Universal Disarmament is a Must

Universal Disarmament is practically not possible at a current scenario when countries around the world are in the race of proving their supremacy. Talks of disarmament and terrorism can't go hand to hand. There must be a peaceful atmosphere on the political base. Apart part from this there must be the atmosphere of internal safety and security for the citizen from terrorism as well as proxy wars which can compromise their integrity.

Another and most important point is that we are living an era where there is a race to sell the weapons or delebrating my point I will say there is an open market where the weapons are sell and many countries are making a profit and sustaining their economy. Funds to terrorism are being raised through the flea market of weapons. And thus to be concluding, in short, we are in the world where armament is business and Disarmament is just a word for 'Peace' on the paper.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.