Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion

[The Conez Imperium]

In my opinion nuclear weapons are immoral as David Lange argued, It is a defense which disturbs far more than it reassures. The weapon simply has its own relentless logic and it is inhuman. It is the logic of escalation, the logic of the arms race. Nuclear weapons make us insecure and to compensate for our insecurity we build and deploy more nuclear weapons. A system of defense serves its purpose if it guarantees the security of those it protects. A system of nuclear defence guarantees only insecurity as the means of defense terrorise as much as the means of attack. The fear they inspire is not a justification for their existence.

[Lydenburg]

Get rid of the blerrie things. I have no faith whatsoever in the Yanks' ability to wisely manage a nuclear arsenal. Ditto for the Kremlin. To say nothing of a place as horrendously unstable as Pakistan.

And while we're at it, Zuma needs to dump all the crap we've still got left over from our own nuke programme before terrorists get their hands on it and hold the country to ransom.

[Novus America]

Get rid of the blerrie things. I have no faith whatsoever in the Yanks' ability to wisely manage a nuclear arsenal. Ditto for the Kremlin. To say nothing of a place as horrendously unstable as Pakistan.

And while we're at it, Zuma needs to dump all the crap we've still got left over from our own nuke programme before terrorists get their hands on it and hold the country to ransom.

Without nuclear weapons the risk of conventional war would greatly increase.

[Lydenburg]

Get rid of the blerrie things. I have no faith whatsoever in the Yanks' ability to wisely manage a nuclear arsenal. Ditto for the Kremlin. To say nothing of a place as horrendously unstable as Pakistan.

And while we're at it, Zuma needs to dump all the crap we've still got left over from our own nuke programme before terrorists get their hands on it and hold the country to ransom.

Without nuclear weapons the risk of conventional war would greatly increase.

F.W. de Klerk got rid of our nukes and I would say the risk of conventional war hasn't gotten any higher for us. If anything, it improved relations and eased tensions with our neighbours.

[Imperializt Russia]

Without nuclear weapons the risk of conventional war would greatly increase.

F.W. de Klerk got rid of our nukes and I would say the risk of conventional war hasn't gotten any higher for us. If anything, it improved relations and eased tensions with our neighbours.

There's an argument that South Africa's (Apartheid-era) nuclear arms weren't to be used against Angola or whoever, but a possible black civil revolt.

But anyway, the nuclear arms in Europe, and the arms held by the people that put them there, have largely prevented another European war.

[Novus America]

Without nuclear weapons the risk of conventional war would greatly increase.

F.W. de Klerk got rid of our nukes and I would say the risk of conventional war hasn't gotten any higher for us. If anything, it improved relations and eased tensions with our neighbours.

For you, yes. Because you face no conventional military threats anyways. It is different for different countries. You are better off without them. India is better off with them for example.

Nuclear weapons are not for everyone.

[Indo-Malaysia]

F.W. de Klerk got rid of our nukes and I would say the risk of conventional war hasn't gotten any higher for us. If anything, it improved relations and eased tensions with our neighbours.

There's an argument that South Africa's (Apartheid-era) nuclear arms weren't to be used against Angola or whoever, but a possible black civil revolt.

But anyway, the nuclear arms in Europe, and the arms held by the people that put them there, have largely prevented another European war.

I think the Nuke would get rid of more than just the revolt.

[The Great Devourer of All]

Horrible examples of the worst aspects of humanity, but strategically necessary.

[Indo-Malaysia]

Horrible examples of the worst aspects of humanity, but strategically necessary.

Agreed. They are a necessary evil.

[Tule]

Nuclear weapons have outlived their usefulness.

They made sense when they had a low yield, could be delivered with re-callable bombers and when conventional weapons were inaccurate and necessitated higher troop densities.

With high-yield ballistic missiles that must be launched on warning the risk of an accidental nuclear war has risen drastically.
At the same time, the introduction of precision guided weapons and digital fire control systems has made conventional warfare much less bloody and much more difficult to sustain.

