WMD

[Canis Lupus Arctos]

The ARCLA has full CBNR capabilities, which are in the purview of the Strategic Forces. CBNR release is at the discretion of the High Command.

[Takaram]

Takaram maintains full NBC capabilities, as well as a healthy supply of high powered conventional weapons.

[Fatatatutti]

Fatatatutti's position is that weapons of mass destruction are immoral when used strategically and of limited value when used tactically. We feel that possession/use of weapons of mass destruction is both cowardly and a waste of resources.

-- Mickey Chang

[Southern Yugoslavia]

Southern Yugoslavia holds capibilities for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

[United Europe1233]

All of them.

By selecting "other" we also announce we have special WMD's that are not made of either, but indeed so deadly they can destroy a continent

[Joyous Zeltros]

Why don't you have an option for 'none'?

[THAT PONY WITH AIDS]

The PRTPWA is currently testing nuclear warheads, and has developed a carbon copy of the one exploded at Nagaski.

[Ishema]

Why don't you have an option for 'none'?

Because you don't post if you have none.

[Fatatatutti]

Why don't you have an option for 'none'?

Because you don't post if you have none.

If only the warmongers post, people will get the wrong idea about NS. There are peaceful nations here. We will continue to spread the message of peace.

-- Mickey Chang

[Joyous Zeltros]

Why don't you have an option for 'none'?

Because you don't post if you have none.

Big difference between 'cannot have' and 'choose not to have'.
Those with reasons they don't have them have as much right to post as anybody else.



[Also, it provides some kind of break between the nations that A) shouldn't be able to have them yet but do, B) have Ubar-Speshul versions that can kill everything no matter what and did we mention they're unique and you can't stop them or duplicate them, or C) all of the above.]

[Ishema]

Why don't you have an option for 'none'?

Because you don't post if you have none.

Big difference between 'cannot have' and 'choose not to have'.
Those with reasons they don't have them have as much right to post as anybody else.



[Also, it provides some kind of break between the nations that A) shouldn't be able to have them yet but do, B) have Ubar-Speshul versions that can kill everything no matter what and did we mention they're unique and you can't stop them or duplicate them, or C) all of the above.]

Hey, if you want a thread about "Anti-WMD's" or "Peace for all", make one yourself. This thread is about people who DO have WMDs.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii, may the Cute One be praised.

The Prophet has forbidden the research, possession, or use of WMD. Our first attempts at harnessing that technology resulted in a catastrophe that cost the lives of millions of our citizens, and we have vowed never again to repeat that folly.

[Canis Lupus Arctos]

Due to input received I have edited the poll to allow for those nations that do not have WMD and comply with the archaic Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

[Canis Lupus Arctos]

Fatatatutti's position is that weapons of mass destruction are immoral when used strategically and of limited value when used tactically. We feel that possession/use of weapons of mass destruction is both cowardly and a waste of resources.

-- Mickey Chang

Military Economists have shown that WMD are the most cost effective weapons, in terms of resource allocation. Though the down side is that they are most assuredly not pinpoint accuracy weapons.

[Fatatatutti]

Military Economists have shown that WMD are the most cost effective weapons, in terms of resource allocation.

When I talk about a waste of resources, I'm not talking about the most efficient way to kill people.

-- Mickey Chang

[Grand France]

IC:

France maintains nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry in small quantities, and the ability to produce radiological weapons. Manufacture and possession of chemical and biological weapons was undertaken at an early period in French history, and no motions have been made in the Convention to destroy them.

- Dr. Jehan Dastous, Institute of Military History, University of New Tuscany

[Andy Joseph]

The Republic of Andy Joseph has access to chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons and has the technology to produce radiological weaponry.

[Libertarian Governance]

We publicly tested a fusion weapon and as for chemical and biological weapons lets just say our Arms Industry is extremely well developed.

[Padullahstan]

We are currently in the process of testing our very own biological weapons to use against Padullahstan's enemies.

[Soufrika]

Soufrika has developed at least one tactical nuclear weapon. The military also sometimes uses CR and GA (tabun) gas against Islamist guerrillas in the field, as the nation is not party to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

[Bunyippie]

while we are against using them, we are NBC capable, however it is in small quantites. However, are main WMD is Explosively pumped flux compression generator, which is a single use Flux compression bomb that generates an EMP from explosives. the Largest is the NFA, or Nuclear flux assisted. IT is a small nuclear warhead rigged with a flux compressor. It amplifies the natural EMP from the nuclear blast and results in a EMP that reaches to the moon and across an area the size of new zealand.

[Canis Lupus Arctos]

Military Economists have shown that WMD are the most cost effective weapons, in terms of resource allocation.

When I talk about a waste of resources, I'm not talking about the most efficient way to kill people.

-- Mickey Chang

READ the whole post, I also said the following :"Though the down side is that they are most assuredly not pinpoint accuracy weapons."
For example they are not a sniper rifle, IE i is real hard to neutralize a terrorist with a WMD.

WMD's were designed to kill a lot of people at once. A single nuclear weapon is a low cost weapon, in terms of resources expended in the production and delivery.

However I do not advocate their use, I follow the classic military in this regards, WMD's, any WMD, are by nature very very messy. And heres the thing, the military didnt come up with the idea of WMD's. And yes the militaries did come up with the playbooks for Nuclear War, but every member of every service of the nations that are nuclear capable spends time every night praying that they are never used. I feel the same and do the same myself.

[The Electron Cloud]

The Electron Cloud has capabilities for all the conventional Nuclear, Chemical, Biological, Radiological(same as nuclear), and conventional steel weapons.

[Fatatatutti]

WMD's were designed to kill a lot of people at once. A single nuclear weapon is a low cost weapon, in terms of resources expended in the production and delivery.

You're missing my point entirely. A nuclear weapon could be cost-effective only if it succeeded in achieving the objective of war. However, the objective of war is seldom to "kill a lot of people at once." That is the objective of genocide. The objective of war is more often to secure territory. Weapons of mass destruction tend to run counter to that objective since they are, as you say, messy. They not only fail to secure territory but they often make it worthless.

And weapons of mass destruction are doubly non-cost-effective because most nations are sensible enough not to use them, for the reasons outlined above if not for humanitarian reasons. A weapon in your pocket is no weapon at all, as we say in Fatatatutti.

The money would be better spent on virtually anything else.

-- Mickey Chang

[Bunyippie]

WMD's were designed to kill a lot of people at once. A single nuclear weapon is a low cost weapon, in terms of resources expended in the production and delivery.

You're missing my point entirely. A nuclear weapon could be cost-effective only if it succeeded in achieving the objective of war. However, the objective of war is seldom to "kill a lot of people at once." That is the objective of genocide. The objective of war is more often to secure territory. Weapons of mass destruction tend to run counter to that objective since they are, as you say, messy. They not only fail to secure territory but they often make it worthless.

And weapons of mass destruction are doubly non-cost-effective because most nations are sensible enough not to use them, for the reasons outlined above if not for humanitarian reasons. A weapon in your pocket is no weapon at all, as we say in Fatatatutti.

The money would be better spent on virtually anything else.

-- Mickey Chang

I beg to differ, two nuclear bombs ended world war 2, cutting the conflict short by 2 years and saving the 2 million american lives from the planned invasion. Also, Israel has a nuke, that is why a lot of middle easter countries are wary to attack them. Dissuasion and conflict avoidance pay for itself.