• 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?

On the Use of Nuclear Weaponry

Z

Zuu

printf("%s\n", user_title);
Yeah, I figured this would be an interesting topic.

What are your opinions on the use of nuclear weaponry? Of course, we all know about the Fat Man, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. We know what horrible effects they have on human life and the environment (well, of course, they're weapons) via thermal burns, radiation poisoning from fallout, and... explosion trauma (I don't really know the term). Though I guess if you're /that/ close to the bomb when it blows you'll probably be dead pretty fast.

On the other hand, it offers great strategic use in warfare (making an important area uninhabitable by enemy personnel via radiation in the area left by a bomb's detonation) and it's one of the most efficient killing tools that mankind knows of.

So... this'll be fun. Discuss.
 
Nuclear weaponry works best as a threat.

"Hey, um, stop being all warlike on us or we'll destroy a city or two".

If the opponent doesn't understand this, maybe they need to get nuked a couple of times just so they can let it sink in.
 
Vladimir Putin's LJ said:
Can someone remind me why the Us is allowe to decide who can have nuclear weapons and not tia
Click to expand...
They feel like butting in. It should be a UN decision.

Anyway, nuclear weapons are good and all, but a bit too powerful. Hiroshima is a case and point. Too many civilians died. It should've been a proximity shot; bombing the surrounding seas with weaker warheads to show that the Allies can sink the country without any major death tolls.

It's great as a gun in the temple, but it's just too powerful head-on.
 
nuclear weaponry is a bit stupid

remember the cold war? USA had loads of nukes, USSR had loads of nukes. if one country fired a nuke, the other would fire a fuckton back. end result: two desolate uninhabitable wastelands. plus, having a gigantic nuclear arsenal CERTAINLY wouldn't pose a significant risk of terrorists getting in on things now would it? :D

there's the illusion of safety that mutually-assured destruction gives, but if no-one is going to use these nukes then what is the bloody point. you might as well make one real nuke and then build another thousand dummy bombs out of papier mache and cardboard to scare off the reds.

just use conventional missiles and armies if you're going to use military force on someone.

btw peace and love folks
 
MAD is just that - completely mad.

I agree they're a decent enough threat, but I can't help thinking that just having them is dangerously irresponsible; the world can end at the touch of a button, and given how... not entirely responsible some world leaders are/have been, I can't imagine how they help anyone sleep well at night (but don't look at me; I'm a tree-hugging hippie).

Actually using them is a terrible, terrible thing to do because there's no way of limiting civillian casulaties, either at the time, or decades after, even when the war's been resolved, where kids are still being born horribly deformed. :/

And I blame too much 24 (see seasons 4 and 6), but I can't help but think that the whole thing's really not worth it if, like GQ said, the technology falls into the wrong hands and terrorists can unleash incomphrehensible destruction on whoever they want.
 
All countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons straight away.
 
Ruby said:
All countries should get rid of their nuclear weapons straight away.
Click to expand...
Then we'd get alternatives which are just as, if not more deadly.

If video games has taught me something; it's that weapons can be anything. For example, if nuclear weaponry was abolished, germ warfare can take over. Imagine the horror of Hiroshima with a corrosive virus that penetrates the DNA of any living organism that it hits. And don't tell me that no one will develop these even in secret. Everyone craves personal security, whether it be a lock in the bathroom or a warhead under the desk.

To be honest I wouldn't mind if a country had a single warhead and a thousand dummies. Sort of like a doppelganger thingie.
 
Last edited:
I think Ruby was trying to say that we should abolish all such weapons, not replace the ones we have now with something equally destructive.
 
Music Dragon said:
I think Ruby was trying to say that we should abolish all such weapons, not replace the ones we have now with something equally destructive.
Click to expand...
I know.

But that won't stop people developing these. They want security from any future threats.
 
Grimdour. Bigger and bigger killing devices will be conceived, I agree. But it is not necessary that any country should build them and store them, in wait till the final war. It might make it clear if I change 'get rid of their nuclear weapons' to 'get rid of their world-ending weapons of any kind'.

MD was about right.
 
Last edited:
good idea in principle

but some people are mean fuckers and will probably step on us if we don't have some way of protecting ourselves.
 
Not if all countries abolish them.

I'd personally feel a lot safer if I knew neither America nor Russia had weapons capable of wiping out any of my countries. Especially because both those countries (especially the USA) love fights and war.
 
Nobody can win in a nuclear war

and ever since I saw [URL="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090163/]Threads[/URL], I've been completely against using nukes...
I'm agreeing with Ruby, all countries should get rid of any they have
 
Vladimir Putin's LJ said:
Not if all countries abolish them.

I'd personally feel a lot safer if I knew neither America nor Russia had weapons capable of wiping out any of my countries. Especially because both those countries (especially the USA) love fights and war.
Click to expand...

yeah and Russia aren't a bunch of warmongerers :huh: I bet Putty and Meddie love their wars too
 
goldenquagsire said:
but some people are mean fuckers and will probably step on us if we don't have some way of protecting ourselves.
Click to expand...
At this moment nine countries are standing round, each with a machine-gun pointing at the others. There is a choice. They can unload their guns, and possibly have to writhe under the boot of the crafty one who keeps his gun loaded. Or they can try to stand there until the end of time, and absolutely certainly fail and die. Anyone who imagines that the second option is the better has misread it. There are mean fuckers, but they are less mean than nuclear explosions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom