• Welcome to The Cave of Dragonflies forums, where the smallest bugs live alongside the strongest dragons.

    Guests are not able to post messages or even read certain areas of the forums. Now, that's boring, don't you think? Registration, on the other hand, is simple, completely free of charge, and does not require you to give out any personal information at all. As soon as you register, you can take part in some of the happy fun things at the forums such as posting messages, voting in polls, sending private messages to people and being told that this is where we drink tea and eat cod.

    Of course I'm not forcing you to do anything if you don't want to, but seriously, what have you got to lose? Five seconds of your life?

Nuclear Weapons

[O]

[O]

Companion Cube
What are your opinions on countries possessing nuclear weapons? They can be useful in defending or attacking and can evoke fear into your enemies and are extremely powerful, but they are extremely dangerous. Ever since the Cold War, we've sort of been, for lack of a better idiom, walking on a tightrope, seeing as one mistake can end up wreaking havoc (i.e. the Cuban Missile Crisis).

Personally, I believe that countries shouldn't possess nukes because they're just too dangerous and are too likely to fall into the hands of a villainous leaader.
 
I think taht having all these nuclear weapons wasn't supposed to happen and that it was sort of:
Country A Picks up a stick
Country B picks up two sticks
A Picks up a stick and sets it on fire
B sets both sticks on fire
A sets it's stick on fire, and picks up another
.........................................................
 
Barubu said:
I think taht having all these nuclear weapons wasn't supposed to happen and that it was sort of:
Country A Picks up a stick
Country B picks up two sticks
A Picks up a stick and sets it on fire
B sets both sticks on fire
A sets it's stick on fire, and picks up another
.........................................................
Click to expand...

You've just described the history of mankind.

I am against any sort of nuclear weaponry, advocate unilateral disarmament on the side of any country willing to do so, and am extremely concerned that debate about the subject has moved away from "let's get rid of the warheads" to "let's reduce our stockpile so we can only destroy the planet ten times over".
 
I believe whole heartedly in nuclear disarmament but it's probably never going to happen. If the US, Russia, the UK, France, etc. all disarm, then rogue nations like North Korea will just take the invitation.
 
Teh Ebil Snorlax said:
If the US, Russia, the UK, France, etc. all disarm, then rogue nations like North Korea will just take the invitation.
Click to expand...

Basically this. I mean, Luke's "I will not fight you" speech was cool and all, but if it wasn't a movie he would have been chopped in half in ten seconds flat.
 
What we should really do is make every country in the world shoot all their nukes at the 2012 meteor.
 
Superbird said:
What we should really do is make every country in the world shoot all their nukes at the 2012 meteor.
Click to expand...

There's no meteor which poses an imminent threat to our planet in 2012.

Spewing out so much radiation into space at the same time has a chance of being pretty hazardous, also.
 
unilateral disarmament is a moral and political can of worms that I'm not going to get into.

I will say, however, that Britain's nuclear stockpile is a joke. when the evil axis types decide to start shit, they'll be more concerned by the US than small fry like us. our nukes aren't deterring anything; and if they don't work as a deterrent then they're more useless than a blimp fleet.

I mean, you Americans do what you like with your nukes, but I'll be damned if they close my local library to pay for fucking Trident.

NWT said:
What?
No, seriously. What?

(What meteor are you talking about?)
(Why is pumping it full of every damn nuclear weapon the right course of action?)
(What do you mean by "make all the other countries do something"?)
(Discussing this with Espeon; pumping things full of radiation is generally bad)
Click to expand...
There's no meteor which poses an imminent threat to our planet in 2012.

Spewing out so much radiation into space at the same time has a chance of being pretty hazardous, also.
Click to expand...
over-your-head-idiots-demotivational-poster-1213479318.jpg
 
goldenquagsire said:
over-your-head-idiots-demotivational-poster-1213479318.jpg
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that the person who originally posed the thought was Superbird. I seriously doubt that they intended any pun.

I'm personally opposed to all nuclear weaponary, though I wouldn't say that the UK's nukes weren't completely ineffective as a deterrent against countries without any access to nuclear weaponary.
 
I'm for nuclear disarmament in theory, but like already mentioned, doing so has the potential to open the door for other countries to arm themselves. Also, keeping our nukes means we have some kind of deterrent, and I like to keep a "prevention is better than the cure" mindset in this case.
 
I am against any sort of nuclear weaponry, advocate unilateral disarmament on the side of any country willing to do so, and am extremely concerned that debate about the subject has moved away from "let's get rid of the warheads" to "let's reduce our stockpile so we can only destroy the planet ten times over".
Click to expand...

let's be honest here: do you want NKorea or Iran to blow you up? disarmament only works if every single soul agrees, and they aren't going to for a good while
 
In seriousness this time, we should only keep the nukes to intimidate others out of attacking us. They shouldn't be used unless absolutely necessary.
 
What they should do is secretly replace the nukes with normal missiles which look like nukes, then lock the nukes in some top-secret bunker in the earth's core. Thus, North Korea is still going "We can't attack, the USA have nukes..." and the USA doesn't get invaded. Then the North Koreans go "Let's invade the UK" and then the Americans go "You try invade them. See where it gets you" and then, it's still a stalemate, albiet a (slightly) safer one.

No, seriously. (Except for the bit about the bunker being in the earth's core, duh)
 
Cheatmaster said:
What they should do is secretly replace the nukes with normal missiles which look like nukes, then lock the nukes in some top-secret bunker in the earth's core. Thus, North Korea is still going "We can't attack, the USA have nukes..." and the USA doesn't get invaded. Then the North Koreans go "Let's invade the UK" and then the Americans go "You try invade them. See where it gets you" and then, it's still a stalemate, albiet a (slightly) safer one.

No, seriously. (Except for the bit about the bunker being in the earth's core, duh)
Click to expand...

Nah, someone would find out eventually, and they'd have the A-OK.
 
Nobody would ever use a nuke. They'd be nuked into oblivion by every county in the world in retaliation.

Although I would like to see someone launch a nuke so we could have a second Hiroshima.
 
Kammington said:
Nobody would ever use a nuke. They'd be nuked into oblivion by every county in the world in retaliation.

Although I would like to see someone launch a nuke so we could have a second Hiroshima.
Click to expand...

Terrorists can't be counter-nuked.

Also, with today's nuclear weapons it wouldn't be "a second Hiroshima," it would probably be closer to "a second, third, fourth, and fifth Hiroshima magically contained in a teapot which was then hurled out of a fifth story window onto the target's head. Repeat about four times."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom