Universal Disarmament is a Must

Group Discussion
Points to remember before you participate in this discussion:
  • Assume you are one of the members of a real group discussion.
  • Take the initiative to participate and contribute your thoughts.
  • Contribute your positive thoughts towards providing the solution.
  • Post your thoughts here.
Discussion:
41 comments Page 1 of 5.

Kapil said:   2 decades ago
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.
(13)

Shlav said:   2 decades ago
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.
(8)

XYZ said:   1 decade ago
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.
(2)

Pangam wangnaw said:   1 decade ago
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.
(3)

Arpit Pal said:   1 decade ago
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.
(4)

Jobesh.M said:   1 decade ago
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.
(5)

Fahad wasi said:   1 decade ago
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
(5)

Mohit singh said:   1 decade ago
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
(3)

Vinny said:   1 decade ago
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.
(4)

Tulsi said:   1 decade ago
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..
(7)


Post your thoughts here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.