Universal Disarmament is a Must

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Hello Friends!,

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.