Nuclear Weapons Good/Bad

Nuclear Weapons Good/Bad

  • Good

    Votes: 5 10.9%

  • Bad

    Votes: 31 67.4%

  • Green nuclear cheese on radiated toast

    Votes: 10 21.7%
  • Total voters
    46
LostLegend said:
Aside from being a truly awful human invention, the sheer amount of money we spend on maintaining and upgrading our Nuclear arsenal is gross.

The last time around, Boris Johnson decided to increase the number of warheads we have due to perceived threats fromChina and Russia.

The fact that we already likely have enough warheads to destroy the world a couple of times over, somehow we needed to spend multiple billions more on increasing this number, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, to what exactly? How does being able to destroy the world 3 times over rather than twice further ‘deter’ your supposed enemies?

Literally shovelling our economy into the pockets of arms dealers 😬
Click to expand...

I'd like you to name one "arms dealer" front which you can buy either strategic or tactical nuclear weapons? 🤷‍♂️

No arms dealer is involved in nuclear weapons production. Sovereign states produce them via government agencies etc

The fact you made a claim that arms dealers are involved shows how misinformed you are
 

LostLegend said:
Aside from being a truly awful human invention, the sheer amount of money we spend on maintaining and upgrading our Nuclear arsenal is gross.

The last time around, Boris Johnson decided to increase the number of warheads we have due to perceived threats fromChina and Russia.

The fact that we already likely have enough warheads to destroy the world a couple of times over, somehow we needed to spend multiple billions more on increasing this number, in the midst of a cost of living crisis, to what exactly? How does being able to destroy the world 3 times over rather than twice further ‘deter’ your supposed enemies?

Literally shovelling our economy into the pockets of arms dealers 😬
Click to expand...
I presume the thinking of it is the UK in area is tiny in relation to the size of Russia and the Russians have the most powerful nuclear weapons such as the Tsar Bomba. So to keep as some sort of level pegging they keep increasing their numbers. Nevertheless, absolute ridiculous amount of money pumped into something that hopefully will never be used, a useless necessity I guess.
It's like if you gave up alcohol or smoking with the intention of saving the money you would have otherwise spent on them but end up spending it all on some other crap. If there were no nuclear weapons governments would spend the money on extra warships, more subs, bigger armies, other kinds of weapons etc
 

"I'm not the thief; the government is. Every year you make hardworking Joes like my reporter friend pay income taxes. And for what? Aid to ungrateful foreigners, do-nothing nuclear missiles, tomb polish for some unknown soldier."

giphy.webp
 
PKwalnuts said:
I still don't buy the destroy the world theory. If everyone set theirs off at the same time I think the world would be OK. World's massive.
Click to expand...
It still wouldn't be a great place to live, fact is there's enough nukes in the world to hit Every city with a population of over 100k 3 times each.
Although the neculear winter theory doesn't stand these days it was developed in a time where there were 6 times more neculear weapons than there are now, also these days Cities aren't as flammable as they were back then, with all the fire proofing materials in modern buildings, the firestorms that would cause the neculear winter wouldn't happen and the fact that the first targets would likely be the other sides neculear weapon launch sites which tend to be remote, making fire storms even less likley... probably not best to test the hypothesis.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top