How do you feel about WMDs?

[Scomagia]

In the perfect world, all WMDs would just go away and no one would use them. Unfortunately this is not the perfect world. Even if somehow magically, all WMDs were disassembled, how could you be sure someone wouldn't make them again in secret? Then that's also going to ignore the hard part of actually disassembling them all too.

A world where First World nations can regularly engage in conflicts with each other doesn't sound perfect to me.

[Pimps Inc]

In the perfect world, all WMDs would just go away and no one would use them. Unfortunately this is not the perfect world. Even if somehow magically, all WMDs were disassembled, how could you be sure someone wouldn't make them again in secret? Then that's also going to ignore the hard part of actually disassembling them all too.

Exactly and countries with WMD's protect their nuclear weapons very well,so if they were banned they while they are being disposed someone might take them or the parts to make one.

[Pimps Inc]

Wouldn't it spread around your street and then.......you know kill everyone

But my bin would be safe.

Can't argue against that.

[Shnercropolis]

WMD's are a really nice thing to have when the other side has them too.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Let's say we "banned" WMD's and every country with them disposed of them.What if some terrorist or country disobeys and launches them we would have no way to retaliate

Three problems:

1.) Nukes are very hard to make. There are four cornerstones required for a nation to produce nukes: know-how, capital, management, and facilities. The average country doesn't have these to the specifics necessary for producing any sort of WMD except for comparatively weak chemical and maybe radiological "dirty" bombs.
2.) The average rogue faction such as terrorists or the above nation cannot simply steal or buy these weapons. Doing so would draw the ire of every nation on Earth the moment the transaction is made, and trust me, they'll know where every nuke is.
3.) We have a way to retaliate. Several nations have breakout capacity, which means they could build nukes if they wanted to. Such nations may produce new nuclear weapons faster than what it took in the Manhattan Project, and may quickly retaliate. Not taking into account if governments would be paranoid enough to keep one or two around in secret.
4.) Biological, chemical, and dirty weapons are ineffectual. Though they are deadly, simple competence is enough to render them ineffective in the long term.

[The Orson Empire]

Nuclear weapons are unfortunately necessary in order to keep world peace, mainly because of MAD (mutually assured destruction).

[Shnercropolis]

Let's say we "banned" WMD's and every country with them disposed of them.What if some terrorist or country disobeys and launches them we would have no way to retaliate

Three problems:

1.) Nukes are very hard to make. There are four cornerstones required for a nation to produce nukes: know-how, capital, management, and facilities. The average country doesn't have these to the specifics necessary for producing any sort of WMD except for comparatively weak chemical and maybe radiological "dirty" bombs.
2.) The average rogue faction such as terrorists or the above nation cannot simply steal or buy these weapons. Doing so would draw the ire of every nation on Earth the moment the transaction is made, and trust me, they'll know where every nuke is.
3.) We have a way to retaliate. Several nations have breakout capacity, which means they could build nukes if they wanted to. Such nations may produce new nuclear weapons faster than what it took in the Manhattan Project, and may quickly retaliate. Not taking into account if governments would be paranoid enough to keep one or two around in secret.
4.) Biological, chemical, and dirty weapons are ineffectual. Though they are deadly, simple competence is enough to render them ineffective in the long term.

Rather. If you managed to deliver enough of the rabies virus, you'd be able to kill off a massive portion of a populace.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Three problems:

1.) Nukes are very hard to make. There are four cornerstones required for a nation to produce nukes: know-how, capital, management, and facilities. The average country doesn't have these to the specifics necessary for producing any sort of WMD except for comparatively weak chemical and maybe radiological "dirty" bombs.
2.) The average rogue faction such as terrorists or the above nation cannot simply steal or buy these weapons. Doing so would draw the ire of every nation on Earth the moment the transaction is made, and trust me, they'll know where every nuke is.
3.) We have a way to retaliate. Several nations have breakout capacity, which means they could build nukes if they wanted to. Such nations may produce new nuclear weapons faster than what it took in the Manhattan Project, and may quickly retaliate. Not taking into account if governments would be paranoid enough to keep one or two around in secret.
4.) Biological, chemical, and dirty weapons are ineffectual. Though they are deadly, simple competence is enough to render them ineffective in the long term.

Rather. If you managed to deliver enough of the rabies virus, you'd be able to kill off a massive portion of a populace.

And how exactly would you deliver the virus? Bites? And any modern country worth a damn has procedures for epidemics. I'm surprised you didn't suggest the Black Death, or the genophage.

[Pilotto]

WMD's are a really nice thing to have when the other side has them too.

Yeah... pretty much this.

[Need a Name]

As said by Wikipedia.com, a Weapon of Mass Destruction, or WMD, is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere. These weapons, not only being able to cause massive amounts of death and destruction, can also cause harm to the Earth's environment as a whole.
Here are just a few of the problems WMDs make:

-They bring massive amounts of harm to the environment and man made structures
-They pose serious health risks (radiological cancers, mutations)
-They lead to hundreds of thousands of death
-They cause serious fear and pain (e.g blister agents)
-They break Human Rights and should not be used at all
-They are challenging, if not impossible to dispose of when activated
-Preventing them is a problem for some

This list, I feel that it is extremely biased. I actually believe WMDs have saved more lives than they have killed. The Cold War probably would have turned to WWIII if MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) wasn't a reality.

[Turmenista]

I am completely neutral about WMDs...

But WMDs, by definition, represents:

-Any nuclear, biologicsl or radiological weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction

These do not include:

-Kinetic Bombardment
-Heat/Laser Rays
-Conventionnal Bombs/Bullets
-More...

So kinetic bombardment...Oh yeah !

I can finally fulfill my dream of putting a laser on the Moon and calling it a death star!

[Kaalakiota Corporation]

While I agree that WMD's are bad, this doesn't REALLY need to be a GA proposal...

[Wind in the Willows]

I think they are dangerous but useful.

[Shie]

I don't care if my family ain't hit.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

While I agree that WMD's are bad, this doesn't REALLY need to be a GA proposal...

Why'd you bring up the GA?

[Fartsniffage]

I am completely neutral about WMDs...

But WMDs, by definition, represents:

-Any nuclear, biologicsl or radiological weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction

These do not include:

-Kinetic Bombardment
-Heat/Laser Rays
-Conventionnal Bombs/Bullets
-More...

So kinetic bombardment...Oh yeah !

I can finally fulfill my dream of putting a laser on the Moon and calling it a death star!

You'd need a bloody big one. Atmospheric diffusion would make it really difficult to do anything useful with it.

[Kaalakiota Corporation]

While I agree that WMD's are bad, this doesn't REALLY need to be a GA proposal...

Why'd you bring up the GA?

There is a GA proposal in the queue that looks surprisingly similar to this one.... It's also illegal.

[Brilliant Equestria]

I can finally fulfill my dream of putting a laser on the Moon and calling it a death star!

You'd need a bloody big one. Atmospheric diffusion would make it really difficult to do anything useful with it.

Pff, who needs to actually do anything with it? I'd just want to be able to say "I have a moon laser, your argument is invalid" and have it be true. Unlike when I say that now.

[Bolugaria]

I honestly do not care about WMD's but i do feel sorry for Japan although they did kinda deserve it

[The Gaelic Kingdoms of Britain]

If WMDs were banned, we'd have more wars like WWII and WWI, and frequently. Well, maybe not every country, but certain territorial/expansionist ones (Russia, Iraq, etc.) would be.

[Fartsniffage]

If WMDs were banned, we'd have more wars like WWII and WWI, and frequently. Well, maybe not every country, but certain territorial/expansionist ones (Russia, Iraq, etc.) would be.

A bit like Russia invading Ukraine?

[Shnercropolis]

Rather. If you managed to deliver enough of the rabies virus, you'd be able to kill off a massive portion of a populace.

And how exactly would you deliver the virus? Bites? And any modern country worth a damn has procedures for epidemics. I'm surprised you didn't suggest the Black Death, or the genophage.

Genetically engineer it to go through mosquitoes.

[Empire of Narnia]

If WMDs were banned, we'd have more wars like WWII and WWI, and frequently. Well, maybe not every country, but certain territorial/expansionist ones (Russia, Iraq, etc.) would be.

A bit like Russia invading Ukraine?

You will see big countries pick off small countries, but you won't see the huge wars anymore. Nukes made big wars between great powers such as WWI, WWII and the older battles between colonial empires just not worth it. The only reason the Cold War didn't go hot is because nukes made it not worth it. England and France will never duke it out, and nobody will go on massive wars of expansion because they know they might get nuked. Putin only dared take a little slice of the Ukraine and he was sneaky about it.

[Fartsniffage]

A bit like Russia invading Ukraine?

You will see big countries pick off small countries, but you won't see the huge wars anymore. Nukes made big wars between great powers such as WWI, WWII and the older battles between colonial empires just not worth it. The only reason the Cold War didn't go hot is because nukes made it not worth it. England and France will never duke it out, and nobody will go on massive wars of expansion because they know they might get nuked. Putin only dared take a little slice of the Ukraine and he was sneaky about it.

And he did it because he was so sure that none of the involveds that really matter would dare to challenge it because he controls a nuclear power. What's to stop the rest of the real powers from doing the same?

I have a feeling that we're in a post MAD society now. I really can see a few real power blocs evolving and the real battle ground will be Eastern Europe, yet again....

[Purpelia]

In war people die. Does it really matter by which means the would be corpses are helped along to their ultimate destination? If you hate killing than by all means ban war it self. I can support that. Anything less are just meaningless gestures to make your self feel good.