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

[Thermodolia]

No. That's a terrible idea

whaaaat. it sounds good to me man. like theres no downside.

Only the state, aka the government, is allowed to have a military

[V4pe Nation]

Should they exist?
No, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have. A cursory glance will explain how un-ideal our world is and always has been.

Nuclear weapons are very much the world's Pandora's Box - what comes out can't be stuffed back in. I don't think full disarmament will ever be possible in my lifetime.

yeah so like why not let everyone have them the box is opened man, why does the state get a monopoly on nukes.

[V4pe Nation]

whaaaat. it sounds good to me man. like theres no downside.

Only the state, aka the government, is allowed to have a military

whattt whys the state get a monopoly on military power man. that ain't right. thats fascist.

[Willania Imperium]

Should they exist?
No, in an ideal world, we wouldn't have. A cursory glance will explain how un-ideal our world is and always has been.

Nuclear weapons are very much the world's Pandora's Box - what comes out can't be stuffed back in. I don't think full disarmament will ever be possible in my lifetime.

yeah so like why not let everyone have them the box is opened man, why does the state get a monopoly on nukes.

If anyone is allowed the ability to own nukes, sooner or later one crazy psycho will use it and cause damages that are worth millions in dollars. We can't trust the common man with an uncommon tool.

[Imperializt Russia]

As lovely as it would be to live in a world free of nuclear and biological weapons, it just isn't going to happen any time soon. I do however, support the use of certain chemical weapons. I draw the line at napalm though.

I disagree. I believe that we should be able to use any weapon at our disposal

The willingness of the US military to seemingly agree with international restrictions on certain types of weapons was much less about the whole "international law" thing but rather the fact that in many areas, these weapons were superfluous to requirements or superseded by other weapon systems and no longer necessary.

This was true of cluster weapons, landmines, several uses of incendiary devices and also chemical or biological battlefield agents.

[Sovaal]

whaaaat. it sounds good to me man. like theres no downside.

Only the state, aka the government, is allowed to have a military

*Should be allowed.

[Imperializt Russia]

yeah so like why not let everyone have them the box is opened man, why does the state get a monopoly on nukes.

If anyone is allowed the ability to own nukes, sooner or later one crazy psycho will use it and cause damages that are worth millions in dollars. We can't trust the common man with an uncommon tool.

Why on earth are you taking the poster seriously.

[Thermodolia]

Only the state, aka the government, is allowed to have a military

whattt whys the state get a monopoly on military power man. that ain't right. thats fascist.

It's not fascist.

[Thermodolia]

Only the state, aka the government, is allowed to have a military

*Should be allowed.

Yes I thought that was understood

[Thermodolia]

I disagree. I believe that we should be able to use any weapon at our disposal

The willingness of the US military to seemingly agree with international restrictions on certain types of weapons was much less about the whole "international law" thing but rather the fact that in many areas, these weapons were superfluous to requirements or superseded by other weapon systems and no longer necessary.

This was true of cluster weapons, landmines, several uses of incendiary devices and also chemical or biological battlefield agents.

I have no problem with getting rid of useless weapons

[Sovaal]

*Should be allowed.

Yes I thought that was understood

The way you have it worded makes it sound like that governments are the only organizations with military forces.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

The willingness of the US military to seemingly agree with international restrictions on certain types of weapons was much less about the whole "international law" thing but rather the fact that in many areas, these weapons were superfluous to requirements or superseded by other weapon systems and no longer necessary.

This was true of cluster weapons, landmines, several uses of incendiary devices and also chemical or biological battlefield agents.

I have no problem with getting rid of useless weapons

I don't think you properly understand the nature of gas weaponry. It's easy for someone who has never witnessed their horror to say that we need to use gas weapons. I'd ask you to read up on a few WW1 memoirs before committing to this idea.

[Cedoria]

No. A thousand times no. Would prefer it if they didn't exist at all. Now they do it's likely we can't get rid of them, but we should remove as many as possible and attempt to control and deter their spread and use (including developing controls on who and when they could be used, rather then just having the executive branch decide randomly when to use them. Their should be legislative branch involvement to protect against the possibility of some random nut with supreme power and no brain from launching them.

Of course I'd prefer we abolish these weapons so whackos didn't have apocalyptic power, but the genie is out and probably can't be put in again, so we should at least try to trap him in a room and not let him out (metaphorically speaking)

[Washington Resistance Army]

WMD's aren't very cool. Shame we can't get rid of them entirely.

[Sovaal]

WMD's aren't very cool. Shame we can't get rid of them entirely.

Even more of a shame their in the hands of the Lizerds.

/s

[Thermodolia]

I have no problem with getting rid of useless weapons

I don't think you properly understand the nature of gas weaponry. It's easy for someone who has never witnessed their horror to say that we need to use gas weapons. I'd ask you to read up on a few WW1 memoirs before committing to this idea.

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

[Washington Resistance Army]

I don't think you properly understand the nature of gas weaponry. It's easy for someone who has never witnessed their horror to say that we need to use gas weapons. I'd ask you to read up on a few WW1 memoirs before committing to this idea.

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

Literally nothing good can come from such things.

[Thermodolia]

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

Literally nothing good can come from such things.

Nobody wants to go to war with a nation that's not afraid to use them.

[Sovaal]

I don't think you properly understand the nature of gas weaponry. It's easy for someone who has never witnessed their horror to say that we need to use gas weapons. I'd ask you to read up on a few WW1 memoirs before committing to this idea.

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

Weaponized Ebola here we come.

*Metro Last Light Flashbacks*

[Greater Cesnica]

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

Weaponized Ebola here we come.

*Metro Last Light Flashbacks*

Comedy Gold.

Also, it appears as if this thread will last for a long time.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I don't think you properly understand the nature of gas weaponry. It's easy for someone who has never witnessed their horror to say that we need to use gas weapons. I'd ask you to read up on a few WW1 memoirs before committing to this idea.

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

For what purpose? Gas weapons have been shown to be ineffective, and they cause enormous suffering not at all proportional with any military objective. And biological weapons are just as likely to kill your own people.

[Sovaal]

Literally nothing good can come from such things.

Nobody wants to go to war with a nation that's not afraid to use them.

Until a nation on equal footing starts a war.

[Thermodolia]

I know what happened in WWI and how bad it was. I still support biological and chemical weapons

Weaponized Ebola here we come.

*Metro Last Light Flashbacks*

Ebola can't be weaponized.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Literally nothing good can come from such things.

Nobody wants to go to war with a nation that's not afraid to use them.

Nukes are more than sufficient for that. Chemical and biological (especially this one given the potential for things to quickly go wrong with them) stockpiles should be entirely done away with.

[Kadur]

I'd prefer that they do not exist, but since they do and are likely not going away, it's probably best that they be kept as a deterrent. If any nation chooses to dismantle their WMDs and nobody else does, they'd be at risk of attack.