Nuclear Weapons Good/Bad

[KaiserEFC]

Something designed to be activated by politicians to indiscriminately destroy and deny population and area oh and if a few countries do it right can also wipe everything humanity has, is and ever will be off the planet in a few hours.

Some of you need to give your heads a wobble man.

 

[daza_1973]

My secondary school making us all watch Threads when I was 13 puts me permanently in the bad camp.

 

[DualityNSNO]

The attacks on Japan showed most deaths occurred in the fallout and then the wave of disease and hunger that followed the poisonings. Granted the two bombs used to end WWII are mere air rifle pellets compared to the super weapons technology has enabled today. The Nagasaki bomb being equivalent to a million tons of TNT or something like that.

America reaching the nuclear age first did have some benefits, it allowed them to police the world. It also had some drawbacks, in that America got to police the world. For projecting powers sake I see it as akin to britannia ruling the waves, brit empire was the biggest and baddest pirate gang and imposed it's will thereafter. The cutting edge of the day decides who gets the say so to speak.

A lot of people know about Chernobyl, and it is a fascinating and very sad story. The thing is, there's another disaster, it's so big it has three names... Kyshtym disaster, sometimes referred to as the Mayak disaster or Ozyorsk disaster. Occurred in 1957 and with the soviet policy of secrecy no one knew, not even half of the soviet government. Well worth a look. Plutonium enrichment facility. If you really fancy a downer, give the Murmansk submarine graveyard a look and see how casually lives were wasted in dealing with nuclear contamination there.

My point stands then, either long or short term - you'd be killing millions or more (depending on size etc. as you noted).

I've read about Kyshtym and know about the graveyard, "funny" how there's a common denominator there - everyone's favourite "true democracy" and "safety of the people first" nation. Makes you think.

 

[ClausThomsen]

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

Of course they are. Companies such as Lockheed Martin research, develop, manufacture, maintain and sell weapons and weapons systems which by definition makes them an arms dealer.

They are heavily involved in the USA nuclear arms program which makes use of the products they sell, manufacture, maintain, research and develop. They are demonstrably involved in nuclear weapons production and are also 'arms dealers'.

 

[Damo_1878]

Of course they are. Companies such as Lockheed Martin research, develop, manufacture, maintain and sell weapons and weapons systems which by definition makes them an arms dealer.

They are heavily involved in the USA nuclear arms program which makes use of the products they sell, manufacture, maintain, research and develop. They are demonstrably involved in nuclear weapons production and are also 'arms dealers'.

They're not "dealing in arms" in relation to nuclear weapons however. Important distinction

 

[ClausThomsen]

They're not "dealing in arms" in relation to nuclear weapons however. Important distinction

Of course they are. If they are researching, developing and selling components and systems such as payload integration for nuclear weaponry they are dealing in arms in relation to nuclear weapons.

Or do you genuinely believe that nuclear payload capability plays no part in their weapons development and it is just a coincidence that the products they develop, sell and maintain are completely suitable and exclusively used for nuclear payloads? From the early days of Atlas to modern day ICBM's the entire focus of this type of weaponry has been long range nuclear capability.

A company that deals in weapons and weapons systems is an arms dealer.
An arms dealer that develops and sells weapons designed specifically for nuclear payloads can only be doing so in relation to nuclear weapons.

There is no important distinction to be made.

 

[Damo_1878]

Of course they are. If they are researching, developing and selling components and systems such as payload integration for nuclear weaponry they are dealing in arms in relation to nuclear weapons.

Or do you genuinely believe that nuclear payload capability plays no part in their weapons development and it is just a coincidence that the products they develop, sell and maintain are completely suitable and exclusively used for nuclear payloads? From the early days of Atlas to modern day ICBM's the entire focus of this type of weaponry has been long range nuclear capability.

A company that deals in weapons and weapons systems is an arms dealer.
An arms dealer that develops and sells weapons designed specifically for nuclear payloads can only be doing so in relation to nuclear weapons.

There is no important distinction to be made.

Arms dealer as defined:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/arms-dealer

They're not "selling" the weapons. They don't place them on the market. They're building them under contract to governments/government agencies/agents like AWE who control them, and the technology behind them

 

[ClausThomsen]

Arms dealer as defined:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/arms-dealer

They're not "selling" the weapons. They don't place them on the market. They're building them under contract to governments/government agencies/agents like AWE who control them, and the technology behind them

The definition you linked - a person or business that sells weapons and other military equipment

Do Lockheed Martin sell weapons and other military equipment - Yes
Do Lockheed Martin produce equipment directly and specifically for nuclear weaponry - Yes

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

This all came about because you refuted @LostLegend claim that nuclear weaponry puts money into the pockets of arms dealers. It clearly does.

The claim was nuclear weaponry puts profits into arms dealers. You're just trying to muddy the waters with a strawman argument to cover up your factually incorrect refuting of that statement.

 

[LEONARD]

Bad.

I agree with Jeremy Corybn, if anyone threatens to invade the UK, we head them off with a rolled up copy of yesterday's Gruniad.

 

[Damo_1878]

The definition you linked - a person or business that sells weapons and other military equipment

Do Lockheed Martin sell weapons and other military equipment - Yes
Do Lockheed Martin produce equipment directly and specifically for nuclear weaponry - Yes



This all came about because you refuted @LostLegend claim that nuclear weaponry puts money into the pockets of arms dealers. It clearly does.

The claim was nuclear weaponry puts profits into arms dealers. You're just trying to muddy the waters with a strawman argument to cover up your factually incorrect refuting of that statement.

Read what I actually said:

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

Where are you intent on buying yourself a nuclear weapon then?

 

[ClausThomsen]

Read what I actually said:



Where are you intent on buying yourself a nuclear weapon then?

You said "No arms dealer is involved in nuclear weapons production". I've read it. It's what you actually said.

That's literally what you posted. I then read it. And then pointed out that arms dealers ARE involved in nuclear weapons production.

Your thing about buying fully complete nuclear weapons direct from an arms dealer is in reply to absolutely nobody claiming that you can. It's a strawman argument. You're arguing against a point nobody made to defend an inaccurate point you made by repeatedly stating something that is of no relevance. Nonsense such as asking where I'm going to buy a nuclear weapon from only underlines this.

@LostLegend stated that nuclear weaponry puts money into arms dealers. He didn't say you can buy a fully assembled and ready nuclear missile from an arms dealer. You refuted this by saying arms dealers aren't involved in nuclear weapons production - they clearly are.

Take your own advice. Read what was actually said.

 

[goldfinchmule]

I havent got a clue.

 

[matty1878]

A soviet era reactor, very famous.

thought it was blackpool

 

[Rita_Poon]

thought it was blackpool

The games have been in Paris matty, granted the weather is purest Blackpool I grant you.

 

[matty1878]

The general consensus is that nuclear weapons are bad for obvious reasons. But in almost 80 years none have been used internationally to kill anyone and the 2 used on Japan how horrible it was brought an end to WW2 saving alot of other lives rather than the war being dragged on. They have however caused alot of bad health problems and premature deaths to persons involved in tests etc too.

Due to the threat of mutual destruction by the weapons there hasn't been any war directly between the big military powers since. So have nuclear weapons scared leaders into preventing a further world war since?

Do you think they are good or bad?

my take is. all the super powers have them

and even no mark country’s like n korea/ iran/ belarus/ there’s just would be crap

it’s basically a threat that won’t even get used on each other