Conjoint Gaming [Game On]
CG Main => Debate Forum => Topic started by: Takeo The Wise Wolf on June 29, 2011, 01:44:48 PM
-
Country Warheads active/total* Year of first test CTBT status
The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT
United States 1,950 / 8,500[3]
Russia (former Soviet Union)
United Kingdom
France 290 / 300[3]
China ~180 / 240[3]
Non-NPT nuclear powers
India n.a. / 80-100[3]
Pakistan n.a. / 90-110[3]
North Korea n.a. / <10[3]
Undeclared nuclear powers
Israel n.a. / 80[3]
(source: wikipedia)
With today's nuclear world, is it safe for the US to start disarming it's arsenal, as some politicians would have us do?
What are your thoughts on this?
-
At first im like, destroy them all i dont want a nuclear winter, then i renember borderlands and deadlands games and then i am like: DOO IT, DOO IT!!!!
-
To be honest all countries should have to at least disarm them (Not completely destroy them) unless its a matter of great urgency to kill thousand of innocent people e.g. never.
Of all the things nuclear power could be used for we of course have to make it a bomb. ::)
-
To be honest all countries should have to at least disarm them (Not completely destroy them) unless its a matter of great urgency to kill thousand of innocent people e.g. never.
Of all the things nuclear power could be used for we of course have to make it a bomb. ::)
What about nuclear sub marines and poer plants?
-
I mean we HAD to create the most devastating weapon known to man with it. It has plenty of useful non-dangerous uses as well.
-
From what I recall. Wikileaks released documents of Holland having small nuclear bombs aswell...
Or was it stored in Holland ?
-
If everybody could get rid of them then it would be cool but with North Korea and Iran joining the club i wouldn't get rid of them too fast. It either has to be a total ban for everybody otherwise it'll never happen.
P.S. till we build the Death Star!!!!
-
someone needs to fuck north korea and iran's shit up
Iran is the only country that has legitely said they will not live with a Israeli state and will do everything within their power to destroy it
frightening if you ask me
-
I frankly think that we need to keep ahold of all of our stockpile; It's the only deterrent we've got against hostile thermonuclear powers.
-
Well to be honest a nuclear bomb has too many side effects to be a usefull means of war, nuclear winters and ofcourse mutations in both human life and wildlife around the area of impact.
That said, making a nuclear bomb is to a degree simpler science now than what we are strugling to do, if rich countries want nuclear bombs they will get them.
So if you push all the rich countries America others will go to your measures and we are talking about small rich countries too, like Norway (my country of birth), Holland, Germany etc you cath the drift.
I'd say get rid of it not only due to theese reasons but also do to the geneva convention in which America and other countries agreed upon the anti ABC weapons agreement, ABC weapons ofcourse being atomic, biological and chemical boms. If you guys can break it why can't every other country do so to?
-
yeah but nobody follows the any of the Geneva accords to a T. I know most countries won't deal with the bio or chemical because its scary stuff and fucks up people real bad (not saying a nuke doesn't), and in times of war is there really any point of some kind of regulation because in the end the more desperate country usually ends up throwing out all rules to try and survive.
-
yeah but nobody follows the any of the Geneva accords to a T. I know most countries won't deal with the bio or chemical because its scary stuff and fucks up people real bad (not saying a nuke doesn't), and in times of war is there really any point of some kind of regulation because in the end the more desperate country usually ends up throwing out all rules to try and survive.
What you guys are talking about thuough is breaking the geneva convention even before the war strikes, keeping active nuclear warheads that you can throw at people if you feel like it.
-
Actually, the United States may be prohibited from MANUFACTURING more thermonuclear weapons (The conventional explosive MOAB has the same explosive power as the hiroshima bomb without the radiation, so we just make those now), we ARE allowed to modernize and manufacture new components for the arsenal. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Manufacture of new plutonium pits for the weapons to replace aging fissile material
- New payload-delivery methods (ICBM/SBM/bombs)
- New warhead assemblies
- Guidance system improvements
- New "Safety" systems
Also, Geneva convention has no bearing on the use or deployment of thermonuclear weaponry. The only deterrent to the deployment of said weapons is MAD: Aka, Mutually Assured Destruction.
To simplify that further: If someone throws a nuke, the UN and NATO getting pissy is the LEAST of our problems.
-
So you are looking away from every other reason and only targeting the morale reason that is the geneva convention.
I am not gonna go diggin trough that thing now but I am pretty sure there is a limit towards the usage of so called ABC bombs.
still even looking away from that reason the cons outweigh the pros, you might have the bragging rights to say we have nuclear weaponry but there is really no use in it, if a nuclear war were to happen it is basically a fight for the least destroyed territory after the world goes under. Lets face it most of our planets life will not survive a nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?
-
...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?
This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.
And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...
-
...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?
This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.
And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...
