Alright, in the "Who would win in a war USA or Canada?" thread, there was continuous discussion of America using nuclear weapons. Are there really people here who believe that the world will ever allow any country to use nuclear weapons again?
If nations with nuclear weapons aren't going to allowing other nations to create them, yet are allowed to use their own. Then they are essentaily putting themselves in a permanent position of power and holding back the advancement of smaller lesser developed nations into their ranks, which should not be done. And if other nations aren't allowed to make nuclear weapons and hold them, not even to defend themselves. Then why should the nations with them be allowed to use them?
It seems to me as though the countries with nuclear weapons have no right to use them if they aren't going to allow other countries to make them. *coughnorthkoreacough*
And how could anyone believe that the world would allow any country to use a weapon that makes land inhabitable and barren, especially after seeing what happened in hiroshima and nagasaka! And especially on Canada a resource rich county of clean water and air...but that's not for this topic...
Actually it's not the main explosion itself that would absolutely devastate the earth, sure the explosion will do damage, but do you know how much radiation one nuke gives out?
if you give a dev nation nukes then there'd be a higher chance of them using it against a larger in order to make it seem more powerful + increased tension
Well in Hiroshima most of the population died not form the blast but from the radiation yes.
That's a fission device. Much weaker and much more radiation. And it was detonated a mere 200 feet off the ground. Because teh planes needed to fly REALLY low to avoid detection and subsequent misplacing in enemy territory a nuke. Which is bad.
It completely destroyed a whole generation.
Not quite but it did kill quite a lot.
The firebombing of Tokyo killed a generation though >>.>>
Not very much when detonating a thermo nuke at 2 miles above surface level. It gets dispersed harmlessly.
Tell that to the Japanese. To this day, an estimated 3,000 Japanese people die every year from radiation related causes from the nuclear weapons used in 1945.
Well they say that the World Lost A Generation. I dont think anyone nation should have enough power to wipe out evrything when it feels like it. If anyone ever had that kind of power they would mostlikely be destroyed by everyone else.Still I would hope that no one ever got that kind of power anyway. We dont need to have another World War on our hands again.
They should have never been used in the first place. (US used in this example). How is it a sensible idea to wipe out an entire city just to kill some people we did not like? What makes the lives of our innocents more important than the lives of their innocents? Nuclear weapons destroy many more innocents than enemies, but we used them anyway. I don't understand people who support war and try to justify the slaughtering of others, it disgusts me. Sorry if I went a little off topic, but it truly makes me sick.
Alright, in the "Who would win in a war USA or Canada?" thread, there was continuous discussion of America using nuclear weapons.
These topics are about hypothetical, fictional wars. It really depends on the type of war. Is this just a small skirmish? Is the war over resources? Is it to wipe out a group of people? Is it genocide? It's all speculation.
Should the war be a small skirmish, or over resources, nukes would not be used. But lets say Canada, for some reason, was hell-bent on exterminating every American and taking the country over. Then nukes would be used. It's all hypothetical. Stop getting mad over it.
"wars" between the big power players aren't being fought openly these days. It's only upstart, backwater countries that have the nerve to actually brandish nuclear arms. The big players fight via economy, diplomacy, and subterfuge - bids for power that aren't easily traced back to them.
Or did you think the recession happened purely by accident?
War is not fair, ethical, nice, logical, and or economical. War is fought over who is right, and the person to the right of being "right" is the victor, and no one else. War is fought to kill or disable an opponent, to survive, hence the saying all's fair in love and war. Don't even bring up ethics about war, because in war, that's non-existent.
Alright, in the "Who would win in a war USA or Canada?" thread, there was continuous discussion of America using nuclear weapons. Are there really people here who believe that the world will ever allow any country to use nuclear weapons again?
I am one of them. Even if restrictions, agreements, limitations etc. are put in place, if necessary countries will use nuclear weaponry.
If nations with nuclear weapons aren't going to allowing other nations to create them, yet are allowed to use their own. Then they are essentaily putting themselves in a permanent position of power and holding back the advancement of smaller lesser developed nations into their ranks, which should not be done. And if other nations aren't allowed to make nuclear weapons and hold them, not even to defend themselves. Then why should the nations with them be allowed to use them?
It seems to me as though the countries with nuclear weapons have no right to use them if they aren't going to allow other countries to make them. *coughnorthkoreacough*
Well, what Ricador said is correct. If other countries made nukes (especially unstable countries) a lot of carnage could ensue.
And how could anyone believe that the world would allow any country to use a weapon that makes land inhabitable and barren, especially after seeing what happened in hiroshima and nagasaka! And especially on Canada a resource rich county of clean water and air...but that's not for this topic...
This is situational. If necessary, nukes would be used. Are you trying to imply the other thread?
