Should WMD's exist, and do you support them?

[Greater Cesnica]

Though I agree. I cant think of a single country (Aside from the Gay Islands near Australia) I would trust with a giant space cannon

I do, the USA.

We can't trust our own politicians, never mind having a fucking space cannon.

[Telconi]

Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

With your freeboard?


Anyhow, on OP's topic. I support the use of Nuclear and Chemical weapons. I believe that they serve an important role in international relations. I would personally like to see atomic weapons become more widespread, Iran, for instance, I think would benefit from an atomic arsenal. The simple matter of fact is I believe at a certain level the adage "An armed society is a polite society" and at an international scale, arms less than functional ICBMS are largely irrelevant. If each nation was armed with an atomic arsenal, we could spend more time actually solving differences, than engaging in asymmetric wars over stupid issues.

[Lexmark]

This is actually a pretty controversial topic, considering the very real possibility that nuclear weapons have killed a couple hundred thousand people, but simultaneously saved more lives than they have taken. As a deterrent to prevent a large-scale war ala the First and Second World Wars, they're invaluable. But actually using them strategically or tactically is utter madness.

[Greater Cesnica]

This is actually a pretty controversial topic, considering the very real possibility that nuclear weapons have killed a couple hundred thousand people, but simultaneously saved more lives than they have taken. As a deterrent to prevent a large-scale war ala the First and Second World Wars, they're invaluable. But actually using them strategically or tactically is utter madness.

A good point. I'm not gonna put the (Trigger/Sensitivity Warning) tag on this one though like I did with This hilarious meme.

[Japan and Pacific States]

Of course WMDs should exist and of course I support them. In war sometimes there's just not enough time to either shoot the guy who's trying to kill you, and there's also certainly not enough time to give them a good strangling, therefore a nuclear bomb dropped from 50,000 feet in the air is perfectly acceptable. By the way I'm not trolling, flamebaiting or anything of the sort. Those are my beliefs so do with that as you see fit.

[Greater Cesnica]

Of course WMDs should exist and of course I support them. In war sometimes there's just not enough time to either shoot the guy who's trying to kill you, and there's also certainly not enough time to give them a good strangling, therefore a nuclear bomb dropped from 50,000 feet in the air is perfectly acceptable.

Are the guys who are trying to kill you usually civilians? Or military forces?

[Vaquas]

WMD's should exist primarily as a deterrent, and disarmament is a very bad idea.

MAD is the only thing stopping massive loss of life through conventional means all over the place.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Absolutely should WMDs exist - since the advent of nuclear weapons and ICBMs as effectively-infallible means of delivering them on short notice, no major wars have broken out. The fear of mutually assured destruction is what has kept the civilized world in relative peace and stability since WWII, ensuring that another World war will never repeat.

A good example is the current political situation in Eastern Europe - the mere possibility of escalating things to a nuclear holocaust is the only thing keeping Russia from steamrolling the region, conventional NATO military presence alone being vastly inadequate for the task.

[Japan and Pacific States]

Of course WMDs should exist and of course I support them. In war sometimes there's just not enough time to either shoot the guy who's trying to kill you, and there's also certainly not enough time to give them a good strangling, therefore a nuclear bomb dropped from 50,000 feet in the air is perfectly acceptable.

Are the guys who are trying to kill you usually civilians? Or military forces?

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

[Yes Im Biop]

Are the guys who are trying to kill you usually civilians? Or military forces?

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

Are you a politician? Cause you just word stewed all over and i feel a bit violated

[Greater Cesnica]

Absolutely should WMDs exist - since the advent of nuclear weapons and ICBMs as effectively-infallible means of delivering them on short notice, no major wars have broken out. The fear of mutually assured destruction is what has kept the civilized world in relative peace and stability since WWII, ensuring that another World war will never repeat.

A good example is the current political situation in Eastern Europe - the mere possibility of escalating things to a nuclear holocaust is the only thing keeping Russia from steamrolling the region, conventional NATO military presence alone being vastly inadequate for the task.

I personally have to disagree on the 'WWIII won't happen' part, but besides that, everything you said holds true.

