Nuclear Weapons

[Dizzle229]

Well, this is a pretty straight up debate. What do you think of nuclear weapons, the countries that have them, countries that claim to have them, their numbers, etc. All things concerning global nuclear arms.

 

 

 

My opinion: Though it seems reasonable that all countries should begin decreasing their nuclear arms stockpiles, they have been a major reason that WWIII has yet to happen.

 

 

 

Discuss.

[l0rd]

While of course it would be ideal for no creature to possess a power that can truly destroy the planet, they are a necessity in terms of the existence a national hierarchy. We as Americans need nuclear weapons because other countries have them, and so we remain a powerful nation. Nothing really insightful to say about the topic, seems pretty clear-cut to me.

[brunokiller]

No one can use them or they'll get bombed with nuclear bombs themselves, so I'd say its a peace keeper.

[Mirror]

It's all about being up to date and keeping balance to the world. I hope an arms race doesn't occur, but in I think Colbert said it best, "We have a Death Star!" (Talking about the super laser).

[Dizzle229]

It's all about being up to date and keeping balance to the world. I hope an arms race doesn't occur, but in I think Colbert said it best, "We have a Death Star!" (Talking about the super laser).

 

 

 

I saw that, that was quite a celebration \

[Panzerlord]

nukes suck. Humans shouldn't have that power available to them. Weapon developement should've stopped after the American Civil War, and even those weapons were brutal. Not nuke brutal, but still...

[Dizzle229]

nukes suck. Humans shouldn't have that power available to them. Weapon developement should've stopped after the American Civil War, and even those weapons were brutal. Not nuke brutal, but still...

 

 

 

Well just think about it. We would almost have certainly gone to war with the USSR in the mid to late 1900's had it not been for nuclear ICBM's. The fact that major world powers have them has brought the world into a new era.

 

 

 

France and UK have a nuclear arsenal. Both countries know what they're doing, and the fact that they have them has kept peace in Europe. China and Russia have nuclear weapons, as does the US. Most likely, this kept the Cold War from becoming an armed conflict. It's countries like Iran, Israel, and North Korea that present a problem.

[sa121]

nukes suck. Humans shouldn't have that power available to them. Weapon developement should've stopped after the American Civil War, and even those weapons were brutal. Not nuke brutal, but still...

 

Ah, but the way things go, in 50 years we'll have some kind of weapon the size of a pen that can blow up the Earth & take out half the moon with it.

 

 

 

OT: I agree that the ability to destroy the Earth isn't the best thing we should have, but they do keep peace pretty well, as others have said. Now we just wait until Kim knows he's gonna die soon and sends nukes everywhere he can, so he can go out with a bang.

[Nenga]

No one should have nukes but now that they do exist it's too late to get rid of them. What a sad thing that that's the world we live in.

[Salad]

I sooo wanted to create a nuclear weapon using music, but then I saw this:

 

 

 

 

 

 

My life is ruined :(

[RichieMcD]

There's many different factors on Nuclear weapons which means I've pretty much decided not to hold an opinion on it. Prepare for a long post.

 

 

 

Well, yes WW3 has been prevented up to this point due to better political ties and the threat of Nuclear weapons but with rising tension in the Middle East between the Islamic countries, Israel and the West world war 3 could be just around the corner with one false move. If WW3 does eventually come along and we still have Nuclear weapons, it's quite reasonable to expect at least one country to use a Nuclear weapon. Once these weapons are used all rules of war are broken, people throughout the world will be living in absolute fear and many more Nukes will be launched, as it's either launched or be launched at if you're involved in the war. Physical resources will be of little value in WW3 once Nukes are used due to Nuclear fallout rendering them unusable.

 

 

 

America and their policies, first of all I don't want to start the "we hate America bandwagon". As America is the only country in the history of the world to use a Nuke in an offensive attack I found it quite hypocritical that it still seems to police the world on who can possess Nukes and who can't. Although America very predictable on what they will do unlike many Islamic militants or terrorist organizations, it still doesn't mean they're the governing body on who can have Nukes and who can't. We have to remember the America was the most active country in 20th century Warfare, the only country to use a Nuke in an offensive attack and currently has the second largest Nuclear stockpile in quantity, Russia being first but America's stockpile is superior to Russia's as they are much more advanced and hold a higher explosive yield. With Obama in power though, I think we're slowly on the right track to ridding the world of Nuclear weapons and Obama actually has the balls to lead by example, unlike past American presidents.

