Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion

[Atomic Utopia]

They are another weapon, like guns. They will eventually be commonly used in war and they confer a major advantage to those who have them over those that do not have them. What more is there to say about them?

[Vedilia]

Weak and useless, next to the power of relativistic-velocity 600-kg tungsten shells.
There's your deterrent!

[Kubra]

They are another weapon, like guns. They will eventually be commonly used in war and they confer a major advantage to those who have them over those that do not have them. What more is there to say about them?

generally speaking, new advancements in military technology are utilized as soon as folks get wind. Simple Clausewitz, you use what you got. That's why there was little question regarding nuking Japan.
There's a lot of questions now regarding nukes. And landmines. And chemical weapons
Changing paradigms in military thought, innit?

[The Romulan Republic]

Voted yes, in opposition.

I understand the deterrence argument, but the down side is that if that deterrent ever fails, these weapons have the potential to destroy our civilization. Its essentially a massive gamble that nothing will ever go really, really wrong. We have had a number of very close calls where we got very lucky.

Unfortunately, some people have concluded that because we have always been lucky, we always will be lucky.

However, I will say that I believe nuclear explosives have a potentially vital role to play in the space program, either as an Orion/Daedallus-style propulsion system, or for asteroid deflection/destruction.

[The East Marches]

Voted yes, in opposition.

I understand the deterrence argument, but the down side is that if that deterrent ever fails, these weapons have the potential to destroy our civilization. Its essentially a massive gamble that nothing will ever go really, really wrong. We have had a number of very close calls where we got very lucky.

Unfortunately, some people have concluded that because we have always been lucky, we always will be lucky.

However, I will say that I believe nuclear explosives have a potentially vital role to play in the space program, either as an Orion/Daedallus-style propulsion system, or for asteroid deflection/destruction.

What do we do if the other side possess nuclear weapons and the will to use them?

[The Romulan Republic]

They are another weapon, like guns. They will eventually be commonly used in war and they confer a major advantage to those who have them over those that do not have them. What more is there to say about them?

They day they are commonly used is the day our civilization ends, unless our ability to mitigate their effects or the scope of human civilization has vastly expanded by that time.

[Kubra]

Voted yes, in opposition.

I understand the deterrence argument, but the down side is that if that deterrent ever fails, these weapons have the potential to destroy our civilization. Its essentially a massive gamble that nothing will ever go really, really wrong. We have had a number of very close calls where we got very lucky.

Unfortunately, some people have concluded that because we have always been lucky, we always will be lucky.

However, I will say that I believe nuclear explosives have a potentially vital role to play in the space program, either as an Orion/Daedallus-style propulsion system, or for asteroid deflection/destruction.

What do we do if the other side possess nuclear weapons and the will to use them?

bow the fuck down, they fucking crazy
Though that's kinda a crazy combo even Pakistan ain't quite got the will there

[The East Marches]

What do we do if the other side possess nuclear weapons and the will to use them?

bow the fuck down, they fucking crazy
Though that's kinda a crazy combo even Pakistan ain't quite got the will there

Bow down? I'd rather see Nuclear holocaust tbh.

[The Romulan Republic]

Voted yes, in opposition.

I understand the deterrence argument, but the down side is that if that deterrent ever fails, these weapons have the potential to destroy our civilization. Its essentially a massive gamble that nothing will ever go really, really wrong. We have had a number of very close calls where we got very lucky.

Unfortunately, some people have concluded that because we have always been lucky, we always will be lucky.

However, I will say that I believe nuclear explosives have a potentially vital role to play in the space program, either as an Orion/Daedallus-style propulsion system, or for asteroid deflection/destruction.

What do we do if the other side possess nuclear weapons and the will to use them?

In that case, we're probably fucked weather we have them or not. The only question is weather we invest in the ability to take the other side with us.

And if my nation were going to die, I think I'd rather that its final act not be genocide.

However, their are potential countermeasures that could be developed. Their are ways to cripple an opponent through economic and political means without ever engaging in war (see the end of the Cold War). In an actual war, two options would be to launch a preemptive strike with conventional munitions on the enemy's nuclear capability, and to invest heavily in missile defence systems.

[Kubra]

bow the fuck down, they fucking crazy
Though that's kinda a crazy combo even Pakistan ain't quite got the will there

Bow down? I'd rather see Nuclear holocaust tbh.

whatever man collaborate and make mad bank

[The Romulan Republic]

bow the fuck down, they fucking crazy
Though that's kinda a crazy combo even Pakistan ain't quite got the will there

Bow down? I'd rather see Nuclear holocaust tbh.

A man who would rather see everyone on Earth exterminated than ever suffer defeat is, ironically enough, exactly the last kind of person who should ever have nuclear weapons.

[The East Marches]

Bow down? I'd rather see Nuclear holocaust tbh.

A man who would rather see everyone on Earth exterminated than ever suffer defeat is, ironically enough, exactly the last kind of person who should ever have nuclear weapons.

But what is the point if not revenge? If your civilization is going to die, would the best option not be to drag the otherside down as well? The idea of a deterrent or the purpose of nuclear weapons goes out the window with an unwillingness to use them in such a manner.

[The East Marches]

Bow down? I'd rather see Nuclear holocaust tbh.

whatever man collaborate and make mad bank

>Money
>Collaboration with Ivan or some other power

You can only pick one

[The East Marches]

What do we do if the other side possess nuclear weapons and the will to use them?

In that case, we're probably fucked weather we have them or not. The only question is weather we invest in the ability to take the other side with us.

And if my nation were going to die, I think I'd rather that its final act not be genocide.

