Nuclear Weapons

[Tailsy]

Guys Scotland wants you to take your fucking missiles away now

really

we- we don't want them
:(

no seriously

A number of Scottish political parties, such as the Scottish National Party, Scottish Green Party, Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity, have policies opposing the use of Trident missiles at Faslane in Scotland. Some members and ex-members of those parties, such as Tommy Sheridan, have taken part in blockades of the base there.

In addition to more general anti-nuclear feeling, some see Trident as symbolic of differences in political opinion between Scotland and the rest of the UK - for example, in a major House of Commons vote the majority of Scottish MPs voted against upgrading the system, while a substantial majority of English MPs, Welsh MPs and Northern Irish MPs voted in favour.

EDIT: Dark Shocktail, where else is a warzone going to be? In the sea?

 

[Pwnemon]

If I'm correct, what Dark Shocktail meant is that, for example, there's a battle going on between France and Germany over that piece of land they love to fight over, Germany whips out its nukes on Paris. The nuke isn't used to claim a warzone, it's used to incapacitate the opposing country and hurt civilians.

Or, she could mean that Iran doesn't like Israel so it nukes it out of the blue to make a statement rather than resolve a conflict.

 

[Tailsy]

Yeah, that piece of land they haven't fought over since... oh, what was that date...

... And Germany doesn't even have any nuclear weapons, wtf?

 

[Pwnemon]

...I just wanted an example. Jeez. Say it happens in the future.

 

[Tailsy]

But it's a rubbish example! And they're so totally not going to be fighting any time soon.

 

[goldenquagsire]

Guys Scotland wants you to take your fucking missiles away now

really

we- we don't want them
:(

no seriously



EDIT: Dark Shocktail, where else is a warzone going to be? In the sea?

I give the Scots a lot of grief (especially over no uni fees wtf is wrong with you people) but this is one thing that you guys get right.

Yeah, that piece of land they haven't fought over since... oh, what was that date...

Alsace-Lorraine? My mum actually has a (French) pre-war children's book about the Alsace-Lorraine problem that she found god-knows-where and it's hilarious. It's got cherubic French kiddies making nasty faces at evil caricatured Germans. :)

 

[Dark Shocktail]

EDIT: Dark Shocktail, where else is a warzone going to be? In the sea?

I meant that the weapons would be used on civilians rather than on armies themselves. Like with the Blitz - at first it was bombing RAF bases and factories, and quickly moved onto large cities to try and drive politicians to surrender and lower morale. Or even with Hiroshima. Apparently they were aiming for a bridge and missed (emphasis on apparently since I can't remember my source and everyone's welcome to hit me with a clue by 4).

And I agree with Scotland. No nukes plz.

 

[goldenquagsire]

I meant that the weapons would be used on civilians rather than on armies themselves. Like with the Blitz - at first it was bombing RAF bases and factories, and quickly moved onto large cities to try and drive politicians to surrender and lower morale.

The Blitz was also intended to have a direct impact on war production - if your workers are dead, injured or homeless then they're not likely to be assembling munitions in the morning after the bombings.

Of course, remember that we also did some pretty horrific bombing in Germany. Admittedly, the old excuse of 'they started it' has some weight in the situation but nevertheless the bombing of Dresden was an atrocity on the level of anything inflicted on Britain.

Or even with Hiroshima. Apparently they were aiming for a bridge and missed (emphasis on apparently since I can't remember my source and everyone's welcome to hit me with a clue by 4).

This... sounds like bullshit. The whole point of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, which for some reason everyone forgets) was to such massive civilian damage that it would make the Japanese shit themselves into surrendering (and also to send a subtle message to the Russians).

 

[Tailsy]

Oh, we're not specifically against having nukes. We just don't want England's shit.

 

[Dark Shocktail]

The Blitz was also intended to have a direct impact on war production - if your workers are dead, injured or homeless then they're not likely to be assembling munitions in the morning after the bombings.

Of course, remember that we also did some pretty horrific bombing in Germany. Admittedly, the old excuse of 'they started it' has some weight in the situation but nevertheless the bombing of Dresden was an atrocity on the level of anything inflicted on Britain.

True. Both sides were guilty of some heavy damage and civilian-loss. Which only supports my distaste for bombs or warfare in general, even if there are times when it is an absolutely necessary. I'm not gonna say we should never go to war, but it should be a last resort.

This... sounds like bullshit. The whole point of Hiroshima (and Nagasaki, which for some reason everyone forgets) was to such massive civilian damage that it would make the Japanese shit themselves into surrendering (and also to send a subtle message to the Russians).

Yeah, I said that I wasn't positive on it. Disregard the part about aiming to a hit a bridge. Still, it's that exact sort of thing that worries me about the nukes - the amount of damage they can cause.

 

[Ruby]

Even if disarming means being invaded by North Korea and Iran, which I doubt, would that not still be preferable to nuclear war?

 

[Saith]

Eh, I don't like nukes. They're expensive and pointless. Their sole use is killing civilians, etc.

Really, what is the point of firing a nuke, other than killing as many innocents as possible? I mean, you can't even claim the piece of land as your own, afterwards, due to the radiation.

They're about as evil as an inanimate object can get.

'Course, if everybody else has them~

 

[Tarvos]

Even if disarming means being invaded by North Korea and Iran, which I doubt, would that not still be preferable to nuclear war?

nope, I really don't want their governments to tell me to do anything

 

[opaltiger]

Disregard the part about aiming to a hit a bridge.

No, you're right. They were aiming for a bridge that was more or less the centre of the city, missed, and hit a hospital. Well, more or less - nuclear bombs detonate several hundred metres above ground, but those targets were directly beneath. Not that it matters; a few hundred metres one way or the other, the bomb would have done the same amount of damage.

 

[Ruby]

nope, I really don't want their governments to tell me to do anything

But would you rather be blown up? - or in any case have large areas of the world destroyed and irradiated?

 

[Pwnemon]

Yes, because, in the words of famous Patrick Henry, "give me liberty or give me death." I don't want to be forced to be converted to a muslim.

 

[Ruby]

Yes, because, in the words of famous Patrick Henry, "give me liberty or give me death." I don't want to be forced to be converted to a muslim.

I hate those North Korean Muslims as much as anybody - I really do - but at least oppression can be overthrown, given enough time. Nuclear war is irreversible, and potentially deadly for the entire species.

 

[Pwnemon]

Either way, with the situation how it is currently, nobody is going to unprovokedly nuke anyone, and it makes you stroke your beard before launching an assault, so I don't have problems with them.

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Terrorists can't be counter-nuked.

Who's saying a terrorist will get his hands on a nuke in the first place? If we're really worried about that, then we might as well start investing in a nuclear defense system instead of creating more missiles.

 

[Pwnemon]

Iran and north korea?