Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
|Venus Poruthur said: (Jun 28, 2018)|
|I as a citizen of a sovereign nation do not agree that disarmament should take place not even that of global scale, as I believe that when each and everyone of the nations are armed with deadly weapons there will not be any war fearing the "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) , that is to say that if I try to harm you I know I will be harmed as much as I have harmed if not more and that brothers and my only friends is why we haven't witnessed and god willingly won't witness any major wars in recent times.
In the early days of human kind there were no weapons, but still as history stands my witness, there were many genocide and brutal invasions, from what I have learnt from history is that only the strongest survive and only they claim over the weak But weapons make each and every nation capable of doing damage which makes those nations equals hence peace prevails.
|Parveen said: (Sep 1, 2017)|
|Good morning ladies and gentleman. Our today gd topic is "Universal disarmament is must".
I do not agree with this. Every country has arms to protect themself from another country.
The best of disarmament is if whOle world disarmament takes place.
If no country has arms no violence create. So all people live their precious life without fear.
|Sreehari said: (Nov 3, 2016)|
|Nuclear disarmament need not be done in my opinion. It serves as a crime deterrent as long as every country has nuclear weaponry capacity. Just consider the case of a robber who is about to steal the jewelry of a lady and a cop with a pistol comes to the rescue. The robber leaves without harming the lady. Suppose the cop and the robber and the lady possess a gun with them. They wouldn't dare to mess with each other. Thus weapons proliferation acts as a crime deterrent if in sane hands. (I am guessing no country is so insane to mess with the rest).|
|Shiva said: (Sep 26, 2016)|
|I think disarmament will make a country weaker, because if a country has strong weapons another country will not dare to cause any harm and if we consider peace than it all depends on the people. If people decide to have no wars and live in peace then there will be no need of weapon but I think for the security of country it should own weapons.|
|Bahduh said: (Apr 19, 2016)|
|According to my point of view, universal disarmament is not a must but nuclear disarmament or any weapon which causes mass destruction like hydrogen bomb etc is a must to disarm them all.|
|Sanjay said: (Mar 29, 2016)|
|Friends I disagree with this topic. Arms are made for safety, the hands holding the arms decide the war or peace. Arms do not decide the war, human decide WAR OR PEACE.|
|Shehnaz said: (Jan 29, 2016)|
|I would not agree with the fact that universal disarmament would bring peace. Rather if a country is disarmed, it is more vulnerable to attacks of terrorists.
In a country like India where so frequently attacks occurs like 26/11 or Pathankot attack, it would be foolish if we give up our weapons for the "PEACE OF THE UNIVERSE".
|Nitin said: (Dec 1, 2015)|
|Acquiring Assets and Power is always encouraged but these powers are meant to be used judiciously and for the right cause. Universal Disarmament could be practiced if you are sure that people will not forge the rules.
But people have variety of minds - be it a criminal mind, or a mahatma. Criminals does not care about the rules, so according to me it is impractical to practice universal disarmament. If people are good enough to think wisely, then despite possessing arms and ammunition, there will be no fight but only peace.
Therefore, in my point of view, weapons are for safety and security which should be used only when really required to defend yourself.
|Piyush said: (Nov 18, 2015)|
|War never decides who is wrong or who is right. It only states who are left. Every human being on this planet want a peaceful environment. We are not aware what wars are turning us into. Terrorism is a result of wars we had so far. And we are still fighting.
Earlier we were fighting with each other for power, money, resources with each other now, we are fighting with terrorism. But fight is still on. Its high time to put an end to this. Disarmament tough can't be employed in current scenario, because we have come to far and there is no way back now. You have chosen to fight. You have enemies, terrorism.
So my opinion on the question is that we can not get to this disarmament option but we can certainly find better way to bring peace. Gandhi was not a man it was a spirit and spirit never dies we have to bring that spirit among us. You may disagree with my statement but I consider you to think again over this statement.
|Kiran said: (Sep 21, 2015)|
|Yes, universal disarmament is must, if every country came to an agreement then we can save a lot of economy of country. In India 2.4% of GDP is investing on military itself. If disarmament is accepted we can save these money. It can be used for other purpose. May be it looks very less in percentages but if we talk it in about rupees it is 2,50,000 crore, this much of money we can save.|
|Joni Rajput said: (Sep 3, 2015)|
|I disagree, we need weapons to protest our self. Universal disarmament is not the solution of any fight. If people don't have weapons then don't mean they can not fight. The thing is weapons should use for protection not for power. I like Gandhi way for peace but whole time it does not work. Sometime, it is necessary to give reply else people thinks it as our weakness.
For example, a person slap another one then may be he can allow 1, 2, 3 times but on a saturation point no body can tolerate. So in my point of view we should never do starting for any fight but if its really need then don't back your feet.
|Anurag Sinha said: (Sep 3, 2015)|
|The concept of universal disarmament does not mean that every country will be ripped off its whole weaponry. In most cases disarmament refers only to weapons of mass destruction. So while a nation can protect itself against terrorist attacks even without nuclear or biological weapons, but these WMD's are must for those countries who don't have a high class military like USA, because it is only the fear of mass destruction which is keeping strong countries from attacking the weaker ones in terms of military forces.
A new term arms control was coined up in 1960's which, if applied, would take care of arms balance between different countries so that a nation with stronger military force does not attack on ones with a weaker military force.
So in my opinion, as long as arms control is not being applied, there should not be universal disarmament.
|Nitin said: (Jan 26, 2015)|
|Disarmament is not advisable. Suppose in case you imagine we have disarmed. Everybody in peace a sudden terrorist attack on any country a three men just start firing like they did in 26/11 attack how the country would be able to protect their citizens, how to ensure security is the million dollar question? If you think of settlement they are terrorist they have only one motive that is killing, on the other hand if you think of defending there are no arms. So disarmament is not advisable which posses a high security threat.|
|Surya said: (Nov 13, 2014)|
|Universal disarmament sounds crazy, if implemented it will be good but, common guys is it practically possible? will all countries have a nod for this? no country is happy with its boundary, some countries resolve it peacefully while others are agitated.
Without arms and weaponry a country cannot counter the insurgency. So I suggest it will not be a bad idea if were are defensive and prepared.
|Kannan said: (Jun 24, 2014)|
|In my point universal disarmament is not suitable in this time. All the nations have good and bad. So we need to produce our sound against bad. If they raise their violence, we also should oppose with our violence.
Thanks for this opportunity.
|Nihilist said: (Jan 2, 2014)|
|Definitely no. Everybody can't be Gandhi. And there is no point in being like 'Gandhi' in this present world. Its about the survival of the fittest. Do you think that human's affinity to non-violence is helping to maintain peace and harmony. No its the fear of losing them which helps in maintaining peace and harmony.
Had Japan knew that America would be capable of launching a deadliest bomb on it they would not even have started their ship from their harbour. That is why nations signal each other that 'they have invested these many millions for defense purpose' to safeguard themselves.
What is the point in eradicating poverty when a nation is not capable of providing security to its masses?
|Tirth Parikh said: (Aug 6, 2013)|
|I don't agree with this topic because if the world disarms itself then any nation would collect underground weapons in intentions to spread its supremacy over the world.
If a country disarms it will become weak than others and it would become easy to gain control over it.
Disarmament is not possible because not every country in the world will be convinced to disarm itself.
As far as greed is present no country will agree for disarmament.
Weapons are needed for safety, security, protection.
They are also needed to control terrorism.
We need weapons to defend.
|Mishaal said: (Dec 21, 2012)|
|In the present world a minor misperception between 2 states can lead to disaster, complete disarmament is not possible especially for the states with boarder issues. States need to possese weapons for peace and security purposes.|
|Keshav Jha said: (May 18, 2012)|
I do respect all of your points, But friends, I want to ask one thing that, what is the work of a gun or arms, is it life or death. A gun or arms always leads disaster and ends the life. The life is natural and threaded in love. A life can not be survived smoothly without love. On the contrary, arms & guns decline the love.
