Nuclear Weapons: Your Opinion

[San Lumen]

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.

Trump and Reagan are not in the same league.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I'd rather not set the world on fire.

[New Scario]

I think it should be a last vestige.

That said, they need to be drastically be reduced.

With regards to nuclear power, I'm all for it, we need more of it.

It's practically the only infinite energy source we have that is not expensive relatively to other sources.
In fact, my house is powered from a Nuclear Power Station a short ways from here.

[Tule]

Felt like adding to my previous comment that Nuclear weapons cannot be realistically eradicated (although that would be the ideal result).

I propose a minimum deterrence policy. Retain a highly survivable second-strike force with a high likelihood of penetrating air defences, numbering in the dozens to few hundreds, with a low yield aimed at infrastructure, conventional military and economic targets. They need not have a large yield considering the high accuracy of modern missile systems, perhaps only a few kilotons.

[Shofercia]

Are Nuclear Weapons in your opinion, good or bad?

Nuclear Weapons, have brought up issues in the past, à la Tony Blair and in particular locations. I have mixed views about the topic. With them being a devastating, radiation-inducing weapon, that can leave large areas rendered uninhabitable for a long time, I oppose them. However, I feel it is necessary for nations to own these, as deterrents from others using it (MAD/Mutual Assured Destruction), thus making a Nuclear Attack less likely in theory.


What are your thoughts NSG?

Nukes are generally a good thing because of MAD and the relative peace that it brings. However, having too many nukes can be detrimental to one's economy, so it's about finding the balance. That said, nuclear R&D must continue.

[Neuwland]

Justified at times.

[Risottia]

Terrible. They're imprecise weapons of mass destruction. There's no point to them except to make war bloodier.

Well, dunno, a thermonuclear warhead could be easily used to destroy a carrier group. That use would be perfectly fine in wartime.

[Imperializt Russia]

Terrible. They're imprecise weapons of mass destruction. There's no point to them except to make war bloodier.

Imprecise hasn't been a particularly accurate (rimshot) descriptor of nuclear devices for about twenty, potentially forty years.

[Greece1917]

If we want to protect our social system from imperialist aggression we must have them.

[Paddy O Fernature]

I for one, welcome all the scientific expansion that has come from the splitting of atoms, past, present, and future.

[Grand Proletaria]

If we want to protect our social system from imperialist aggression we must have them.

Yes.

[The Equal Peoples State of Steelia]

I'd rather not set the world on fire.

My god how I love that song!

[Imperializt Russia]

I for one, welcome all the scientific expansion that has come from the splitting of atoms, past, present, and future.

I'm relatively certain that very little science or technology for civil purposes of fission has come from the use of weapons themselves.

[Hashirajima]

I think, given the stockpiles present and the tensions between the nuclear powers of today, we are WAY beyond "there shouldn't be any nukes". We're at a balance here, with those actually possessing nuclear arms not daring to use said weapons in fear of retaliation from other nukes.

Ideal? No. But we're kinda stuck. At this point, the only way towards true nuclear disarmament would have to be proportionate, and no nuke-possessing country would agree to that. It's thus more practical and MUCH more important to simply ensure the nukes aren't used. And that's where diplomacy comes in.

[The Indo-Malaysian Consulate]

I for one, welcome all the scientific expansion that has come from the splitting of atoms, past, present, and future.

Theres a difference between splitting them in a laboratory and doing it in bulk in your neighbours clay

[Nachocuntree]

Neither inherently.

[Southerly Gentleman]

I for one, welcome all the scientific expansion that has come from the splitting of atoms, past, present, and future.

Theres a difference between splitting them in a laboratory and doing it in bulk in your neighbours clay

The practical experience from the latter is indispensable

[Dooom35796821595]

I for one, welcome all the scientific expansion that has come from the splitting of atoms, past, present, and future.

I'm relatively certain that very little science or technology for civil purposes of fission has come from the use of weapons themselves.

Well, there's always the potentual for civilian excavation grade nukes, or nuclear propulsion. The problem with that is that if one of them get stolen...

[Jefferson and Madison]

Trump's position on this issue is a load of hogwash.

He's no small government conservative. He seems to want to dump millions of dollars into strengthening our nuke systems even though they don't need to be rebuffed. I want to keep that money here and lower taxes while we're at it.

[Frisbeeteria]

Theres a difference between splitting them in a laboratory and doing it in bulk in your neighbours clay

The practical experience from the latter is indispensable

Except you lose that knowledge when you get 10 times as many launched back.

[Major-Tom]

Mutually assured destruction is fine and dandy until someone with delusions enters power somewhere with nuclear weapons. Alternately, it seems fine and dandy until grave mistakes are made.

[Democratic East-Asia]

Kek. If I were some crazy dictator, "nuke the fuckers" would be a pretty common thing of mine.