Nuclear Weapons

[Finnegan III]

Opinions on Nuclear weapons?

I think no one should be allowed them tbh, since when were we any more sensible and capable to own nukes than anyone else. If you own a WMD then you're just as bad as anyone nation who has them.

I thought I'd bring this up because we British morons have decided (when I say we I mean our leaders have decided) to update our current Nuclear Missile.

"Repellant" Pah, it just encourages other people to build more and more.

 

[Stryfe]

It's used as a threatening measure. Sure, I think that there will be a time when a nuclear fallout will occur on every inch of this globe, but if we can prevent it by stopping the others first, we should be entitled to some. My whole view point on this is that ever since chemical warfare is prohibited since Hiroshima, it just becomes more of a thing to possess. We are just like little kids.

"Johnny, do you want the Red one or the Blue one?" (The red one is nearly gone)

"I want the Blue one!"

"Ah, you weren't going to be granted the red one anyways."

"Oh, I changed my mind! I want the red one!"

It's the same concept. If you ban something, more people will want to have it. It's the way of the world. So, in turn, the nuclear weapons are in fact going to persist as long as the chemical warfare is prohibited. The only downfall to this is if we revoke the chemical warfare, more people will just use it. Millions would be slaughtered. There is not even grounds for nuclear weapons. If you take it away, they will use it. If you let them use it, you're dead.

 

[Davey Gaga]

I'm against weapons altogether, nevermind Nuclear. Whatever happened to the League of Nations?!

 

[Garnet]

Exactly, the League of Nations is the ultimate example that complete disarmament will almost always fail now. If it couldn't succeed more than 70 years ago and prevent World War II, I think it's almost hopeless nowadays.

 

[Finnegan III]

Exactly, the League of Nations is the ultimate example that complete disarmament will almost always fail now. If it couldn't succeed more than 70 years ago and prevent World War II, I think it's almost hopeless nowadays.

The thing is disarmament isn't even an agenda for world leaders now, at least back then, someones heart/brain was in the right place, he may have failed but at least he made the effort. Nowadays we seemed to have changed our mind on the peace side of things to "I've got a bigger gun than you" side.

I await the day that the world oil supplies run out.

 

[Tidus Blade]

united nations is also not doing so much, since it's in the US, im guessing the US goverment is more powerful than it.....

 

[Juke]

That are much worse weapons than nuclear weapons such as biological weapons and possibly chemical weapons.

Oil will not run out it seems. From an article I read, it seems that if an oil well is depleted and left alone for a certain period of time, which I don't exactly know, the oil well will somehow replenish itself.

 

[Sasuke-kun]

oh my nuclear weapons can destroy countries better someone forbid them

 

[Finnegan III]

oh my nuclear weapons can destroy countries better someone forbid them

If that was sarcasm, it was very bad sarcasm.

That are much worse weapons than nuclear weapons such as biological weapons and possibly chemical weapons.

Oil will not run out it seems. From an article I read, it seems that if an oil well is depleted and left alone for a certain period of time, which I don't exactly know, the oil well will somehow replenish itself.

Oil can only replenish itself when the process that created the oil that takes thousands of years is completed again, so oil will never vanish completley, however it will run out temporarily, which means no more plastics, no more planes, no boats unless powered by wind or steam.

Alot of the world would be flung into Chaos, what will people do without new electronics, transport etc. etc.

 

[Sasuke-kun]

it's not sarcasm

 

[Juke]

If that was sarcasm, it was very bad sarcasm.



Oil can only replenish itself when the process that created the oil that takes thousands of years is completed again, so oil will never vanish completley, however it will run out temporarily, which means no more plastics, no more planes, no boats unless powered by wind or steam.

Alot of the world would be flung into Chaos, what will people do without new electronics, transport etc. etc.

Actually, the article implied that an oil field can replenish its oil within a very short time frame. Though how short I don't know but this seems to be the type of information that the oil companies doesn't want the public to know.

Humanity has survived much longer without oil than it has with oil. It has only been more than a century of oil usage compared to who knows how long humanity thrived without oil. It's all an illusion played by the big oil factories.

 

[Lost in Thought]

Actually, the article implied that an oil field can replenish its oil within a very short time frame. Though how short I don't know but this seems to be the type of information that the oil companies doesn't want the public to know.

Humanity has survived much longer without oil than it has with oil. It has only been more than a century of oil usage compared to who knows how long humanity thrived without oil. It's all an illusion played by the big oil factories.

Sort of, you have to consider the fact that we as a race are addicted. It's like any other drug. You can be fine without crack, but once you get addicted you REALLY need it or you will die. Humanity is the same, we are addicted to oil economically and to the energy it produces without that we'd die off in a hurry. Finding an alternative source is fine and dandy, but in the end it's only replacing the drug. Switching crack for heroine if you will.