[The of Japan]

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

Are you a politician? Cause you just word stewed all over and i feel a bit violated

militias are not civilians basically

[Greater Cesnica]

Are the guys who are trying to kill you usually civilians? Or military forces?

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

By this correct explanation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified. They should have just covered the South-West Pacific with nukes to destroy the entire naval fleet, destroying Japan's defenses.

[Japan and Pacific States]

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

Are you a politician? Cause you just word stewed all over and i feel a bit violated

Ironically no I'm not, but I have been told I'm a pretty good liar so I suppose I might give it a shot in the future.

[Japan and Pacific States]

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

By this correct explanation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified. They should have just covered the South-West Pacific with nukes to destroy the entire naval fleet, destroying Japan's defenses.

There's one problem with that. By the end of WWII around the time of 1944-45 the Imperial Japanese Navy was already in shambles, the last ships they had were mostly all out of commission except for maybe a couple heavy cruisers, and fewer destroyers. Nagasaki and Hiroshima were vital to Japan's war effort and supposedly had high concentrations of Japanese troops. While I do agree the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were for the most part unjustified, the point on whether it was or wasn't is arguable in it'self. It was a real life scenario of "The greater of two evils" On one hand, two atomic bombs ended the war but as a result thousands of Japanese military personnel and civilians died. But it brought about a more speedy end to the second world war, where as if the bombs weren't dropped then the US would have had to go ahead with it's invasion of Japan which would have probably caused more loss of life than either of the atomic bombings both for the US and Japan.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Absolutely should WMDs exist - since the advent of nuclear weapons and ICBMs as effectively-infallible means of delivering them on short notice, no major wars have broken out. The fear of mutually assured destruction is what has kept the civilized world in relative peace and stability since WWII, ensuring that another World war will never repeat.

A good example is the current political situation in Eastern Europe - the mere possibility of escalating things to a nuclear holocaust is the only thing keeping Russia from steamrolling the region, conventional NATO military presence alone being vastly inadequate for the task.

I personally have to disagree on the 'WWIII won't happen' part, but besides that, everything you said holds true.

Well, I certainly don't think it will happen until at least two potentially-involved sides have devised and fielded a reliable means of neutralizing ballistic missiles.

Although NATO and it's counterparts have developed various forms of anti-ballistic defenses for quite some time now, their effectiveness has never been proven beyond controlled tests against individual or a small number of targets, and the military strategists on all sides are understandably not keen on finding out if they would hold up to an actual attack. Which, given what is publicly-known about these systems, seems dubious at best - the capability to intercept individual missiles (such as those potentially fired by rogue states) by no means amounts to an effective defense against a full-scale attack, especially in a scenario between nations with a second-strike capability after the first exchange would almost certainly leave most anti-ballistic defenses inoperable.

So to render the nuclear deterrent obsolete, someone would have to field a principally-new weapons system so effective that it could either reliably intercept large numbers of missiles fired from anywhere on the world, or destroy their launch platforms before a retaliatory strike could be launched. Which I don't see happening anytime soon.

---

Of course, there is also the possibility of a limited war, involved sides tacitly agreeing not to escalate the conflict beyond conventional or limited tactical nuclear arms. However, given the sheer temptation to flout rules under wartime pressure, I find such an agreement unlikely once the fighting starts, something that strategists will evidently have considered. Besides, proxy wars serve the same end of resolving disputes between major players much better, sparing the involved powers the destruction and casualties that an open war would entail.

[Thermodolia]

I do, the USA.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We cant ever keep our bridges from falling, a space cannon? No thanks

We do a pretty good job of keeping our weapons of of war.

[Yes Im Biop]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. We cant ever keep our bridges from falling, a space cannon? No thanks

We do a pretty good job of keeping our weapons of of war.

Sorry But Nope

[Southeastern Xiatao]

I think we should get rid of nuclear weapons of mass destruction, seriously all they will be used for it to kill many innocent people in war and also cause extreme damage to the environment and also can lead us to extinction by nuclear winter and global radiation.

Sure bear in mind I do think that even if nukes never were invented then their would be some other different WMD (not to mention in the future we could fucking have Rods of God which are satellites made to shoot lasers down to Earth to wipe out any entire city). To be fair WMD should be something that has to be banned even during war. I get the fact that war will always be around no matter what, but we have got to a point now in history that majority of world realizes that there are certains things that shouldn't be taken to the extreme. And that is WMD, literally they will only make wars go worse if ever are used.

Coming back to nuclear weapons, is that the more of them are made by countries is that other countries will decide to do the same as well and make their own, having many still sitting around in silos just in case is unsettling because we know the only use for them is only destruction and mass murder, advancement of technology can also lead to more extreme and more powerful nukes (Tsar Bomba is by far the most disturbing and massive mushroom to be made by a nuclear weapon), and with the advancement of technology in modern day is that a group of hackers, terrorists, or a computer malfunction or cyber-attack can very result in nukes being used as well. Imagine if ISIS managed to get their hands on a nuke or a hacking organization?

Literally nuclear weapons (and other WMD's) as long as they are around they will only cause paranoia and fear.

After all when the first atomic bomb was tested during World War II the creator and scientist behind it said the most famous quote.

"Now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds."

"We're all sons of bitches now."

The creator and scientist of the first atomic bomb testing did not realize how powerful it would be in fact many had believed that it would fail and just explode like a tiny dud. And the fact we just made nukes even more advanced makes it more horrifying.

[Southeastern Xiatao]

By the rules of modern warfare as I've read, if the civilians are indeed armed and shooting at you then they're technically not civilians but unofficial military forces. Therefore they'd be free fire targets. Otherwise if they're not armed then I'd suppose that answer is already given. But encase if it's not then no. As previously stated if armed then they are technically military forces so I've already answered this question.

By this correct explanation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified. They should have just covered the South-West Pacific with nukes to destroy the entire naval fleet, destroying Japan's defenses.

Nuking a navy fleet would also spread radiation into the sea and spread across the oceans by the currents which would kill plenty of fish and kill many people who eat them. Plus if the atomic bomb wasn't dropped on Japan then the alternative would be where the US and the Allies would launch an invasion into Japan which would mean that World War II would of lasted bit longer perhaps end in either 1946 or 1948.

[Yes Im Biop]

By this correct explanation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified. They should have just covered the South-West Pacific with nukes to destroy the entire naval fleet, destroying Japan's defenses.

Nuking a navy fleet would also spread radiation into the sea and spread across the oceans by the currents which would kill plenty of fish and kill many people who eat them. Plus if the atomic bomb wasn't dropped on Japan then the alternative would be where the US and the Allies would launch an invasion into Japan which would mean that World War II would of lasted bit longer perhaps end in either 1946 or 1948.

We nuked the sea anyway though

[Purpelia]

By this correct explanation, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unjustified. They should have just covered the South-West Pacific with nukes to destroy the entire naval fleet, destroying Japan's defenses.

Nuking a navy fleet would also spread radiation into the sea and spread across the oceans by the currents which would kill plenty of fish and kill many people who eat them. Plus if the atomic bomb wasn't dropped on Japan then the alternative would be where the US and the Allies would launch an invasion into Japan which would mean that World War II would of lasted bit longer perhaps end in either 1946 or 1948.

Fun fact. If the planed landing on Japan had taken place the plan called for atomic and chemical weapons to be used to provide direct fire support for the troops. As in, they'd drop the atom bombs a day early and gas the next day and land in protective gear.

So yea. NOT FUN.

[The East Marches II]

Yes they should, they have kept the peace well enough. That being said, only my country should ever have them.

[Polar Svalbard]

No matter what this question is irrelevant. They exist, whether we like them or not doesn't matter. Personally I don't like the thought of nukes, but I can do nothing about them. Once one country has nukes all must get them to be safe, it's MAD. Once had we can't get rid of them though. I would not support any use of WMD's in today's world where wars are no longer conventional it would appear.

[Dooom35796821595]

Yes they should, they have kept the peace well enough. That being said, only my country should ever have them.

They've stoped a global war because several powers have them, if just one nation owned them it wouldn't work.