Login

Sign up

OR

Can't sign in? Did you forget your password?

x

Login


If you don’t have an account, click right here


Can't Sign in? Did you forget your password?

x

Please fill in these details

to create your profile


Click on the image to upload your profile pic

x
x

At Awaremonk, I hereby pledge that

I will not troll or abuse any member of the community.
I will be a good listener.
I will check my facts before stating them and attribute them as well.

x

Forgot Password?

Enter your email and we shall mail you the password reset link

x

Reset Password

Enter new password and confirm password

x
Sudhanshu , Live and let live Dec, 08 2016

U.N. General Assembly passes Japan-led nuclear abolition motion! Will this make all the nuclear powers disarm their nuclear weapons? But whats the proof that they will?


It condemns “in the strongest terms” the nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches that Pyongyang has carried out this year.

North Korea carried out underground nuclear tests in January and September, and has fired off more than 20 ballistic missiles this year.

This is a step in the positive direction yes, but what will make sure North Korea will oblige?
It condemns “in the strongest terms” the nuclear tests and ballistic missile launches that Pyongyang has carried out this year.North Korea carried out underground nuclear tests in January and September, and has fired off more than 20 ballistic missiles this year.This is a step in the positive direction yes, but what will make sure North Korea will oblige?

Sudhanshu , Live and let live Dec, 08 2016


Nuclear weapons programmes divert public funds from health care, education, disaster relief and other vital services. The nine nuclear-armed nations spend in excess of US$105 billion each year maintaining and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. The US alone spends more than US$60 billion annually, and the British government’s plans to replace its ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Trident submarines could cost taxpayers over £100 billion.

Despite renewed commitments by nations to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world, all of the nuclear powers continue to invest exorbitant sums of money in their nuclear forces. Funding allocated to national disarmament efforts is minuscule by comparison, and the principal UN body responsible for advancing nuclear abolition has an annual budget of just over $10 million. It is time to redirect money towards meeting human needs.

Nuclear weapons programmes divert public funds from health care, education, disaster relief and other vital services. The nine nuclear-armed nations spend in excess of US$105 billion each year maintaining and modernizing their nuclear arsenals. The US alone spends more than US$60 billion annually, a


Paras Mahikansh , Happiness can be found even in the darkest of Dec, 08 2016


For those who didn't study the military doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the doctrine proves that nobody would be mad enough to start launching nukes. Look at Saddam Hussein, look at Ahmademijad, look at Kim-Jong-Il. Why don't they start launching nukes? That's because if they lauch nukes, other countries would launch nukes at them too. They all know that pressing one button can destroy the world (and thus destroy them too). They all know that even sending one division to a country to wreck havoc means siging a death warrant. Look at the last 50 years or so. Has there been any big wars involving or not involoving nukes? Come on, it's paranoia.
For those who didn't study the military doctrine of mutually assured destruction, the doctrine proves that nobody would be mad enough to start launching nukes. Look at Saddam Hussein, look at Ahmademijad, look at Kim-Jong-Il. Why don't they start launching nukes? That's because if they lauch nukes,


Harish Narang , BITSian for life and beyond. Dec, 08 2016


Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?
Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentiall