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
I'm of the belief that they're and will continue as a necessary evil for a long time to come, because once the technology became known, it's difficult to turn back.

I know there's a lot of academic debate about the effectiveness of MAD, and the wider pros and cons, but it kept a few superpowers relatively 'peaceful'.

People have also mentioned the extortionate cost of the weapons, but for me this perversely a positive because it limits who can product weapons and...

... the vehicle in which the weapon can reach its target. The technology behind the weapons and the production of is hugely expensive, so it's not readily accessible.
 

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
Get your facts straight before you start throwing insults around

 
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
Behave ye tedious blert

somebody-on.gif
 
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.
FgZLb56XEAEKCrd.jpg
 
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.
These islands clearly wouldnt be ok. In fact, we would likely suffer the most due to our size. The first thing that would be destroyed are all roads/transportaton and infrastructure, then you would have the lack of medical facilities as hospitals are destroyed and those that exist are likely to have been over run. You then have fuel, we have no adequate stocks of that in reserve and all of ours will need to be imported - who is going to supply us with fuel in the medium term let alone short term after they themsleves have been nuked?

Hundreds of millions - possibly billions - would die within days due to starvation/lack of water supply let alone radiation sickness.

My guess is we would see something closer to a 'Threads' style environment where 'firestorms' were the least of peoples concerns.

Overseas, Russia and the US might be well be ok, China has too many people to support to adequately deal with huge nuclear strikes, but given their attitude to human rights they probably wouldnt care anyway if hundreds of millions died.
 
Last edited:

Get your facts straight before you start throwing insults around


They're not "arms dealers" are they?

They're contractors

The technology is classified and can't be transferred without government agreements also 🤷‍♂️

Facts. Straight.
 
Get your facts straight before you start throwing insults around


Also highlight where the "insults" were please 👇

As I don't see any

Saying someone is "misinformed" is not an insult

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
 
Mutual Assured Destruction?
It's simple enough
But it depends on both sides being prepared to use them...and lots of them.

Tactical battlefield use though, even though it's 'localised' once the first one goes off its a worry

On balance we'd be better off without
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top