Private nuclear weapons

[Jack of Spades]

Because terrorist have illegal access to WMDs, and there are criminal gangs and mobs with so much firepower that clocks and rifles are just not enough to protect ones self anymore, I therefore start a campaign to bring back the law-abiding citizens right to defend themselves effectively by building a private nuclear deterrent against gangs and terrorists.

Of course I don't mean anything ridiculous like intercontinental missiles, but something that is locally useful, like nuclear cannon shells, or short range missiles for home- and self-defense.

Are you for or against it?

Please note, if you are against it, the following ones are NOT valid arguments:

1) "Those could end in terrorist hands"
- Are you calling me, a law-abiding citizen, a terrorist?

2) "Nuclear weapons are dangerous"
- In hands of law-abiding citizens, they will be used primarily as a deterrent with all appropriate safety measures always in place. It is only unsafe if you can't handle it, and a law-abiding citizen knows their responsibilities.

3) "Nuclear weapons are harmful for environment"
- It's possible to build a relatively clean nuclear bomb. And even if it wasn't, do you think terrorists care? Why do you want terrorists to be the only ones with A-bombs?

4) "Only governments should have them"
- Yeah right, so the government can go nazi-Hitler and oppress us?

 

[Chesterton]

If this is aimed at a certain right in America's Bill of Rights, I invite you to read ThatRobGuy's posts #3 and #7 in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ctive-one-person-can-kill-a-thousand.7952529/

 

[Jack of Spades]

If this is aimed at a certain right in America's Bill of Rights, I invite you to read ThatRobGuy's posts #3 and #7 in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/thre...ctive-one-person-can-kill-a-thousand.7952529/

Don't link other threads please, or I will nuke you.

 

[Chesterton]

Don't link other threads please, or I will nuke you.

Well it seemed like it was on point, but if this is a serious question I have to admit I'm on fence about it. I mean obviously at first blush it sounds like a great idea, but I admit there could a small potential for some downside.

Although, personally I'd love to get my hands on one of those South African flamethrower cars:

 

[Eudaimonist]

Of course I don't mean anything ridiculous like intercontinental missiles, but something that is locally useful, like nuclear cannon shells, or short range missiles for home- and self-defense.

Are you for or against it?

Even as libertarian as I am, no, I don't think that WMDs should be some sort of protected right. Nuclear weapons are not proper tools for "home and self defense" and can't be justified on those grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A man's home is his Castle. How else can I defend my Castle from the Commi-Nazi hordes out to get me?

The problem is though that the best defence is a good offence. So if terrorists and gangs are out to get me, why draw the line at local deterrence. ICBMs are the way to go, seeing that we are ignoring inconvenient arguments like 1 to 4. Can I as a law-abiding citizen not defend my country when I see it attacked? How is this different from tackling a terrorist in a train, after all.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt, Pacem appellant. - Tacitus.

If the whole world glows, we will have Peace. So lets go make everything desert!

On a serious note: No man can be entrusted with the fissile materials, no matter how righteous.

 

[Dave-W]

Since the destructive radius of even the most low-yield "tactical" nukes is measured in miles (above ground detonation), they are inherently ineffective for personal defense and carry a LOT of collateral damage.

Besides, if you are several miles away from your thief or mugger, are they REALLY an immediate threat? If they are closer than that, you yourself are in the blast zone. <good bye!>

While I believe the 2nd amendment DOES allow for private ownership of nukes, (and ICBMs as well) I do not see how they could be used for self defense.

I remember reading this book after finding it on the shelf of my high school library:

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I remember reading this book after finding it on the shelf of my high school library:

Glad you didn't go to Columbine.

 

[Dave-W]

Glad you didn't go to Columbine.

My cousin lived just a few blocks from Columbine. As his 2 children were about to enter high school in the next couple of years, they moved. To Aurora. Just a few blocks from where that idiot shot up the theater .......

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Even against a tyrannical government nukes aren't necessary. I don't see what use they'd have against terrorists either. I can see justification for assault weapons and maybe a bit bigger based on 'commie-Nazi' government fears. I guess my argument against it would be it has no use and causes too much collateral damage. It could infringe on other citizens' rights by, y'know, blowing up lots of people, and so the Second Amendment would be preserved because the 'arms' in question would infringe on the rights of many more people?

When the second amendment says 'arms', maybe it only means stuff you can carry with your arms?

 

[Taom Ben Robert]

Nuclear weapons should be banned , internationally

 

[Dave-W]

When the second amendment says 'arms', maybe it only means stuff you can carry with your arms?

"Bear arms" means just what it says in historical context. That context was a bunch of farmers and trappers had the military equipment to fight off the strongest military might of the day: England.

So to bring that current, it would mean that regular guys; factory workers and retail agents, pencil pushers and computer geeks, could hold off a full scale invasion by a foreign military force without any support from the federal government. Remember, during the revolution there was no real federal government.

 

[Armoured]

Even as libertarian as I am, no, I don't think that WMDs should be some sort of protected right. Nuclear weapons are not proper tools for "home and self defense" and can't be justified on those grounds.


eudaimonia,

Mark

But the 2nd ammendment-o-philes constantly bang on about how they think they're a credible check on "tyranny", whatever they mean by the term this week. When you make tactical nuclear weapons illegal, only tyrants will have tactical nuclear weapons!

 

[Armoured]

My cousin lived just a few blocks from Columbine. As his 2 children were about to enter high school in the next couple of years, they moved. To Aurora. Just a few blocks from where that idiot shot up the theater .......

But there's no systemic problem of gun violence in the US.

 

[Nithavela]

Nuclear weapons should be banned , internationally

But then only the bad guys will have them!

 

[Dave-W]

But there's no systemic problem of gun violence in the US.

A problem with violence, period. If guns were not available, it would manifest thru some other means.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

"Bear arms" means just what it says in historical context. That context was a bunch of farmers and trappers had the military equipment to fight off the strongest military might of the day: England.

So to bring that current, it would mean that regular guys; factory workers and retail agents, pencil pushers and computer geeks, could hold off a full scale invasion by a foreign military force without any support from the federal government. Remember, during the revolution there was no real federal government.

It wasn't really a foreign military force, the British were ruling, some Americans supported them, and some revolted. You need considerably less arms to overthrow a government that's already ruling you than a foreign invading force. A government wouldn't use nukes, or missiles, on its own people for fear of converting more people to the revolutionary cause, and people within the government's own armed forces could revolt.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But the 2nd ammendment-o-philes constantly bang on about how they think they're a credible check on "tyranny", whatever they mean by the term this week.

Nuclear weapons aren't a credible check on government tyranny. Guns are at least a deterrent to tyranny.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Armoured]

Nuclear weapons aren't a credible check on government tyranny. Guns are at least a deterrent to tyranny.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Because... reasons?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Because... reasons?

If you can present a case for how nuclear weapons can provide a check on government tyranny, I'm all ears. I just don't see how that would work.

As for guns, they can be a deterrent on government tyranny because a no would-be dictator is going to want to fight off great masses of his nation's own citizens, even if he does have the upper hand with military weaponry. He is going to want people to be as easily controlled as possible, and that is facilitated by a disarmed public.


eudaimonia,

Mark