Hell who wouldn't but I am saying if they had performed a preemptive strike and sent nukes your way, would you send more nukes their way which would increase the chance of a nuclear winter.
Lets face it America won't be the first to send nukes they will, chances are also that the nukes sent towards you will create a nuclear winter, if however it doesn't the nuclear bombs sent their way will.
-
...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?
This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.
And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...
Hell who wouldn't but I am saying if they had performed a preemptive strike and sent nukes your way, would you send more nukes their way which would increase the chance of a nuclear winter.
Lets face it America won't be the first to send nukes they will, chances are also that the nukes sent towards you will create a nuclear winter, if however it doesn't the nuclear bombs sent their way will.
But imagine how the American people would react if we just TOOK a nuke to say, LA? The US can't let something like that slide. IF they nuke us, they die. That's why the WON'T.
-
...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?
This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.
And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...
Hell who wouldn't but I am saying if they had performed a preemptive strike and sent nukes your way, would you send more nukes their way which would increase the chance of a nuclear winter.
Lets face it America won't be the first to send nukes they will, chances are also that the nukes sent towards you will create a nuclear winter, if however it doesn't the nuclear bombs sent their way will.
But imagine how the American people would react if we just TOOK a nuke to say, LA? The US can't let something like that slide. IF they nuke us, they die. That's why the WON'T.
there are others ways to kill than nuclear weapons, which is what I am saying. Even fucking genetic targeting biobombs would be better and less disruptive towards the worlds eucological system.
-
So you are looking away from every other reason and only targeting the morale reason that is the geneva convention.
I am not gonna go digging trough that thing now but I am pretty sure there is a limit towards the usage of so called ABC bombs.
still even looking away from that reason the cons outweigh the pros, you might have the bragging rights to say we have nuclear weaponry but there is really no use in it, if a nuclear war were to happen it is basically a fight for the least destroyed territory after the world goes under. Lets face it most of our planets life will not survive a nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existence?
There isn't any pro's for having the bomb. It served its purpose back in the 40-90's when the Soviets were still kicking but why its still around today (in greatly reduced numbers) is in case. China, North Korea, Iran all have nukes. Sure probably 2 aircraft carriers can do just as much damage but its an ultimate weapon for extreme measures that won't go away unless everybody gets rid of them. Id love to see the thing go away. No need to blow up a country and fuck the rest of the planet in the process. Course tell that to Iran when they get one and try to take Israel out.
-
So you are looking away from every other reason and only targeting the morale reason that is the geneva convention.
I am not gonna go diggin trough that thing now but I am pretty sure there is a limit towards the usage of so called ABC bombs.
still even looking away from that reason the cons outweigh the pros, you might have the bragging rights to say we have nuclear weaponry but there is really no use in it, if a nuclear war were to happen it is basically a fight for the least destroyed territory after the world goes under. Lets face it most of our planets life will not survive a nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existence?
There isn't any cons for having the bomb. It served its purpose back in the 40-90's when the Soviets were still kicking but why its still around today (in greatly reduced numbers) is in case. China, North Korea, Iran all have nukes. Sure probably 2 aircraft carriers can do just as much damage but its an ultimate weapon for extreme measures that won't go away unless everybody gets rid of them. Id love to see the thing go away. No need to blow up a country and fuck the rest of the planet in the process. Course tell that to Iran when they get one and try to take Israel out.
the cons I meant are listed in my previous post (previous from the post you quoted).
-
err i meant Pros. that's what i meant! cons outweigh pros by far
-
No-one is willing to give up his power. That's just stupid...
-
It's basically a way to keep America in control... They're not giving up power and risking a take-over of sorts..
However, all great powers fall.
-
It's basically a way to keep America in control... They're not giving up power and risking a take-over of sorts..
However, all great powers fall.
Well I guess in a very, very hard way...
-
Yes all great powers fall but the question is..... Will the Chinese just fuck everybody over because they can??
They are the next in line and with 1.4 Billion people what can stop them?
-
Yes all great powers fall but the question is..... Will the Chinese just fuck everybody over because they can??
They are the next in line and with 1.4 Billion people what can stop them?
1.4 Billion people isn't the size of the military. Regardless, they still have huge quantities of land, air, and sea forces. A single nuke would deal disproportionate casualties on Chinese forces, assuming they march in a regimented manner.
A column of mechanized infantry and armor would be pretty well screwed if a nearby nuclear blast occured.
-
Yes all great powers fall but the question is..... Will the Chinese just fuck everybody over because they can??
They are the next in line and with 1.4 Billion people what can stop them?
1.4 Billion people isn't the size of the military. Regardless, they still have huge quantities of land, air, and sea forces. A single nuke would deal disproportionate casualties on Chinese forces, assuming they march in a regimented manner.
