The idea of having a nuclear weapon as a deterrent i.e. other countries attacking with nuclear weapons (kinda like the UK and USA goverments said Iraq could use... twice, both with a damn bush in office) ...is the most backwards thing ever.
Lets say russia (sorry, too much MW2 and BF2) fires a nuclear weapon at america, so america "retaliates" with a nuke of its own. Its pretty obvious noone wins in this situation.
I also looked up the dictionary spelling of "DETERRENT" and happend to see this as one of the defenitions.
3.military strength or an ability to defend a country or retaliate strongly enough to deter an enemy from attacking.
so even the dictionary says to deter means not to get an ass whoopin cos your guns are bigger "to deter a country from attacking"
Would a country really retaliate with a nuke if fired upon and is it right to do so?
After all... noone wins and mostly innocent people die. Because some fool made decisions for us.
I think nukes should be abolished, and anyone who thinks otherwise is welkomm to try and make a point.
It would be maaany long years before all nukes, and I mean all nukes, are abolished. Because making Nukes isn't very hard. If you take one from someone, he can just make another, and another.
I'd like nukes to be abolished, it's just that abolishing them all is almost impossible.
abolishing them will only take them away from the level-headed countries too smart to actually use them.
I think its a stretch to call western countries level headed. If iran fired a nuke at us... would we fire one back? And if so, why? As if it would actually do any good.
The USA already has pretty good nuke defences - it's just that countries like NK and Iran will try to get past them if they don't fear retaliation.
How? Im struggling to understand how these countries would actually get past the defences. If they could they would also take out any chance of return fire, job done, so why has it not happened? Because they are not planning to do fire any nukes. They are scared that if war breaks out then america will once again use nukes as an excuse to "end" a war.
Ahmadenijad(however you spell his name) and Kim Jong-Il are definitely stupid enough.
No, they are crazy, hate us, I hate them, but they are NOT stupid.
You are quite right in some ways, I just dont see having nukes as a "deterrent" Why are we not in NK kikin their ass because of the apalling human rights record their goverment has?
It would be maaany long years before all nukes, and I mean all nukes, are abolished. Because making Nukes isn't very hard. If you take one from someone, he can just make another, and another.
Um... no. I like what you are trying to say but this is simply not the case. I get a feeling there will be alot of posts from youngsters or ignorant adults stating that nukes are EASY to make. When you have nuclear capabilities, someone notices. You cant hide it. Did saddam "hide" his WMD's?
Umm... actually nukes are EXTREMELY easy to make. It's just getting the proper material that is difficult. Refined uranium or plutonium don't just hang out at your local geologist's shop. But once you have the material you can make a nuke quite easily.
In principle perhaps. You need more than just uranium to make a nuke. You would need the proper enviroment along with the money to fund it all. If it was that easy some nut WOULD have blown up a city.
If it was that easy some nut WOULD have blown up a city.
Thankfully those with the desire to do so do not have access to the material required, but there have been several 'dirty' bombs which have been found, and thankfully confiscated, before they could be detonated.
Thankfully those with the desire to do so do not have access to the material required, but there have been several 'dirty' bombs which have been found, and thankfully confiscated, before they could be detonated.
I dont buy it dude. I have no doubt that a terrorist group could blow up almost any city if it were that easy to build one. Some of these guys are funded by goverments after all. Some of those goverments really dont like the western world... like Mr Ahjellybhad and Kim jong nutjob. Saying its a deterrent is an excuse.
What we really need is an alien race that actually wants us extinct.
What noone wants is an unihabitable world. Nukes should be abolished. Noone should have nukes. If the western world gets rid of nukes and mr jellybhad wants one, we say no. Sorry your nuclear power plants are not allowed on this earth because we (can easily) use renewable sources of energy so sorry jellyboy, no uranium for you. And if he disagrees punch him in the face with a missile strike. We are the pot, he is the kettle and we are saying he is black.
Think about it: You are a cop and there's a robber. The robber shoots you and you're nearly dead. What would you do? Go hug the robber and say 'I forgive you'?
No! You should shoot the robber shouldn't you? Not just for avenge, but it would also stop the robber from harming the society. Same as nuke.
Also, weapons are getting more and more advanced. Look at the Death Star of Star Wars. You can't stop it, because humans just like killing each other, and they invent many innovative ways to kill.
have ya heard of the cold war because us had nukes and russia had them too if one of them decided to fire they are making sure of destroying them self.
it also doesnt help that you can figure out how to make a nuke on the internet.... nuclear weapons are one thing that should have never have been invented... it finally gave mankind the ability to effectively destroy itself.
humans basicly are destorying the enviroment, sooner or later it's gonna come back around and destory all of humanity.
on topic, nukes = very harmful for the enviroment, plus a very effective means to destory humanity. who ever was the idiot who invented firearms, gunpower, and nukes should be killed.
I disagree. I think there is a great deterrent factor with the nuclear capabilities we have. If only one nation has nukes then they will be likely to utilize them. While there are many nations with the capabilities then there is a great hesitation to fire your nuclear weapons knowing that someone else is able to retaliate in kind.
Terrorists don't have nukes because getting the material is the difficult part, and the western world has gone to great lengths to ensure that nations which may be sympathetic to terror groups do not and will not have the capability to acquire refined nuclear material.
Terrorists don't have nukes because getting the material is the difficult part, and the western world has gone to great lengths to ensure that nations which may be sympathetic to terror groups do not and will not have the capability to acquire refined nuclear material.
Terrorists don't have nukes because getting the material is the difficult part, and the western world has gone to great lengths to ensure that nations which may be sympathetic to terror groups do not and will not have the capability to acquire refined nuclear material.
Which is why there has been so much controversy over their nuclear program. As of now the likelihood of them developing the properly processed material is very slim.
People, be realistic.
And what do you mean by 'realistic'? There is nothing in my post which is not accurate or realistic. Perhaps you would care to elaborate instead of posting comments that have no content or supporting evidence.
I think its a stretch to call western countries level headed. If iran fired a nuke at us... would we fire one back? And if so, why? As if it would actually do any good.
Level-headed as in we wouldn't use nuclear bombs as a first strike. We would use them only in retaliation, and while I don't agree with retaliating so severely, we're much less likely to try to attack with nukes than North Korea or Iran.