[Ban Pho]

I guess it wouldn't hurt if Sweden had some...

[Grand Proletaria]

Well we haven't had a WWIII.

[Pope Joan]

There was a short story, it may have been by Ray Bradbury or perhaps Kurt Vonnegut.

A scientist has devised a weapon which can kill all life on the planet. He is planning to give it to his government.

His friend cannot dissuade him from this plan. He has a handgun. Before he goes, he loads it and puts it in the playpen of his friend's child.

His friend discovers this in time to prevent tragedy. "What kind of fool or devil would put a killing tool into ignorant hands?" he screamed.

He didn't get it, did he.

[San Lumen]

Nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of entirely. They are horrible terrible devices that no one should have. The US should get of its nuclear arsenal. If you dont want other countries to have them you cant be hypocritical.

[Imperializt Russia]

Nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of entirely. They are horrible terrible devices that no one should have. The US should get of its nuclear arsenal. If you dont want other countries to have them you cant be hypocritical.

Now Russia has a large, exceedingly large and literally unparalleled nuclear arsenal.

And precisely no reason to remove it.

[San Lumen]

Nuclear weapons should be gotten rid of entirely. They are horrible terrible devices that no one should have. The US should get of its nuclear arsenal. If you dont want other countries to have them you cant be hypocritical.

Now Russia has a large, exceedingly large and literally unparalleled nuclear arsenal.

And precisely no reason to remove it.

No country should have them

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well It's stopped Russia and the US from going to war, and it's kept violence on the quicker end when it comes to Pakistan and India

[San Lumen]

Well It's stopped Russia and the US from going to war, and it's kept violence on the quicker end when it comes to Pakistan and India

It still is a horrible weapon no one should have and someone mentally unstable is about to get control of the nuclear arsenal of the United States.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Well It's stopped Russia and the US from going to war, and it's kept violence on the quicker end when it comes to Pakistan and India

It still is a horrible weapon no one should have and someone mentally unstable is about to get control of the nuclear arsenal of the United States.

Meh, they said the same thing about Reagan.

[Dooom35796821595]

Well It's stopped Russia and the US from going to war, and it's kept violence on the quicker end when it comes to Pakistan and India

It still is a horrible weapon no one should have and someone mentally unstable is about to get control of the nuclear arsenal of the United States.

You know the president can't arbitrary launch the nuclear deterrent, right? It requires certain scenarios, like Russia launching first, or open war between the US and another nuclear power like Russia or China.

And it's really not that bad, people just think it's worse then it is.

[The East Marches]

It still is a horrible weapon no one should have and someone mentally unstable is about to get control of the nuclear arsenal of the United States.

You know the president can't arbitrary launch the nuclear deterrent, right? It requires certain scenarios, like Russia launching first, or open war between the US and another nuclear power like Russia or China.

And it's really not that bad, people just think it's worse then it is.

I don't believe we ever said no to a first strike policy.

[Democratic East-Asia]

Pretty explosions. That's all.

[Dooom35796821595]

You know the president can't arbitrary launch the nuclear deterrent, right? It requires certain scenarios, like Russia launching first, or open war between the US and another nuclear power like Russia or China.

And it's really not that bad, people just think it's worse then it is.

I don't believe we ever said no to a first strike policy.

Or open war between the US and another nuclear power like Russia or China. I doubt anyone will let Trump launch nukes over a trade issue with China, or Mexican immigration.

[Greed and Death]

You have to nuke something

[Imperializt Russia]

You know the president can't arbitrary launch the nuclear deterrent, right? It requires certain scenarios, like Russia launching first, or open war between the US and another nuclear power like Russia or China.

And it's really not that bad, people just think it's worse then it is.

I don't believe we ever said no to a first strike policy.

You literally have.
And so has every other properly established nuclear power (the original five).