First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply Nuclear warfare
41699 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15
I've yet to see a thread like this, so I'm making one.

Man has been constructing weapons to destroy itself as long as we can remember, however, in the last 100 years innovations have come about in the form of everything from tanks, to bombs. Among the severest of these weapons is the nuclear bomb, which has been used only twice in warfare. However… that being said, many, many countries have developed nukes today and kept them stored in case nuclear attack becomes imminent.

The question is, how probable is it that man will eventually succumb to his urges to use nuclear weapons, and how long do you think it will be before the start of an actual nuclear war, or before another bomb is used? God knows we've managed to abstain from using them since the Hiroshima and Nagasaki disasters aside from testing, but do you think that it's probable that nuclear warfare will happen in the next 100 or so years, will man inevitably use his weapons to destroy a portion of the population, or do you think we'll stick to traditional warfare if any major ones break out between the west and another country in the next few years? Not to sound all conspiracy theorist and crap but I'm veeeery interested in hearing people's opinions here!

Discuss.
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15
Mutually assured destruction:

We either all die or all live.

Edit: Also, NK's "Weapons" are about as powerful as a Nerf gun.
7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15
It is entirely possible we will see a nuclear weapon used within out lifetime, either by North Korea or a terrorist state.

Neither is as terrifying as the thought of genetically modified biological agents. A rogue state would have only a limited strike capability, a biological agent could be trivially dispersed across half the planet before we realized there was an attack.
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
Nuclear weapons have saved billions of lives. No rational actor or state would dare use them this makes diplomacy far more likely to triumph over warfare. As was mentioned a terrorist or rogue state may use them but it would likely be small scale lets hope it never happens though.
33051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Texas
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
I like to believe that every country knows that engaging in nuclear warfare would be an extremely bad idea considering it can potentially hurt the entire world not just the countries we aim them at. Then again the world has dumb politicians so well... anything is possible.
18050 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
U.S.
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
They gotta shoot stuff in close proximity. If they're firing from North Korea to Us, we could shut down the missile in midair.

7420 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15

onibrotonel wrote:

They gotta shoot stuff in close proximity. If they're firing from North Korea to Us, we could shut down the missile in midair.



I would see North Korea as more likely to hit South Korea/Japan. They don't have the missile technology to target the US.

Terror organizations are more likely to deliver a bomb by ground, resulting in a much smaller blast footprint, but producing large quantities of dust.

17191 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15
If it's used once it can be used again, especially looking at how easy America made the decision to bomb Japan. It's terrible, not only does it kill, it causes horrific biological effects and it changes the land for the worst. It shouldn't ever be used.
9102 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
just. cry
14777 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15


I'll be brutally honest: You weren't ALIVE to have seen the Reagan 80's when that was all we ever talked about.
(Oh lord, how many times did some anti-Reagan hipster think he was clever by showing the old 50's "Duck & Cover" short, to suggest that the Reagan 80's were mirroring the naive Eisenhower 50's, when we had the cloud hovering over our heads back then, too? I could recite it from memory by this point.)
If you liked Mad Max: Fury Road, just imagine what kind of buttons the Road Warrior and Thunderdome pushed in '82 and '85.

We sort of got it all out of our system back then, and the Wall coming down and Clinton being elected just sort of finished it off.


AiYumega wrote:
Also, NK's "Weapons" are about as powerful as a Nerf gun.


Six troop carriers.....Photoshopped?

I'm that much more terrified of NK's nuclear capability. Gee, Kim, why don'tcha threaten us with your musket rifles, while you're at it?
2345 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
Humans are getting away from nukes these days, it's all about the cyber warfare, unmanned drones, etc, on the hand what we really have to worry about is the amount of nuclear waste, nuclear power plants and the likes still around. We're just asking for another Chernobyl to happen.
6250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
WW2 aside a nuclear weapon has never been used in anger and now with thermo-nuclear weapons the energy released is immensely more powerful. I think MAD has something to do with it, it is a pointless exercise but maybe no one really wants to unleash such a weapon. It is a strange one, countries have invested millions in nuclear technology. Britain had the V-Force before Polaris and neither have been used over their lives, millions on man hours and money to develop and maintain them. They have to be seen to be a threat but not used.

The non-proliferation treaty seems to work and certain countries have given up on their nuclear programme such as South Africa. I think in total there are estimated to be 16,000 nuclear warheads on this planet, 95/96% are owned by America and Russia. If nuclear war was to go ahead it wouldn't take much to workout which countries would be involved.

Personally in this age I think it's a silly idea, trillions of dollars are spent maintaining and operating these archaic devices. People in 1st world countries still go hungry and homeless and with little education, social attitudes are shifting and it no longer makes sense to spend money on such things. If you use it in anger it is likely to be reciprocated so what's the point? I don't think we will ever see one used personally, the age has passed and warfare moves on to the next big idea like everything else.
32306 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / St.Louis - USA
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
I want Fallout in real life
41699 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 9/16/15 , edited 9/16/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

If it's used once it can be used again, especially looking at how easy America made the decision to bomb Japan. It's terrible, not only does it kill, it causes horrific biological effects and it changes the land for the worst. It shouldn't ever be used.


Personally I'd go so far back as to say inventing it was a poor idea, but the same could be said of a lot of war inventions.
Except a nuclear bomb has even more devastating effects than most commonly used war weapons.

Man maketh the weapon that can kill a chunk of the human race, I guess. Because he could.
And war.

Obviously the government wouldn't KEEP them in artillery if they weren't planning to use them for something.
7253 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / "10/10" - IGN
Offline
Posted 9/16/15
No country with any stakes on the earth is going to fire a nuclear weapon first. That being said, you're looking at fanatical extremists to fire nuclear weapons first. If a terrorist organization does so, then it is likely no nuclear weapons will be fired back because terrorist groups usually avoid have announced geographical locations. If North Korea fires a single nuclear weapon with a harmful effect on the U.S. or its allies. then they will be met with merciless force, most likely the obliteration of their entire country. That is why nuclear war is so taboo; nobody wins if the entire world is irradiated and dead.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.