nuclear weapons
 

do you think nukes are good? cause i think that nukes should ONLY be used if they need to be like the world war two hiroshima and nagasaki. those wee necessary.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

It's slowed down the eagerness to have war between the major nations. So it is a major stabilizing force in nation politics. I think a nation's ability to say "we have nukes" gives them a deterrent against the use of military force by other nations. On the other hand it severely limits the options of smaller nations to gain territory through military means. Depending on where you live this can be a good or a bad thing.

It's turned terrorism into a more horrifying threat. That can't be helped at this point though.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

i agree... nukes are just waste land and do the same thing a human can do... kill people. unless if there was an emergency, then i think nukes should be used

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I used the "only if necessary " option. The question was amusingly phrased - as were the answers. For example, the middle choice - "they should be used in only necessary conflicts." . The fact that the word "necessary" was used means that in that particular war it is necessary to have the ability to nuke. It is also written such that the reader can easily assume it is for his country (the nature of necessity) and therefore may justify the use of a nuclear weapon abroad more easily.

But I know what you mean. I think (and hope) nuclear weapons are redundant, but I would rather have them and waste some public money than not have them and get turned into dust.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I think the stability nuclear weapons provide do not outweigh the risks involved.
Giving a few people the ability to end the life of millions doesn't seem like a good idea, especially if most of those people have a military background and/or irrational fear of communism/capitalism which makes them prone to accept atrocities to reach a result they think is good.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

nah I think it's horrible high yeild nukes could lay waste to all of the earth, that and Nuclear winter and then Nuclear summer...which some think can only happen if we use shit loads of nukes...but I wouldn't take the risk with nukes...unless it's low-yeild which still make a pretty bang..but ending lives isn't really a good think who'd wanna have millions of people blood on there hands?

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Even if you were to say the fact that some people have nukes makes the world more stable and keeps conflicts in check (which is highly arguable anyway), that's not about the actual usage of nukes.
I don't think they should be used. Ever. There is no military target that would require a nuke to effectively neutralize, and civilians should never be (and should never have been) the target. Especially the lasting radiation damage that spreads over a huge area is devastating, and will cause damage to innocents pretty much anywhere in the world.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I honestly think that the world would be more peacefull if we gave every nation in the world a nuclear missile. If people knew that no matter the outcome of the war they would be nuked it wouldn't start. If you are winning to much the other nukes you (What do they have to lose), if you lose to much you get nuked (You have nothing to lose, nuke them, then they nuke you).

The only reasonable way to see global peace is ironicly with our most powerfull and deadly weapons.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I think that its nessecary to keep them around. Nukes should be the last measure. They cause way too much damage to everything to be used as a matter of course, so much destruction from one action.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Nukes are great for detering invasions and suchlike. However, they should on no account be used. So we have a small problem - can't live with them, can't live without them. I would say getting rid of most of them and putting the rest under international control would solve the problem, but I run the risk of being buried under an avalanche of "the UN suxorz" comments.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Let' s analyse this under the financial aspect. Arm every country with an atomic bomb. Ok, you' ll get €€€ because we all know A-bombs aren' t cheap nowadays. But... But a country will think twice before attacking another country that has an A-bomb. Now there would be no war. War is a business and the selling of small arms and vehicles would slow down. Do we want that?

EDIT: oh, yeah, A-bombs shouldn' t be used. Don' t try this at home.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Id rather everyone have them. Total 100% MAD.

In the first place Id rather NO ONE have them though.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

No, Nukes are just too dangerous to keep around.

If we gave every country in the world a nuke, at least one of them would have been used within 5 years, I have no doubt in my mind of that.

Threats are nice, but if they know you wouldn't use them because you would get FLAK for it internationally, the enemy won't really care.

In the current state of the world, Nukes are pretty much useless in the war on terrorism, which is what I'm kind of focusing on right now.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

It depends on what country has a nuke. lol, North Korea... i dont think they should. Their leader is crazy.
But on the other hand, one nuke ended 700,000 lives in a matter of seconds. (Dont correct me)
Not to mention two of those were launched. Nuclear War could be the end to all wars, and not in the good way.
we need a superpower to keep everything in order. And no offence to other countries, but if America could fix their major gaps, they should be the superpower.
The U.N. was created to fix these problems. But their not doing a very good job.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Nuclear weapons have saved infinitely more lives than they have taken. They were originally built to be weapons of mass destruction, but ironically they have probably kept the peace longer than any alliance or international law ever could. Nothing keeps the peace better than a healthy fear of death. That alone is enough of a reason for them to remain in service until such a time when humans are capable of getting along with each other, when pigs can fly, and when Barbie inherits the universe (read: never).

Re: nuclear weapons
 

As has been stated, nuclear weapons have saved millions of lives. The number of casualties after WWII from war dropped by something like 90% or some such ridiculous number.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

The though of going up a mushroom cloud works wonrders on about %90 of the people in the world. Why die when you can work things out? The other %10 don't have a nuclear weapon, but would like one to use(Iran wiping Isreal off the map)

I don't think they should be used in the way we use regular weapons. But if comes down to saving millions of american lives, and ending millions of Iranian/Korean lives, I will take saving my fellow countrymen before anyone.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Israel probley has some nukes laying around though. If Iran tried anything that stupid they would get MAD. Really MAD.