A column of mechanized infantry and armor would be pretty well screwed if a nearby nuclear blast occured.
who would stand by the side off America if your first response is to play dirty and nuke them? Where is the line drawn, for what a country will do to win a war? Officially it is suposed to be when what you are doing threatens earth/planet of residence.
-
Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!
-
Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!
Hence why the nuclear option is the only viable one in the event that china attempts to invade.
-
Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!
Hence why the nuclear option is the only viable one in the event that china attempts to invade.
Just like hiroshima
-
Or just have hundreds of these!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8hlj4EbdsE
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbsgHbXubGU this
-
Like somebody said earlier America wouldn't be the first to use nukes. I know their Army is not 1.4 billion strong but the standing Army is about 12 million and they can call up reserves of 100 million. 100! That's a third of the US population and there's no way a third of our countrymen can fight. Remember Korea? The Chinese would just send waves of people to get mowed down and they still ended up taking back half the country!
Hence why the nuclear option is the only viable one in the event that china attempts to invade.
well good luck fending off the world that is now united with USA, after you defy one of the biggest rules. The united states isn't some kind of lone wanderer who can take down the entire world -.-
-
We can't get rid of our nukes, not because we're greedy, or want the upper hand. Simply because everybody else has them. I read this thread and it's all just bashing the USA, but pretty much the same could be said about every other country. I'm tired of reading shit and people can't seem to get the point, and instead think the US is this big bad country that's greedy for power. Which it isn't, we just happen to be at the top right now, so everybody picks at our flaws. We could do the same to any other country, but we don't.
Anyways, we can't disarm ourselves unless every other country does it first, not only because we have 300+ million people to protect, but because we still follow the motto of ask and you shall receive, so if another country is under the threat of nuclear war, we would step in, and keep the conflict away from such disastrous outcomes.
So, lets get this thread back on topic, and away from bashing the USA for having nukes, and back to whether or not we should get rid of ours, and what conditions would have to be present to do so.
-
We can't get rid of our nukes, not because we're greedy, or want the upper hand. Simply because everybody else has them. I read this thread and it's all just bashing the USA, but pretty much the same could be said about every other country. I'm tired of reading shit and people can't seem to get the point, and instead think the US is this big bad country that's greedy for power. Which it isn't, we just happen to be at the top right now, so everybody picks at our flaws. We could do the same to any other country, but we don't.
Anyways, we can't disarm ourselves unless every other country does it first, not only because we have 300+ million people to protect, but because we still follow the motto of ask and you shall receive, so if another country is under the threat of nuclear war, we would step in, and keep the conflict away from such disastrous outcomes.
So, lets get this thread back on topic, and away from bashing the USA for having nukes, and back to whether or not we should get rid of ours, and what conditions would have to be present to do so.
Totally. WE are not some power hungry country trying to take over the world. I did say nobody should have nukes but the reality is nobody will get rid of them unless everybody else does (and that wont happen. I'm looking at you North Korea, China). It is def not a first option rather a tit for tat if some jackass decided to screw with us.
-
We can't get rid of our nukes, not because we're greedy, or want the upper hand. Simply because everybody else has them. I read this thread and it's all just bashing the USA, but pretty much the same could be said about every other country. I'm tired of reading shit and people can't seem to get the point, and instead think the US is this big bad country that's greedy for power. Which it isn't, we just happen to be at the top right now, so everybody picks at our flaws. We could do the same to any other country, but we don't.
Anyways, we can't disarm ourselves unless every other country does it first, not only because we have 300+ million people to protect, but because we still follow the motto of ask and you shall receive, so if another country is under the threat of nuclear war, we would step in, and keep the conflict away from such disastrous outcomes.
So, lets get this thread back on topic, and away from bashing the USA for having nukes, and back to whether or not we should get rid of ours, and what conditions would have to be present to do so.
No1 is bashing USA for having them, I am merely bashing on the principal that they are bringing upp, we need them because if any1 wants to wage war against us we will nuke them. That is what I am mocking, USA isn't a bad country, buuut some of the people who have ruled it have made some ridicolous decisions.
-
I liked having the soviet union around, they tried to keep peace in the Mid-Asian Stans. But then the US had to fund the people, because they think communism is so bad. and now its come and bit the us on the ass.
-
Even if Nuclear Warfare was dismantled in the U.S. or globally for that matter, the threat of global threats like that continues, HUmanity will always find a way to destroy another, it has just been that way since Man has picked up a stick. Nuclear warfare isn't my fear anyway, Im more worried about Biological warfare than anything.
-
Even if Nuclear Warfare was dismantled in the U.S. or globally for that matter, the threat of global threats like that continues, HUmanity will always find a way to destroy another, it has just been that way since Man has picked up a stick. Nuclear warfare isn't my fear anyway, Im more worried about Biological warfare than anything.
Ummmmmmmmmmm. Dont necro dude. Needs a lock