I agree with the topic, disarmament is a must, All country should disarm and be happy with their own boundary or land. And UNO should monitor & ensure that no any country raise the dispute on the demarcated boundary. UNO must have the power then one day you will see, all over world would be a green place for living. Make love love love. Thanks.
|Neha said: (Feb 14, 2012)|
|Universal disarmament doesn't mean to abondand weapons completely. We need to make sure that the weapons such as nuclear bombs should not be used as they are the threats to next generation. But what if some terrorists groups or criminals use them against our nation. If it is so we should not keep quiet and need to raise our voice against them. In my opinion we need not to initiate any violence. But if some one else is raising upon our independence, we should be able to give them the answer.|
|Tejinder Singh said: (Jan 30, 2012)|
|What gandhiji did could be right in one way, but it resulted in injury of a large no. Of people without any cause which if used as strikers would result in early independence. He used non violence and disarmament which resulted in late independence and loss to the country. This could be reduced if we have followed the path of shaheed Bhagat singh. So disarmament should be done not by throwing your arms but make a pledge to not to use the arms till it comes to your life. In a country like India the political condition is so demanding that we have to use arms. Disarmament could only be done if done internationally. Which is just practically impossible without catastrophic disaster.|
|Pravin Fargose said: (Dec 19, 2011)|
|Friends, I am Pravin and in my point of view, the universal disarmament can not be possible as practically no nation can be trusted with this aspect. Right from developing to poor countries all need to defend their Borders. The use of nuclear can be used to create the energy which will benefit many to improve the living condition of people.
India has good nuclear policy and no first attack. It believes in just defending itself rather than attacking. It surely needs these against hostile neighbours.
It should not be used in a cometitive manner to threat but for the betterment of the nations.
|Shruti said: (Feb 25, 2011)|
|Armament should be used with little Gandhism, as we are taught from childhood to not to harm others i.e., it should be used only when the conditions are out of control, just to protect the LIFE and not to show the power and destroy other countries.|
|Anoop said: (Feb 22, 2011)|
|I tend to think that the universal disarmament is must . But agreement on universal disarmament should be made for the weapons of the mass destruction such like atomic bomb,hydrogen bomb.As we know the effect of these bombs on our society by the example of Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombing.If these type of incident happen again then there is a strong possibility that the existence of mankind on earth will be in danger.
The Nations should posses only those weapons which required for the self defence and repelling the terrorist groups.
|Pranta Pratim Patra said: (Feb 11, 2011)|
|I totally don't agree with this topic. It is an impossible thing. Man has developed weapons from the stone age and this development has led to the invention of today's modern and hi-tech weapons. Earlier man use weapons to hunt, but in today's world the are use more in wars. So the field of use of weapons has changed and this has occurred because of the change in human thinking. As long as there will be terrorists, robbers and war, no one can stop the use of weapons. THE ONLY THING THAT CAN MAKE IT POSSIBLE IS 'HUMAN THINKING'. If all mankind is determined to live in peace the there will come one day, when there wont be any need of weapons.|
|Abhay said: (Feb 11, 2011)|
|Yes, I do agree with the topic. We require the disarmament because we have seen in the past how the nuclear bomb has impacted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And the affect is still showing. Our Friend has said to protect from terrorist we require the arm but when there is no armaments then from where the terrorist will get the arms. For the peaceful and pleasant life we require the disarmament policy which should be followed by everyone in the world. There shouldn't be any partiality.|
|Deepak Singh said: (Feb 4, 2011)|
|I totally agree with this statement! that whole world should be disarmament as if whole world will be disarmed then there will be obviously no need of guns n all that. But on the other side we should not forget to stain a gun as bad time is always welcomed by the facts of life. But for the peace it is necessary n a good initiative to disarm our self.|
|Shiviya said: (Feb 4, 2011)|
|Here we are talking about universal disarmament and I think it shoud be done as with this we can save so much of money that is spent by different countries on defence and that money can be utilized for sustainable development. As it is universal terrorists also wont be allowed and if they use it they can easily be identified. With this we can really have world peace. But if we are talking about practicality its not.|
|Ritu said: (Feb 4, 2011)|
|Hello this is ritu, I am totally agree with the topic universal disarmament is must, for world's peace and harmony. If weapons gets reduce or extinct from the world, people would not kill one another for small reasons. Its not true that fight or war can only be fought through weapons or by killing one another, the one bigest example of this is the war of independence fought by ghandiji against the british rulers. So we should take an inspiration and say no to wars and weapons, and try to make a little participation universal disarmament.|
|Mahibub Shaikh said: (Jan 31, 2011)|
|Arms are must in this era because terrarism groving in all over the world and second thing is that every where the wrong thing still going on like molestation, docit, robery, and so many things are there in the world if we quite it we will loose the peace definetly so for shake of peace we need arms and amnision also. Some time when I read the news like rape cases and something wrong against I used to think why they don't carry sharp thing with them for there own shefty, that reason only girls and womens should carry weapon in there purse.|
|Tulsi said: (Jan 27, 2011)|
|I would like to add that armaments should be used as offensive tool rather than defencive onces so...universal disarmament is not a good option but maintain peace and stability should be encouraged...