 

[Juke]

Sort of, you have to consider the fact that we as a race are addicted. It's like any other drug. You can be fine without crack, but once you get addicted you REALLY need it or you will die. Humanity is the same, we are addicted to oil economically and to the energy it produces without that we'd die off in a hurry. Finding an alternative source is fine and dandy, but in the end it's only replacing the drug. Switching crack for heroine if you will.

I suppose so if you are using drugs as an example but you must also consider this, if oil is like an addictive drug, than surely we will find something that is even more addictive and better than oil.

Know that there is always a price to pay. We just got to find one where we could balance it out not just with our consumption but also with the environment and etc.

 

[Mitsuki]

Gee, I would never understand how the human mind works. I seriously do not comprehend the need for such a violent weapon...much less violence. Why create something so devastating that could destroy nations? Why the hunger for war and blood? I just don't get it.

 

[70sguygx]

I personally like the idea of not getting blown up. Or breathing in highly toxic enviormentally wastefull substances.

 

[Erythritol]

I'm doing a lot of poking back to life....

I think it's a bit of moot point. The fact is, now that the world knows that such a weapon is possible, there is no way that everyone will agree "yeah, let's just get rid of them." I think there would be more to worry about if only one nation had nuclear weapons. Because so many nations have nuclear weapons, I think there is less of a threat. *No one* wants to start a nuclear war.

I think getting rid of nuclear weapons would be a terrible idea. Some nutcase in a developing country would come along and, against all UN sanctions, develop nuclear weapons and threaten other countries, who would be relatively defenseless. I think it's a good balance right now. Everyone has them, everyone knows everyone has them, and no one wants to start anything.

And while it's nice to think that the United Nations has some sort of sway in international politics, I don't think they're a terribly useful organization. They sort of sit there and do nothing.

 

[dimmufan]

I think there would be more to worry about if only one nation had nuclear weapons. Because so many nations have nuclear weapons, I think there is less of a threat. *No one* wants to start a nuclear war.

I would agree with you on this. However there is always gonna be that one crazy, fuct up person who takes over a country that has nuclear capabilities. I'm guessing an extremist. He will be the one to start a nuclear war. He's gonna think, "I got all these weapons but I can't use them. I WILL use them. Let's see.....who pisses me off the most?" Then that is where it all starts.

 

[Finnegan III]

I'm doing a lot of poking back to life....

I think it's a bit of moot point. The fact is, now that the world knows that such a weapon is possible, there is no way that everyone will agree "yeah, let's just get rid of them." I think there would be more to worry about if only one nation had nuclear weapons. Because so many nations have nuclear weapons, I think there is less of a threat. *No one* wants to start a nuclear war.

I think getting rid of nuclear weapons would be a terrible idea. Some nutcase in a developing country would come along and, against all UN sanctions, develop nuclear weapons and threaten other countries, who would be relatively defenseless. I think it's a good balance right now. Everyone has them, everyone knows everyone has them, and no one wants to start anything.

And while it's nice to think that the United Nations has some sort of sway in international politics, I don't think they're a terribly useful organization. They sort of sit there and do nothing.

Who's to say that some nutcase hasn't already gone against sanctions? We're never really entirely sure, which sends us into paranoia spreading across the globe, not to mention being paranoid of someone who wants to start something, you never really know what's going through someones head. It's not too hard for Governments and Media to kick up some rubbish about Russian spy planes being naughty, some middle eastern country maybe making them. It's made us all horribly untrusting of each other.

 

[Erythritol]

Who's to say that some nutcase hasn't already gone against sanctions? We're never really entirely sure, which sends us into paranoia spreading across the globe, not to mention being paranoid of someone who wants to start something, you never really know what's going through someones head. It's not too hard for Governments and Media to kick up some rubbish about Russian spy planes being naughty, some middle eastern country maybe making them. It's made us all horribly untrusting of each other.

Some nutcase HAS gone against sanctions. His name is President Ahmadinejad; he is president of Iran. Thank god almost everyone in Iran thinks he's a moron, so he'll get booted from power eventually.

This fact is, it's safer for numerous countries to have them than for only one country to have them. It's a tactic called Mutually Assured Destruction, and it is a highly effective method of deterrence. I think it's also reassuring that the type of nutcases who would actually use nuclear weapons are third world leaders who lack the resources to develop advanced weapons that are capable of reaching other countries. No leader of a well developed country is going to begin a nuclear war. To do so would be to ensure the destruction of the country.

 

[Drakur]

The problem with banning weapons in general, though, is that no one listens. I mean, the UN banned certain weapons, the Geneva Convetion banned certain weapons, and the list could go on. Let's face it, I could sit here and say "I ban nuclear weapons." What does it mean, though? Nothing. Like the UN and the Geneva Convention, I lack the power to back it up. The UN has to have a three day debate over whether or not to take a piss, much less pick a pot to piss in. Things don't get done in a timely manner, and by then the problem is too big to handle.