Not to mention Israel has a number of Muslim holy sites in it, and a fanatic like the Iranian dictator wouldn't want to blow them all up.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

People quote nuclear weapons as a saviour of life, yet somehow thousands of people have now died in Iraq in order to remove these peace-keeping gizmoes. Surely, if nuclear wepons were such a blessing for humanity, nobody would object to all countries having them.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

"Now I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds"-Robert Oppenheimer

sums nuclear weapons up very well

Re: nuclear weapons
 

It's about trust. A gun can be used to deter crime in the hands of a law-abiding citizen. In thge hands of a criminal it can be used to take lives.

And note, I would much rather NO ONE have nukes then everyone, but I don't fail to acknowledge the fact they have saved lives.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

I don't think nukes will ever be used. The people who are crazy enough to use them don't have the technology and bigger countries like the United States and China are afraid to use them.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Nukes serve only to keep major military powers from engaging in war with one another. That alone justifies their existance. If Iran had nukes tomorrow every plan to ever attack that country would evaporate over night. Thats why countries WANT them, it guarantees them safety from belligerent nations who arent above bullying to get their way.

On a second note, the only reason WW3 didnt happen between the Russians and the Americans was because of nuclear deterrant. Europe should be happy they didnt become a battleground in THAT possible conflict.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

People quote nuclear weapons as saviours of life because they're probably the only things that prevented the two superpowers of the 20th century from turning a cold war into a very hot one. As for Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, well, that's another kettle of fish entirely. Having a nuclear monopoly over countries gives America & co the supposed ability to push them around and dicate policy, which is why they're so keen to prolong that monopoly for as long as they can. Had Iraq actually had nuclear weapons with long-range deployment capabilities, I doubt any troops would have disturbed the sand at all...

Another point I meant to make earlier but forgot to do so:

In the future however, I see globalisation and free trade becoming even greater factors in keeping global peace. Already we are seeing highly inter-dependent economies, with a veritable ecosystem now taking hold. Generally speaking, any war between two major powers would pretty much cripple the global economy, and that is the main reason I often cite for the unlikelihood of China and America ever going to war.

After all if there's one thing that humans like more than destruction, it's greed baby!

Re: nuclear weapons
 

If everyone had a nuclear weapon, we'd have a Mexican standoff.

Which is a good thing, from the perspective that nobody actually gets shot.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Unless somebody sneezes...

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Hmm. What would the international-incident equivalent to a sneeze be?

Re: nuclear weapons
 

^an angry group of middle eastern people?

Re: nuclear weapons
 

pssht, they dont count. you gotta have INFLUENCE to matter in foreign policy

Re: nuclear weapons
 

To be fair, all you need is big weapons. That lends you influence.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

yeah, thats been working for Iraq and N.Korea real well.


You need something that you have, everyone else wants, and nobody else can get. THATS how you squeeze em. We turned the 4th largest Army in the world into scrap in 100 hours. Big guns just make big targets.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

To be fair, look how much the American government shat themselves over the ME and NK.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

heh heh, nah. Thats what pisses them off. We keep threatening to just 'walk away' from the Korean talks (and redeploy our troops back stateside if S.Korea keeps talking shiat) and that keeps that little berg in line. Iraq is a funny thing because militarily they havent posed an issue to us...well, ever. But politically they are annoying because deep down, Bush REALLY wanted to f--- their shiat up and now that we havent he doesnt know what else to do. Its like he saw the underpants gnome business model and followed it precisly.
1-Invade Country
2-???
3-Profit!!!


its that damn number two that keeps getting us lol

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Some nukes will be necessary to defend the planet from things like Asteroids.

But the idea of giving everone a nuke and relying on MAD deosnt work if that nations leaders feel dying a martyrs death is preferable to living.

If Hitler's Nazi germany had developed a nuclear bomb before the wars end is there anyone who feels he would not have ordered it used?

I do not feel that nuclear weapons are needed for war anymore. A single LAF warhead on a strategic missle can do as much damage as Hiroshima did.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Metal.Gear.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

This is actually a difficult question, as much and as bad as I say I want them around, it's too easy.
All of them should be gone, however I have to come down on the side that God gave us enough brainpower to kill ourselves off and much other life forms.

I say none, but other leaders will just take advantage.

There was a star trek once, where these people had a number, when your number comes up you walk into a machine and it vaporizes you.

It was a war, but each side got tired of the blood, so they neatly fought the war with computers and those killing booths.

Well Kirk detroyed the machine so now the other side would see they wern't fullfilling the self inflicted deaths.

Hence it might have been that neither wanted to fight anymore, show ends.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Because its not real ,metal gear (REX not RAY) is just about the coolest thing ever. If a similar thing is ever built it will suddenly stop being cool.

Besides, I think nukes are less of a threat now. Not for any good reason but because Chem/Bio weapons are so much easier to make transport and often to deploy. They are easier to smuggle, harder to detect and do not require any prerequisite technology. The countries that currenly have nukes dont want to use them. The less stable groups(not necessarily divided into specific nations) will probably opt to continue using conventional explosives untill they Ricin/VX is buy one, get one free.

Re: nuclear weapons
 

Nuking is retarded. So is the whole way conflicts are dealt with.
Seriously the way the earth works is if you can kill, you can have your way. Its twisted. Can they just settle it over a game of poker or something?