Ban on disarmament should not be supported but adding of restriction and imposition should be opted..
|Vinny said: (Jan 19, 2011)|
|I would like to go against the motion. Though this will lead to peaceful environment but in the world of Nuclear weapons now it is not even possible of thinking disarmament, and even if it occurs then also a nation require some weapons at least for the worst cases because it has the responsibility of its citizens. So i think Disarmament is not possible.|
|Mohit Singh said: (Jan 19, 2011)|
|Yes i agree universal disarmament is not possible because terrorism is on the peak and it has affected almost all the countries . So for the protection of any nation or people or community arms are required|
|Fahad Wasi said: (Jan 12, 2011)|
|if we see the present scenario all the countries want maximum resources for themself.for example USA attack iraq and afghanistan for oil only .had the army of iraq and afghanistan were stronger or they would have advance weapon the US will not dare to look at them even the danger of terrorism is also very high and if in this situation if we opt for universal disarmament then we are at greta danger|
|Jobesh.M said: (Dec 24, 2010)|
|Yes, I do agree that arms as must in the current world scenario. but arms should only be used for safety and security. Strictly not to create panic or to destroy the world peace. In present situation all nations are having a fear against terrorism and such anti social elements. So nations should use these arms to maintain world peace not to destroy it.|
|Arpit Pal said: (Dec 23, 2010)|
|Friends universal disarmament basically means destroying the weapons of mass destruction. Universal disarmament is the dire need of the hour. But the word 'UNIVERSAL' should be kept in mind by the USA which asks rather forces other nations to destroy their weapons. The international community should also force America to disarm itself.
Some of my friends above have said that destroying these weapons would reduce our power to tackle terrorism, here I want to say that it would be a uphill task for the terrorists to develop a nuclear bomb or a hydrogen bomb. I am rather worried about the fact that if these weapons, which are invented by us, are annexed by the terrorists would be more dangerous. They would use it anywhere to cause the mass destruction.
So it is in our favor to follow the policy 'UNIVERSAL DISARMAMENT' strictly.
|Pangam Wangnaw said: (Dec 22, 2010)|
|Yes I do agree that arms are mean for self safety and protection by outer aggressions. But, how safe are we under the threat of terrorism. Today terrorism has become threat to global peace. While arms are the cultural identity of any terrorist group. If we want peace, then disarmament is must. Because it is with the arms the terrorist stand high.|
|Xyz said: (Dec 21, 2010)|
|Yes,even I believe that one must fight as Gandhisim does not work always,but it must be the last resort.Problems must be first tried to solve peacefully in matter of world peace,else fight is must.|
|Shlav said: (Jul 25, 2010)|
|Well it might look that world without weapons would be peaceful and ideal. I fell that its impossible now to adopt policies of Universal Disarmament at this stage where the world is now standing. Its now time to develop more advance weapons so that no one can even dare to look at others area, or property or any thing.|
|Kapil said: (Jul 23, 2010)|
|Hello! I want to initiate the topic "Universal Disarmament is a Must", I am not satisfied with this topic, because in my opinion Weapons are necessary to protect our home land from terrorists, Criminals & dishonest peoples. If the Universal Disarmament policy is applied then how is it possible to Protect our-self from dishonest peoples, because even though Universal Disarmament is applied criminal never fellow the policies.|
Universal Disarmament is a Must
Email : (optional)
» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.