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

by **Greater Cesnica** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:55 am

I am writing this post because of recent tensions around the world, and the possibility of warfare involving these sorts of weapons. Take into account the chemical attacks that have occurred in the Middle East over the last decade, and of greater tensions between two nuclear superpowers, Russia and the United States. This is my question: Should Weapons of Mass Destruction exist, and are you for or against the use of them?

Personally, I believe that they should they should exist, but only as a deterrent.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:01 am

No and No, time and time again people have been proven to stupid to be trusted with weapons of any kinds, let alone doomsday weapons

by **Internationalist Bastard** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:02 am

Well, edit to give your opinion or this'll get locked. That said, I hate WMDs, both as the idea of a weapon that can kill widely and indiscriminately, and through the concept that MAD is one of the few things keeping the peace

by **The Krogan** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:07 am

I find that the chance of the world being destroyed in nuclear fire at any second keeps things interesting, kinda makes a person live every day like it could be their last.

by **Gloriana Americana** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:09 am

Haven't you ever played Halo, OP? Of course we need nukes, how else can we hope to stand a chance against aliens without super soldiers?

by **Sovaal** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:10 am

Gloriana Americana wrote:Haven't you ever played Halo, OP? Of course we need nukes, how else can we hope to stand a chance against aliens without super soldiers?

Railguns boi

by **USS Monitor** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:10 am

Nukes are great as a deterrent to force people to talk out their problems or at least limit their fighting to small-scale proxy wars rather than WW3. I don't support actually using them if it's at all avoidable.

Chemical and biological weapons are less helpful.

Also, I disagree with classifying chemical weapons as WMD rather than conventional weapons. All it does is make people flip their shit about chemical attacks, even when the attack does not do any more damage than a bombing raid. It's mostly used as a way for 1st world countries that use bombing raids on a regular basis to claim moral superiority over people that don't have the resources to maintain a modern air force.

by **USS Monitor** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:12 am

Sovaal wrote:
Gloriana Americana wrote:Haven't you ever played Halo, OP? Of course we need nukes, how else can we hope to stand a chance against aliens without super soldiers?

Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

by **The Krogan** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:13 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

*builds a rail..... puts a gun on it*

voila!

by **Community Values** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:13 am

Yes and no. Dying in nuclear fire isn't a fun thing, but the sheer risk of mutually assured destruction has prevented a major war from breaking out since WW2.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:14 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

Your an ironclad, You would fire yourself

Further, Orbital railguns would be really bad for on planet relationships, who would go against someone who can drop tungsten dildos anywhere in the world

by **Dooom35796821595** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:14 am

Sovaal wrote:
Gloriana Americana wrote:Haven't you ever played Halo, OP? Of course we need nukes, how else can we hope to stand a chance against aliens without super soldiers?

Railguns boi

Do you know how fast you need to throw a rock to get near nuclear yield? A fraction of c. Can't be done yet.

by **Ethel mermania** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:15 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

You are going to need bigger boilers.

by **Sovaal** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:16 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Railguns boi

Do you know how fast you need to throw a rock to get near nuclear yield? A fraction of c. Can't be done yet.

We're talking about HALO< where they have fucking skyscraper sized Railguns that launch projectiles at a considerable fraction of the speed of light.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:16 am

Sovaal wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Do you know how fast you need to throw a rock to get near nuclear yield? A fraction of c. Can't be done yet.

We're talking about HALO< where they have fucking skyscraper sized Railguns that launch projectiles at a considerable fraction of the speed of light.

*raises hand* It's like 1%, they just use thousand tonne rounds

by **Sovaal** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:17 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

You'll have to re-enlist and convince them to give you the upgrades.

by **Sovaal** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:18 am

Yes Im Biop wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
I want to be equipped with railguns.

Your an ironclad, You would fire yourself

Further, Orbital railguns would be really bad for on planet relationships, who would go against someone who can drop tungsten dildos anywhere in the world

Now I'm imagining a COD Ghost scenario nut where the rods from god are just dildos.

And it still would've been a better game.

by **Dooom35796821595** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:20 am

Sovaal wrote:
Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Do you know how fast you need to throw a rock to get near nuclear yield? A fraction of c. Can't be done yet.

We're talking about HALO< where they have fucking skyscraper sized Railguns that launch projectiles at a considerable fraction of the speed of light.

It's also set 500 years in the future.

by **Sovaal** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:21 am

Dooom35796821595 wrote:
Sovaal wrote:We're talking about HALO< where they have fucking skyscraper sized Railguns that launch projectiles at a considerable fraction of the speed of light.

It's also set 500 years in the future.

And?

by **Thermodolia** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:14 am

Yes Im Biop wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
I want to be equipped with railguns.

Your an ironclad, You would fire yourself

Further, Orbital railguns would be really bad for on planet relationships, who would go against someone who can drop tungsten dildos anywhere in the world

Which is exactly why we need them. Let's get that on world government started

by **Yes Im Biop** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:18 am

Thermodolia wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
Your an ironclad, You would fire yourself

Further, Orbital railguns would be really bad for on planet relationships, who would go against someone who can drop tungsten dildos anywhere in the world

Which is exactly why we need them. Let's get that on world government started

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

by **Greater Cesnica** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:19 am

USS Monitor wrote:
Sovaal wrote:Railguns boi

I want to be equipped with railguns.

What about railguns that fire nukes?

by **Greater Cesnica** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:20 am

Ethel mermania wrote:
USS Monitor wrote:
I want to be equipped with railguns.

You are going to need bigger boilers.

And some plutonium to power that shit.

by **Thermodolia** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:22 am

Yes Im Biop wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Which is exactly why we need them. Let's get that on world government started

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.

by **Yes Im Biop** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:22 am

Thermodolia wrote:
Yes Im Biop wrote:
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.

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

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

Should Weapons of Mass Destruction exist, and are you for or against the use of them?

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

Who is online