Universal Disarmament is a Must
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.
Parveen said:
8 years ago
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.
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.
(13)
Shehnaz said:
10 years ago
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".
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".
(15)
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)
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..
Ban on disarmament should not be supported but adding of restriction and imposition should be opted..
(7)
Shruti said:
1 decade ago
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.
(6)
Kannan said:
1 decade ago
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.
Thanks for this opportunity.
(7)
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)
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)
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)
Bahduh said:
9 years ago
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.
(8)
Post your thoughts here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers