• 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

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...

I don't know really. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we invented them (for the most part at least, iirc) and have more of them than most countries? *shrugs*

Watershed said:
can't we just abolish weaponry altogether
Click to expand...

BUT THEN THE REDS WIN!!
 
I don't know really. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we invented them (for the most part at least, iirc) and have more of them than most countries? *shrugs*
Click to expand...

This is a misconception. Russia actually has quite a lot more than the US.
 
Yeah, but given both the US and Russia have the capabilities to destroy the entire world multiple times (which I still find darkly amusing), it doesn't really matter who has more, no?
 
@VPLJ and Ruby: I'm not in favour of nuclear weapons. As I said, they're pointless and aren't actually any good at defending your country. However, if you get rid of *all* of a country's military infrastructure and weaponry (stuff like non-nuclear missiles, tanks, soldiers etc.), what exactly are you going to do when Hitler's great-great-great-grandnephew decides to invade?
 
Nothing because he won't have anything to invade us with.
And there are some countries that don't have armed forces and they're doing okay?
 
Last edited:
Nothing because he won't have anything to invade us with.
Click to expand...
hint: yes he will.

remember the inter-war years? full disarmament means nothing unless everyone is forced to. and that is not likely to happen.

And there are some countries that don't have armed forces and they're doing okay?
Click to expand...
said countries are:
a) too insignificant to bother invading
b) not near any particularly warlike countries
c) near a bigger country with a military that will protect them
 
Well if there aren't any weapons (not things like tanks and stuff I mean) what's he supposed to do, ride in on a horse.

Some of said countries have their friend NATO, true, but some really don't have anything to defend themselves with. Countries like Japan, who isn't allowed to have an offensive military since WWII, are doing pretty dandy.
 
Well if there aren't any weapons (not things like tanks and stuff I mean) what's he supposed to do, ride in on a horse.
Click to expand...
wait we need to clear something up.

are you saying "no military whatsoever" or "no planet-killing weapons".
 
attack with a kitchen knife
Click to expand...
i'm pretty sure that even if the world disarmed to this level, one country would still gain a tactical advantage over the other by attaching their kitchen knives to brooms.
 
Getting rid of all weapons is a bad idea - you can't expect people to be good-natured enough for it to work. Someone's going to take advantage of the situation sooner or later.
 
goldenquagsire said:
@VPLJ and Ruby: I'm not in favour of nuclear weapons. As I said, they're pointless and aren't actually any good at defending your country. However, if you get rid of *all* of a country's military infrastructure and weaponry (stuff like non-nuclear missiles, tanks, soldiers etc.), what exactly are you going to do when Hitler's great-great-great-grandnephew decides to invade?
Click to expand...
In my other post, the machine-guns were a metaphor specifically for nuclear weapons. I'm not sure about getting rid of all weapons altogether.
 
I say get rid of all world destroying weapons. They're just too adngerous to have around. Other less dangerous weapons like say guns and regular bombs however should be perfectly allowed to stay.
 
It's quite interesting how the US and Russia can destroy the whole world right now if they feel like it.

Hmm... I wonder what this red button does. Oops. The world just got destroyed.

Nukes are way too dangerous. One or two is fine, really, but a whole lot of them is just not right. I agree with the destroy-all-weapons thing, even though it's not going to work. If we destroy all weapons, then people will be forced to fight each other with fists and sharp sticks, which kills way less innocent people than machine guns and bombs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom