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 4 of 5.

Abhay said:   1 decade ago
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.
(5)

Mahibub shaikh said:   1 decade ago
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.
(4)

Mishaal said:   1 decade ago
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.
(4)

Ritu said:   1 decade ago
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.
(4)

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)

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)

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)

Shiviya said:   1 decade ago
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.
(3)

Anurag Sinha said:   10 years ago
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.
(3)

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)


Post your thoughts here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.