 

 

 

Nuclear development. Many countries considered unpredictable, hostile and dangerous throughout the world are currently developing Nuclear weapons or potentially are with evidence pointing to them possibly making Nuclear weapons. North Korea has been confirmed to be building Nuclear weapons although their Nuclear capability right now is very weak, so far their ICBM test failed and their Nuclear warhead tested yielded no more power than that of the Nuke used on Hiroshima, which doesn't compare to modern Nuclear weapons. Although their currently weak in Nuclear terms, they're slowly striding towards average Nuclear capability, dangerous for a country as unpredictable as Nk. Iran....well we really don't know with Iran as of yet. Although they've launched various missiles AFAIK none have had Nuclear capabilities yet, the worrying aspect is though the recent successfully tested mid-range ICBM has the range to reach Israel and American army bases based in the Middle East, a worrying aspect considering Iran is an Islamic country and a Nuclear attack on either Israel or America, both possessing Nuclear capabilities it will not end well at all for the West nor the Middle East.

 

 

 

Hostile countries. Currently there are quite a few hostile countries possessing Nuclear weapons who have been hostile with other Nuclear possessing countries in the past. India and Pakistan both roughly possess 60 Nuclear weapons each, although not much if both went to war with each other it's more than enough to decimate each country and kills hundreds of thousands in the Nuclear fallout. India and Pakistan have been quite hostile to each other in the past and could potentially be set off again if one was to attack, all it requires is one drastic move. Although neutral with each other today, America and Russia have been very hostile between each other even up to just 20 years ago. Russia still has quite a lot of Nationalistic viewed people, with rising tension in world politics, Nationalism in America is also is arising. Although it's extremely unlikely to happen, if an Ultra-Nationalist got in to power of either country something terribly wrong could occur. And no, I didn't develop this idea from CoD4.

 

 

 

I might add to this later, pretty tired right now. There's roughly 15,000-20,000 armed Nuclear weapons throughout the world with the capability to take out an average size city. 500,000 to about 2,000,000 people. There's about 10,000 other decommissioned weapons throughout the world which can easily be re-armed and used for an offensive attack.

[Dizzle229]

kranked, that was a great post =D>

 

 

 

There's something I'd like to point out. Middle Eastern countries and NK are incompetent, and should not have nuclear weapons. The thing is, most of them dont have much of a nuclear capability.

 

 

 

You said you didnt get the idea from CoD4, but that's really what it would take. Some stupid fascist bastard gains control of a world superpower.

 

 

 

There's one more thing I need to address. You keep saying that US shouldn't police countries on their nukes because we're the only ones to have used them in combat, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? It just doesn't make sense. We have complete competence on the subject and that's all we need. Please explain that opinion in further detail.

[RichieMcD]

kranked, that was a great post =D>

 

 

 

There's something I'd like to point out. Middle Eastern countries and NK are incompetent, and should not have nuclear weapons. The thing is, most of them dont have much of a nuclear capability.

 

 

 

You said you didnt get the idea from CoD4, but that's really what it would take. Some stupid fascist bastard gains control of a world superpower.

 

 

 

There's one more thing I need to address. You keep saying that US shouldn't police countries on their nukes because we're the only ones to have used them in combat, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? It just doesn't make sense. We have complete competence on the subject and that's all we need. Please explain that opinion in further detail.

 

 

 

I didn't mean you shouldn't, I just find it hypocritical the most active country of 20th century warfare, the country possessing the 2nd largest amount of Nuclear weapons in the world and the only country to use a Nuclear weapon in an offensive attack a bit hypocritical.......I'm not a fan of hypocrisy.

 

 

 

Thanks for the great post comment anyway, it's rare to see those comments on TIF these days. :)

[Dizzle229]

I guess I can better see what you mean now.

 

 

 

I do agree that if we tell everyone else to get rid of them, we should too. You need to see it from the side of the other countries. For example, here we think that Russia is an evil country for holding onto it's nukes when we told them to get rid of them. But when you look at it from their point of view, it's like having two equally equipped knights in a battle, but one knight tells the other he has to go unarmed.

 

 

 

Omg, does that mean the the US is a whiny RS pker? :ohnoes:

[Nenga]

I guess I can better see what you mean now.

 

 

 

I do agree that if we tell everyone else to get rid of them, we should too. You need to see it from the side of the other countries. For example, here we think that Russia is an evil country for holding onto it's nukes when we told them to get rid of them. But when you look at it from their point of view, it's like having two equally equipped knights in a battle, but one knight tells the other he has to go unarmed.

 

 

 

Omg, does that mean the the US is a whiny RS pker? :ohnoes:

 

Well look at the other side: If you get rid of your weapons then there is no guarantee that the others will to. Then they'll have the power you now lack.

[RichieMcD]

I guess I can better see what you mean now.

 

 

 

I do agree that if we tell everyone else to get rid of them, we should too. You need to see it from the side of the other countries. For example, here we think that Russia is an evil country for holding onto it's nukes when we told them to get rid of them. But when you look at it from their point of view, it's like having two equally equipped knights in a battle, but one knight tells the other he has to go unarmed.

 

 

 

Omg, does that mean the the US is a whiny RS pker? :ohnoes:

 

 

 

Pretty much the best way of putting it. It's going to be incredibly hard to have disarmament occur due to the fact it takes one side to start it which then leaves them vulnerable if they ever were to be attacked.

[Alg]

kranked, that was a great post =D>

 

 

 

There's something I'd like to point out. Middle Eastern countries and NK are incompetent, and should not have nuclear weapons. The thing is, most of them dont have much of a nuclear capability.

 

 

 

You said you didnt get the idea from CoD4, but that's really what it would take. Some stupid fascist bastard gains control of a world superpower.

 

 

 

There's one more thing I need to address. You keep saying that US shouldn't police countries on their nukes because we're the only ones to have used them in combat, but what the hell does that have to do with anything? It just doesn't make sense. We have complete competence on the subject and that's all we need. Please explain that opinion in further detail.

 

 

 

I didn't mean you shouldn't, I just find it hypocritical the most active country of 20th century warfare, the country possessing the 2nd largest amount of Nuclear weapons in the world and the only country to use a Nuclear weapon in an offensive attack a bit hypocritical.......I'm not a fan of hypocrisy.

 

Noting that the use of the weapon came before the policing, I'd think, shows a bit responsibility more than hypocracy. You could possibly read it as how the country used the bomb once and realized how much destruction was caused by it. If I'm not mistaken, The USSR was ahead of the USA for weapons as well, if I'm not wrong.

 

 

 

Mutually assured destruction is a pretty big hindrance to using the weapons, I think. As long as they aren't used...

[Giordano]

 

Noting that the use of the weapon came before the policing, I'd think, shows a bit responsibility more than hypocracy. You could possibly read it as how the country used the bomb once and realized how much destruction was caused by it.

 

But you're forgetting the US tested the bomb before the Hiroshima. Surely the massive destruction and large radiation readings should of been a clear indication to stop. Plus, they used it twice. Hiroshima AND Nagasaki.

[Dizzle229]

We had to, they didn't surrender after the first one. Would you prefer if we invaded and taken hundreds of thousands more casualties?

[Giordano]

We had to, they didn't surrender after the first one. Would you prefer if we invaded and taken hundreds of thousands more casualties?

 

Surrendering takes more than 2 [bleep]ing days. And I would of preferred to take the lives of non-drafted, volunteered American forces than innocent civilians, to be honest.

[Dizzle229]

We would have ended up killing the civilians anyway. You don't seem to understand how the Japanese worked back then. THEY WERE NOT GOING TO SURRENDER. Hell, the emperor ordered every man woman and child to take up arms in an invasion. Would would have had to kill most of their population.

 

 

 

ON TOPIC

[i_love_burritos]

It is my personal opinion that everyone west of India and east of Greece, should not be allowed nuclear weapons nor given the knowledge of how to manufacture them.

 

 

 

I'll add more later. :P

[Lenin64]

We would have ended up killing the civilians anyway. You don't seem to understand how the Japanese worked back then. THEY WERE NOT GOING TO SURRENDER. Hell, the emperor ordered every man woman and child to take up arms in an invasion. Would would have had to kill most of their population.

 

 

 

ON TOPIC

 

The Japanese infrastructure was completely shot alread; we destroyed their supply lines to everywhere else, destroyed much of the existing factory cities with conventional bombing, and were incredibly close to a Japanese surrender anyhow. There was just no way for them to continue. The use of the A-bomb was largely due to the promise of the Soviets to enter the war in the Pacific some amout of time-6 months, I believe-after the end of the war in Europe, and America didn't the the USSR to gain any of the war spoils.

 

 

 

And Adrenal, tehcnically that's everyone.

[i_love_burritos]

And Adrenal, tehcnically that's everyone.

 

 

 

No it isn't.

 

 

 

It doesn't include : Asia and ... "The West"

[deathdrow]

And Adrenal, tehcnically that's everyone.

 

 

 

No it isn't.

 

 

 

It doesn't include : Asia and ... "The West"

 

west and east confuse me.