong and bold, he sacrificing his own people for personal power will lead Europe to suffer the consequences of a nuclear exchange between the Russian Federation and the USA. To whom the title of "Butcher" ?
After the long time of stationing of the Russian army at the borders, the Ukrainian should have resigned avoiding the massacre of his people and the destruction of the country.
Gli USA la NATO ed alcuni stati europei fornendo sistemi d'arma e intelligence satellitare a Zelensky lo hanno reso forte e baldanzoso, questi sacrificando il proprio popolo per il potere personale condurrà l'Europa a subire le conseguenze di uno scambio nucleare tra Federazione Russa e USA. A chi il tiolo di "Macellaio" ?
Dopo il lungo tempo di stazionamento dell'esercito russo alle frontiere, l'ucraino avrebbe dovuto dimettersi evitando il massacro del Suo popolo e la distruzione del Paese.
But what a courageous response! Putin invades your territory and subdues your people along with your family members, and you let him do it? But what signal do you send to Putin? That the conquests are too easy, so he would not even stop to Ukraine, but he would continue undisturbed towards Poland and maybe the Baltic States! Mutatis mutandi, this is exactly what Hitler was left to do in '37-38 when he took Alsace from France, the Sudetenland in Czechia and also other German-speaking places abroad: and Europe? Citus mutus! Out of fear (!) they let him do it without reacting, hoping that he would be content. Hitler then convinced himself that he could invade all of Poland without provoking European reactions: they were just cowards anyway! But he miscalculated, because at least France and England allies, opposed it and so the Second World War broke out! Famous is the saying of Churchill to the accommodating pacifist Lord Chamberlain:
"You had the choice between war and dishonor, you chose dishonor and you will have war."
Ma che risposta coraggiosa! Putin invade il tuo territorio e sottomette il tuo popolo assieme a tuoi famigliari, e tu lo lasci fare? Ma che segnale mandi a Putin ? : che le conquiste sono sin troppo facili, per cui non si fermerebbe nemmeno all'Ucraina , ma proseguirebbe indisturbato verso la Polonia e magari gli Stati Baltici! Mutatis mutandi, è proprio ciò che hanno lasciato a fare a Hitler nel '37-38 quando si prese l'Alsazia dalla Francia, i Sudeti in Cechia e anche altri luoghi tedescofoni all'estero: e l'Europa? Citus mutus! Per paura (!) lo lasciarono fare senza reagire, sperando che si sarebbe accontentato. Hitler allora si convinse che poteva invadere tutta la Polonia senza suscitare reazioni europee: tanto erano solo dei vigliacchi! Ma sbagliò i calcoli, perché almeno Francia e Inghilterra alleate, vi si opposero e così scoppiò la seconda guerra mondiale! Famoso il detto di Churchill all'accomodante pacifista Lord Chamberlain:
"Avevate la scelta fra la guerra e il disonore, avete scelto il disonore e avrete la guerra"
Thanks for the reply.
Is Ukraine innocent?
I have my doubts.
Putin has said this.
'There is a neo-Nazi army in Ukraine. (referring to the Azov Battalion) They have been there since 2014.
For eight years, they have repeatedly discriminated, violated, lynched, and massacred Russian Ukrainians.
No matter how many times they complained about this to the UN and European leaders, they were ignored. We had no other recourse."
This is the reason for Putin's invasion.
The medias in your country and in Japan will only have information from the U.S. British side.
I do not consider the Ukrainians, the US or the UK to be innocent of anything.
Biden said "Russia is trying to annihilate the Ukrainians".
This is quite the opposite, Ukraine is trying to annihilate the Russians. It appears that.
The resentment of Ukrainians toward Russia is unimaginable.
返信ありがとうございます。
ウクライナに罪はないのでしょうか？
私には疑問です。
プーチンはこのように言っています。
「ウクライナには、ネオナチ軍団がいる。(アゾフ大隊を指す）彼らは2014年以来
8年間に渡ってロシア系ウクライナ人を差別、暴力、リンチ、虐殺を繰り返した。
国連や欧州首脳に何度これを訴えても無視された。もう、他に手段がなかった」
これがプーチンの侵攻の理由。
あなたの国のメデイアも、日本のメデイアも、米国英国側の情報しか無いでしょう。
私はウクライナ人や米国、英国に何の罪もない、とは考えません。
バイデンは「ロシアはウクライナ人を全滅させようとしている」と発言。
これは全く逆で、ウクライナがロシア人を消滅しようとしている。と見える。
ウクライナ人のロシアへの恨みの感情は想像を絶する。
Ridiculous and totally wrong!
Ridicolo e del tutto sbagliato!
No reason can justify a president who decides to use nuclear weapons! if you are a weak and incompetent president and cannot solve the conflict peacefully, you have no place in power!!! get out of office and let someone else solve things peacefully.
Никакие причины не могут оправдать президента, который решит применить ядерное оружие! если ты слабый и не компетентный президент и не можешь решить конфликт мирным путем - тебе ни место у власти!!! уйди с занимаемой должности и дай возможность другому решить все мирным путем.
Nuclear weapons are necessary. If Ukraine had nuclear weapons, there would have been no Russian invasion.
China is a neighbor of Japan. The Japanese people do not want to be under the rule of the dictatorial Chinese Communist Party.
Japan has the Japan-U.S. Security Treaty. Therefore, rogue states do not easily attack Japan.
But Biden will not go into Ukraine. He will not go into Ukraine because it would lead to a nuclear war with Russia.
The "Mere Old Man" is not a fan of the "Mere Old Man". Would the U.S. invoke its security pact with Japan in the event of a China crisis?
The answer is obvious. Some Japanese people argue for the necessity of possessing nuclear weapons. I agree.
Many are pondering, and the experience of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a second thought.
If we had had nuclear weapons then, there would have been no tragedy in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
核兵器は必要です。ウクライナに核兵器が有ったらロシア侵略は無かった。
中国は日本の隣国です。日本人は独裁の中国共産党の支配下はまっぴらです。
日本には、日米安保条約があります。だからならず者国家は容易く攻撃しません。
しかしバイデンはウクライナに参戦しません。ロシアと核戦争になるからと避けて
います。中国有事の時、米国は日本に安全保障条約を発動するでしょうか？
答えは明らかです。一部の日本人は核兵器所有の必要性を訴えます。私も賛成です。
多くは思案中、広島長崎の経験が二の足を踏んでいる。
当時、核兵器を持っていたら広島長崎の悲劇は無かったでしょう。
From the opposite perspective, it could be said that innocent Ukrainian civilians continue to be killed because Russia has nuclear weapons.
逆の見方をすれば、ロシアが核兵器を持っているから、罪もないウクライナの一般市民が殺され続けている、とも言えます。
A world without most weapons, would be a smart world.
If we look at history, more military bases, more weapons ALWAYS lead to more wars, more killings, more destruction.
It would be stupid to think that deploying more means of destruction will bring more peace.
I think many people already know that. But then, why we keep building more military bases and more weapons? Why we, do not talk to people around the world, who may not trust us, and whom we may not trust; and in little steps, each side removes bases/weapons, bit by bit.
Then, based on agreement, each side would have the right to check/investigate the other side(s), to establish that the conditions of the (peace) agreement are followed.
One thing I am sure of: Humans have currently far bigger problems to solve; far bigger than Covid, and far bigger than the current conflict. We ignorantly think that more weapons is the answer, and we are also ignorant about our upcoming human-made extinction.
This is my opinion; based on what I have learnt from our history.
