NationStates

Novus America wrote:

Equalaria wrote:I think they are merely tools of the white patriarchy to threaten the natural peace of the world, and generally control the globe for thier genocidal, rapacious colonial gains. They are tools of mass murder, and it does not surprise me at all that white men control and threaten with these weapons. They are a scourge on humanity

Just stop. This act is not funny.

It's not even exactly accurate. Women have controlled nuclear weapons twice, first Margaret Thatcher, and now Theresa May. One could also likely make an argument for including Elizabeth II.

Eisarn-Ara wrote:

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

"Rods from God" have been debunked, and are worthless.

Not these rods from a god.
They've been accelerated through something other than gravity for starters,

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Just stop. This act is not funny.

It's not even exactly accurate. Women have controlled nuclear weapons twice, first Margaret Thatcher, and now Theresa May. One could also likely make an argument for including Elizabeth II.

Technically...yes?

Grand Britannia wrote:

Norseka wrote:
But wouldn't that just lead to an escalation of armaments like we saw during the Cold War?

It's called deterrent for a reason.

Suddenly, all humans gain the Devious trait due to mutual peace through nuclear firepower.
Until someone decides they don't care anymore and launches them.
Game over.

Singaporean Transhumans wrote:

DBJ-II wrote:I oppose aggressive, authoritarian states like russia or iran having them, but In the hands of lets say the US or Israel they serve a valuable purpose.

"aggressive"

"US"

stop right there mate

why? Murica's aggressive.
Against EBILDOOERZ

Vedilia wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:It's not even exactly accurate. Women have controlled nuclear weapons twice, first Margaret Thatcher, and now Theresa May. One could also likely make an argument for including Elizabeth II.

Technically...yes?

I like being right on the internet. Not just dislike people being wrong, I like being actively right.

Oh yeah and also Indira Gandhi.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Vedilia wrote:Technically...yes?

I like being right on the internet. Not just dislike people being wrong, I like being actively right.

Oh yeah and also Indira Gandhi.

Definitely.

Vedilia wrote:

Grand Britannia wrote:
It's called deterrent for a reason.

Suddenly, all humans gain the Devious trait due to mutual peace through nuclear firepower.
Until someone decides they don't care anymore and launches them.
Game over.

Muh slippery slope

Grand Britannia wrote:

Vedilia wrote:
Suddenly, all humans gain the Devious trait due to mutual peace through nuclear firepower.
Until someone decides they don't care anymore and launches them.
Game over.

Muh slippery slope

I'll cover it with every friction-reducing material I can, to increase the likelihood of Nutbag traits among the world populace.
Gotta start the nuclear holocaust somehow, you know.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Vedilia wrote:Technically...yes?

I like being right on the internet. Not just dislike people being wrong, I like being actively right.

Oh yeah and also Indira Gandhi.

Does Germany have nukes? If so, add Angela Merkel onto that list.

Indo-Malaysia wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:I like being right on the internet. Not just dislike people being wrong, I like being actively right.

Oh yeah and also Indira Gandhi.

Does Germany have nukes? If so, add Angela Merkel onto that list.

Germany doesn't have nukes of its own, but there are American bombs deployed in Germany.

Dooom35796821595 wrote:

New Benian Republic wrote:My opinion is that my country needs them if it is to gain respect and power in the world stage.

I assume you mean the RoI. No chance in hell.

Big Jim P wrote:Efficient high-explosives. Nothing more, nothing less.

They're a tad more complex. At least the good ones are.

And why shouldn't we have them?

Yes, nuclear weapons are bad.

New Benian Republic wrote:

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
I assume you mean the RoI. No chance in hell.



They're a tad more complex. At least the good ones are.

And why shouldn't we have them?

would you nuke englabd

Trying to undo a technological advancement is a futile attempt. We invented Nuclear weapons and they will never be un-invented. what we must do now is ensure that they are kept to a minimal stockpile and that we have safeguards so no nuclear weapon can ever be used accidentally as well as new and better technologies to ensure there are no false positives like the ones we had in the cold war.

Aegis Prime wrote:Trying to undo a technological advancement is a futile attempt. We invented Nuclear weapons and they will never be un-invented. what we must do now is ensure that they are kept to a minimal stockpile and that we have safeguards so no nuclear weapon can ever be used accidentally as well as new and better technologies to ensure there are no false positives like the ones we had in the cold war.

Also someone should really come up with some sort of radiation scrubbing technology since that's arguably the worst part of nuclear weapons. Then again, that would technically make nuclear weapons "usable" again so war would probably break out...

As said, they can't be uninvented, so it's unrealistic to oppose their existence. Even if everybody totally dismantled their arsenals the knowledge exists and they can be rebuilt by any nation with competent engineers. For that reason I support the ownership of nuclear weapons on all sides as a safeguard against the use of nuclear weapons on all sides. I support reducing these arsenals, but recognize the difficulty of doing so (or rather have no idea how it would work, and leave that thought up to those who know more about the economics of it).

I separate this from my personal beliefs which are disgusted with their ever being adopted as weapons, and also from the side of me that views nuclear warfare (and drone strikes, satellite reconnaissance, chem/bio contamination warfare, etc.) as unromantic and boring.

Useful as deterrents.

Gnarly.

should be able for recreational purposes

Indo-Malaysia wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:I like being right on the internet. Not just dislike people being wrong, I like being actively right.

Oh yeah and also Indira Gandhi.

Does Germany have nukes? If so, add Angela Merkel onto that list.

Germany, the country, has nukes in it, but they're not controlled by Merkel.

No. No. No.

Nuclear weapons are necessary in this crazy world we live in

Aegis Prime wrote:Trying to undo a technological advancement is a futile attempt. We invented Nuclear weapons and they will never be un-invented. what we must do now is ensure that they are kept to a minimal stockpile and that we have safeguards so no nuclear weapon can ever be used accidentally as well as new and better technologies to ensure there are no false positives like the ones we had in the cold war.

People forgot how to make Greek Fire.

Ghandi from civilization approves.

Aterria wrote:

New Benian Republic wrote:My opinion is that my country needs them if it is to gain respect and power in the world stage.

Umm, whot?

DPRK wants nukes, who respects them?

Also helps that the NorK's are twats, so who gives a fuck about them? South Korea can die smiling knowing that those assholes will play Nuke-Face-Catch at the end of it should South Korean Defensive Strategy fail for whatever ridiculous reason.

Indo-Malaysia wrote:

Aegis Prime wrote:Trying to undo a technological advancement is a futile attempt. We invented Nuclear weapons and they will never be un-invented. what we must do now is ensure that they are kept to a minimal stockpile and that we have safeguards so no nuclear weapon can ever be used accidentally as well as new and better technologies to ensure there are no false positives like the ones we had in the cold war.

People forgot how to make Greek Fire.

People are unsure the exact chemical composition but we make things much better now. Forgetting the exact composition of Greek fire did not prevent more powerful incendiaries being created.

Besides nuclear weapons on not complicated in principle. Unless civilization collapses and people forget science people can make nuclear weapons. Sure they might not make them exactly the same in every aspect. They will still be able to make them. Possibly even better.

We still know how to make incendiaries better than Greek fire.

Kubra wrote:

New Benian Republic wrote:And why shouldn't we have them?

would you nuke englabd

Literally nobody in my government has the balls to do so.