However, their are potential countermeasures that could be developed. Their are ways to cripple an opponent through economic and political means without ever engaging in war (see the end of the Cold War). In an actual war, two options would be to launch a preemptive strike with conventional munitions on the enemy's nuclear capability, and to invest heavily in missile defence systems.

I agree that the need for extreme invest in missile defense systems is a must. That is something that I hope will obsolete the nuclear weapon or at least shift investment into ventures which have a better probability of success.

[The Romulan Republic]

A man who would rather see everyone on Earth exterminated than ever suffer defeat is, ironically enough, exactly the last kind of person who should ever have nuclear weapons.

But what is the point if not revenge? If your civilization is going to die, would the best option not be to drag the otherside down as well?

The idea of my nation's last act being a spite-fueled genocide does not appeal to me. Its this thing about valuing human life...

Besides, a conqueror can be overthrown or altered from within over time. Many a nation has surrendered out of necessity and eventually rebuilt itself.

The idea of a deterrent or the purpose of nuclear weapons goes out the window with an unwillingness to use them in such a manner.

I consider them a largely useless weapon.

[Kubra]

whatever man collaborate and make mad bank

>Money
>Collaboration with Ivan or some other power

You can only pick one

I pick both, C.R.E.A.M

[The East Marches]

The idea of my nation's last act being a spite-fueled genocide does not appeal to me. Its this thing about valuing human life...

Besides, a conqueror can be overthrown or altered from within over time. Many a nation has surrendered out of necessity and eventually rebuilt itself.

If my enemy has shown such contempt for my own people's lives regardless if they were military or civilian. He should be made to feel the same pain. There is no moral bonus for being the good guy. Especially not when your country is ashes. Its tough to rebuild from being wiped out.

I consider them a largely useless weapon.

Because you are unwilling to press the button. For somebody like myself, they serve their purpose like any other tool.

[The East Marches]

>Money
>Collaboration with Ivan or some other power

You can only pick one

I pick both, C.R.E.A.M

How can you call yourself a fan of Varg with that attitude?

[Kubra]

I pick both, C.R.E.A.M

How can you call yourself a fan of Varg with that attitude?

if confronted with the prospect of war with russia, varg would back the huh wow lyric interpretation to keep his head on its shoulders
Russian prison ain't no fun compared to norwegian

[The East Marches]

How can you call yourself a fan of Varg with that attitude?

if confronted with the prospect of war with russia, varg would back the huh wow lyric interpretation to keep his head on its shoulders
Russian prison ain't no fun compared to norwegian

Edit: we're off topic, nevermind. Better dead than red.

[The Romulan Republic]

If my enemy has shown such contempt for my own people's lives regardless if they were military or civilian. He should be made to feel the same pain.

There is always a distinction between soldiers and civilians, except in the minds of bigots who think that being born inside certain boundaries is reason enough to murder someone.

I grow so tired of this sadistic internet tough guy bullshit.

There is no moral bonus for being the good guy.

You are kind of missing the whole point of "moral" and "good guy".

Especially not when your country is ashes. Its tough to rebuild from being wiped out.

No one is going to nuke a country they're beating that isn't using nukes on them.

Because you are unwilling to press the button. For somebody like myself, they serve their purpose like any other tool.

I wonder if you'd find it so easy to push the button and kill millions or billions if you were actually in that position.

Its easy to talk big on the internet.

Its when actually faced with such choices that a man finds out if he has a soul.

[The Romulan Republic]

I try to take a long-term, big-picture approach to politics.

Nuclear exchanges are kind of the opposite of that, in general.

[Kaledy]

If I am not mistaken, no nation that had nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. I also think it is very likely that if NATO and the Warsaw-pact didn't have nuclear weapons, there would have been a lot more conflicts.

On the other hand, nations without nuclear weapons are now clearly at a disadvantage. Nuclear powers keeping other nations, without nukes, from developing them seems hypocritical to me.

[The East Marches]

There is always a distinction between soldiers and civilians, except in the minds of bigots who think that being born inside certain boundaries is reason enough to murder someone.

I grow so tired of this sadistic internet tough guy bullshit.

But its not. Our whole policy has been decided to be this for the last 60 years. Its reason enough to murder somebody when they rain nuclear fire down upon your country. Unless there are consequences for the actions, somebody will take that action. I do not understand what is difficult about this.

You are kind of missing the whole point of "moral" and "good guy".

Your opinion of "moral" is very likely to be different from my own.

No one is going to nuke a country they're beating that isn't using nukes on them.

Thats wrong. The Soviets had plans for nuclear weapons should they have come through the Fulda Gap. Not only that but other nasty weapons too. The assumption of that humans will restrain themselves from their worst side in a conflict is a wrong one to make.

I wonder if you'd find it so easy to push the button and kill millions or billions if you were actually in that position.

Its easy to talk big on the internet.

Its when actually faced with such choices that a man finds out if he has a soul.

I already know what I'm made out of. By your definition, I'm probably a soulless monster. Souls are luxuries for those who can afford them. You moralize on about how just and righteous you are for letting yourself die like a martyr. It is that martyr like attitude which would put all of us in danger should that suddenly be our policy with nuclear weapons.

[Kubra]

If I am not mistaken, no nation that had nuclear weapons has ever been invaded. I also think it is very likely that if NATO and the Warsaw-pact didn't have nuclear weapons, there would have been a lot more conflicts.

On the other hand, nations without nuclear weapons are now clearly at a disadvantage. Nuclear powers forbidding nations without nukes from developing them seems hypocritical to me.

lol but like who would invade them