When the vast majority of the world's population has access to similar resources, wealth and living standards. When the world no longer has significant inequalities in production efficiency and wealth per unit of production between developed and developing countries. When the vast majority of the world's population is able to move and settle freely. Nuclear weapons will no longer be needed because the status quo will be accepted by all countries and their people, and when everyone's material needs are adequately met, their thinking will progress as a result. No one would want war. However, this is not possible; vested interests will not be willing to give up the advantages they already have, and latecomers will keep challenging the established order, because the interests of both sides are not aligned. Although globalization brings universal development opportunities, however, people in different countries get different things under the same job market. The latter countries will try to upgrade their industries and break down technological barriers, which triggers countermeasures and further sieges, breakthroughs and conflicts.
当世界上绝大部分人口能享有相近的资源，财富和生活水平。当世界不再存在发达国家和发展中国家间显著的生产效率、单位生产财富的不平等。当世界绝大部分人口能实现自由流动和定居。核武器就不再被需要了，因为介时维持现状会得到所有国家及其人民的认同，当大家物质需要得到充分满足时，思想也会因此而进步。没人会希望战争。然而这是不可能的，既得利益者不会愿意放弃已有的优势，后发者会不断挑战既有秩序，因为双方的利益是不一致的。虽然全球化带来了普遍的发展机会，然而不同国家人们在同样工作市场下得到的是不同的，后发国家会试图升级产业，打破技术壁垒，这就引发了反制，进一步会有围堵，突破和冲突。
This is just one personal opinion.
How would the world be transformed if weapons of mass destruction were developed and manufactured that were more destructive than nuclear weapons, capable of scorching the entire continent of China and the former Soviet Union with just a few shots?
I am Japanese, but the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were still a work in progress. The death toll was not as great as expected (of course, I pray for the souls of those who suffered from the aftereffects).
If it really is possible to scorch almost the entire world by the military will of a superpower, or even just a few superpowers, it would trigger a serious ethical debate that would be right up there with a kind of religious eschatological debate.
一つの私見に過ぎないけれども。
もしも、核兵器よりも強大な破壊力を持った、ほんの数発で、中国大陸や旧ソ連を全部焦土に化すことさえ可能な程度の、大量破壊兵器が開発製造されたならば、世界はどう変質するだろうか？
私は、日本人ですが、広島と長崎に投下された爆弾は、まだまだ進化の途上の品物だった。死者も、想定ほどには大きくは無かった（もちろん、後遺症で苦しまれたお方のご冥福はお祈りしたいです。）
本当に、超大国や、一部大国の軍事的な意思のみで、世界全体のほぼ全域を焦土に化してしまうことが可能ならば、それは、一種の宗教上の終末論の論議と紙一重の、深刻な倫理学の議論を惹起することになるだろう。
Surely what would happen if such a weapon were developed?
In conclusion, nothing will change.
Already, if we launch some of the U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons at each other, at that point
The earth will be destroyed, and mankind and all living things will die.
There will be no change even if Japan develops and possesses them.
The Japan-U.S. Security Treaty will be unnecessary.
確かにそういう兵器が開発されたらどうなるか？
結論から言うと、何も変わりません。
既に、米国 ロシアの核兵器の一部を互いに打ち合えば、その時点で
地球が破壊され人類、生物が死滅するでしょう。
日本が開発 所有したところで変わらない。
日米安保はいらなくなるでしょうね。
I am afraid that human beings can be saved only by extra terrestrials.... at this point we deserve only extinction ... since man exists (between 250000 and 500000 years) we have managed to almost destroy the only planet (for now) on which we can live.... the earth has existed for 4500 million years and if we do not destroy it will last another 5 billion years but the human being will not have a chance. what a stupid species.
:-(
Temo che gli esseri umani potranno essere salvati solo dagli extra terrestri.... a questo punto meritiamo solo l'estinzione... da quando l'uomo esiste (fra 250000 e 500000 anni) siamo riusciti quasi a distruggere l'unico pianeta (per ora) sul quale possiamo vivere.... la terra esiste da 4500 mln di anni e se non la distruggeremo durerà altri 5 mld di anni ma l'essere umano non avrà scampo. che specie stupida.
:-(
Join the conversation!