How do you feel about WMDs?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If said system is a bunker, then with a bomb.

Congratulations you just destroyed the intel you wanted to gather from that bunker.

But it was very ugly bunker.

[Wols]

WMDs are cool.

[Blazedtown]

Congratulations you just destroyed the intel you wanted to gather from that bunker.

But it was very ugly bunker.

If a bunker is aesthetically appealing then it probably didn't provide much protection against artillery fire and wasn't much of a bunker.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

But it was very ugly bunker.

If a bunker is aesthetically appealing then it probably didn't provide much protection against artillery fire and wasn't much of a bunker.

But what if you put a layer of fancy ceramics over the concrete? Or maybe if it was covered in trees?

WMDs are cool.

The idea of WMDs is cool. WMDs themselves, not so much.

[MERIZoC]

They've saved millions of civilian lives as well. A fully conventional war in Europe would kill millions of civilians. Had we never invented nuclear weapons, we would have had a third major land war in Europe in the 20th century. If you think World War 2 was horrible, imagine the full conventional military might of the Warsaw Pact and NATO going head to head in the 60s or 70s. The German Army was largely horse drawn during WW2. The last time the major powers went at it, our technology allowed us to kill each other in such great numbers that we lost track to the nearest 10 million. That alone is why need nuclear weapons.

Exactly. Nuclear weapons are an efficient means of keeping the peace between First World nations, forcing us to be diplomatic and not bomb the shit out of each other because we disagree.

I disagree. My theory is that Globalization is the reason that the major superpowers aren't at each other's throats. Take the US and China, for example. Economically, the two countries rely on each other so much, it would be economically disastrous for the two to go to war. In addition, it's not in most corporation's best interests if there's another world war. America sure isn't starting anything big without corporate sponsorship, and I doubt Russia would either.

[Blazedtown]

Exactly. Nuclear weapons are an efficient means of keeping the peace between First World nations, forcing us to be diplomatic and not bomb the shit out of each other because we disagree.

I disagree. My theory is that Globalization is the reason that the major superpowers aren't at each other's throats. Take the US and China, for example. Economically, the two countries rely on each other so much, it would be economically disastrous for the two to go to war. In addition, it's not in most corporation's best interests if there's another world war. America sure isn't starting anything big without corporate sponsorship, and I doubt Russia would either.

Someone published a book that won them the Nobel Prize based on the same line of thought. They claimed that any outbreak of war between the major powers wouldn't happen because the economic interdependence of the world would force the warring parties to end the war quickly because it would cause a massive disruption to the international lending systems, bringing the war machines of these countries to a grinding halt. This book was published in 1909.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

I disagree. My theory is that Globalization is the reason that the major superpowers aren't at each other's throats. Take the US and China, for example. Economically, the two countries rely on each other so much, it would be economically disastrous for the two to go to war. In addition, it's not in most corporation's best interests if there's another world war. America sure isn't starting anything big without corporate sponsorship, and I doubt Russia would either.

Someone published a book that won them the Nobel Prize based on the same line of thought. They claimed that any outbreak of war between the major powers wouldn't happen because the economic interdependence of the world would force the warring parties to end the war quickly because it would cause a massive disruption to the international lending systems, bringing the war machines of these countries to a grinding halt. This book was published in 1909.

Well, the war machines did grind to a halt in a sense, but for the wrong reasons and only in one place.

[Blazedtown]

Someone published a book that won them the Nobel Prize based on the same line of thought. They claimed that any outbreak of war between the major powers wouldn't happen because the economic interdependence of the world would force the warring parties to end the war quickly because it would cause a massive disruption to the international lending systems, bringing the war machines of these countries to a grinding halt. This book was published in 1909.

Well, the war machines did grind to a halt in a sense, but for the wrong reasons and only in one place.

Yes, only after 4 years of attrition and millions of lives later. Expecting people to do something because its in their best interest is the fastest way to get disappointed. My favorite line from Men in Black applies here. A person is smart, people are dumb panicky, dangerous animals. The best motivation to avoid something as devastating a global conventional war is the fear of an even more devastating global nuclear war.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Well, the war machines did grind to a halt in a sense, but for the wrong reasons and only in one place.

Yes, only after 4 years of attrition and millions of lives later. Expecting people to do something because its in their best interest is the fastest way to get disappointed. My favorite line from Men in Black applies here. A person is smart, people are dumb panicky, dangerous animals. The best motivation to avoid something as devastating a global conventional war is the fear of an even more devastating global nuclear war.

I was referring to the deadlock of the western front when I said the war machines ground to a halt. As in, they literally stopped and dug ditches.

[Blazedtown]

Yes, only after 4 years of attrition and millions of lives later. Expecting people to do something because its in their best interest is the fastest way to get disappointed. My favorite line from Men in Black applies here. A person is smart, people are dumb panicky, dangerous animals. The best motivation to avoid something as devastating a global conventional war is the fear of an even more devastating global nuclear war.

I was referring to the deadlock of the western front when I said the war machines ground to a halt. As in, they literally stopped and dug ditches.

I thought you meant the German Revolution of 1918.

[MERIZoC]

I disagree. My theory is that Globalization is the reason that the major superpowers aren't at each other's throats. Take the US and China, for example. Economically, the two countries rely on each other so much, it would be economically disastrous for the two to go to war. In addition, it's not in most corporation's best interests if there's another world war. America sure isn't starting anything big without corporate sponsorship, and I doubt Russia would either.

Someone published a book that won them the Nobel Prize based on the same line of thought. They claimed that any outbreak of war between the major powers wouldn't happen because the economic interdependence of the world would force the warring parties to end the war quickly because it would cause a massive disruption to the international lending systems, bringing the war machines of these countries to a grinding halt. This book was published in 1909.

And we are much, much more interdependent on each other now than we were 100 years ago.

[Costa Fierro]

WMD's have no place in the modern world. *checks under table for DGSE agents*

[Copek]

WMDs are cool because they go boom.

[The Orson Empire]

Someone published a book that won them the Nobel Prize based on the same line of thought. They claimed that any outbreak of war between the major powers wouldn't happen because the economic interdependence of the world would force the warring parties to end the war quickly because it would cause a massive disruption to the international lending systems, bringing the war machines of these countries to a grinding halt. This book was published in 1909.

And we are much, much more interdependent on each other now than we were 100 years ago.

That doesn't matter.

Nuclear weapons are the sole reason why there has been peace between the major powers ever since the end of WW2.

[Hladgos]

Useful for detering total war between massive nations. They are quite overproduced though, and were mostly made in the mass dickwaving contest during the cold war. Obviously America wore the Fat Man nuclear strapon.

[Olthar]

As a pacifist, I'd like it if they were gotten rid of. However, I realize that's not really possible.

[Lemanrussland]

In a traditional security environment, with rational actors, WMDs act as a deterrent to war. Of course, even in that environment, we got awfully close to nuclear war several times, and were only saved by the actions of a few individuals.

In today's non-conventional security environment, with non-state actors and rogue states possessing or seeking to possess nuclear weapons, the danger of nuclear weapons being actually used is much higher. For this reason, I think preventing nuclear proliferation and securing existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons is important.

[Zathganastan]

And we are much, much more interdependent on each other now than we were 100 years ago.

That doesn't matter.

Nuclear weapons are the sole reason why there has been peace between the major powers ever since the end of WW2.

Hardly call spending half a century fighting proxy wars and threatening to annihilate each other in massive nuclear conflict peaceful. Even without nukes the concept of fighting an enemy capable of inflicting millions of causalities and billions of dollars wroth of damage through conventional means alone isn't very appealing to much anyone.

[Nekoargentina]

What's there to say? They are terrible weapons that could destroy billions of lives and the environment in a matter of minutes, but you can't really ban them unilaterally because the other country can always nuke you into glass. A global effort has to be made involving all major powers. Which has been done, to an extent, in a limited and disorderly fashion. I know, I know, such a boring, conformist answer...

[Republic of Coldwater]

no

1) they prevent large scale conventional wars between major countries who have them

2) they could be useful against aliens in the future

1) Agreed.

2) Any Extraterrestrial species capable of crossing light years of space will shrug off our WMDs like we do gnats.

Biological Weapons have the possible ability to inject viruses into aliens that their immune system cannot counter.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

1) Agreed.

2) Any Extraterrestrial species capable of crossing light years of space will shrug off our WMDs like we do gnats.

Biological Weapons have the possible ability to inject viruses into aliens that their immune system cannot counter.

Any alien species that reaches space will have a disease control program worth a damn. Nukes would still be effective, as we have seen no examples of anything short of a mountain capable of surviving one.

[Caninope]

I'll take "WMDs have been the greatest insurance of peace between nation-states of all time" for $400, Alex.

[Pandeeria]

Biological Weapons have the possible ability to inject viruses into aliens that their immune system cannot counter.

Any alien species that reaches space will have a disease control program worth a damn.

What if their home world never had diseases?

[Caninope]

Biological Weapons have the possible ability to inject viruses into aliens that their immune system cannot counter.

Any alien species that reaches space will have a disease control program worth a damn. Nukes would still be effective, as we have seen no examples of anything short of a mountain capable of surviving one.

I just want to point out that even if they have a disease control program, it would probably take them quite a while to figure anything out, given that the disease would literally be from another planet.

[MERIZoC]

Any alien species that reaches space will have a disease control program worth a damn.

What if their home world never had diseases?

It's probably safe to say that diseases are universal. Anyway, the whole point is moot: saying that we need WMD's to defend against an alien invasion is a stupid argument.