ForumsWEPRShould all neclear bombs be destroyed? Yes or No

56 9684
Renjineon
offline
Renjineon
3,912 posts
Nomad

myself they should be so there would be a chance in world peace like in the halo games planet earth unifyed itself against alien invasion

  • 56 Replies
locoace3
offline
locoace3
15,053 posts
Nomad

That would only happen if other countries used nukes as retaliation to the first one.


what else would they do write an angry letter to the homeowners union explaining how the neighbors are dropping radioactive waste in their yard?
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

Nukes are not the be all and end all of weapons.

Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

You'd have to blow up practically every nuke at once to 'destroy the world' because the damage from the actual bomb blast is usually minimal - it's the radioactive fallout that gets ya - It'd all depend on how quickly and how much fallout there was to spread. At any rate - the world would not be instantly destroyed.

AnaLoGMunKy
offline
AnaLoGMunKy
1,573 posts
Blacksmith

nukes should be kept because no matter what you do some country out their will develop one while where almost defenseless while they are droppin nukes on us


Sure... kill other innocent people because their leaders decided to kill us. Way to go human race... Oblivion 1 human race nil
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

You'd have to blow up practically every nuke at once to 'destroy the world' because the damage from the actual bomb blast is usually minimal - it's the radioactive fallout that gets ya - It'd all depend on how quickly and how much fallout there was to spread. At any rate - the world would not be instantly destroyed.


Theoretically its possible to quickly destroy the world with just a few nukes. Dropping them on fault lines, or near/in volcanoes, or maybe setting them off at the bottom of the ocean could cause the planet serious harm.
Sassin
offline
Sassin
170 posts
Nomad

Actually even if you dropped every nuke in the world it wouldnt even iradiate half the world. The amount of nuclear weapons needed to at minimum irradiate the world would be well over 100,000 medium sized nuclear weapons. However i do agree with Moe that if you do drop bombs at key points you would cause damage. However if you simply wanted to kill everyone on earth all you would need is 1 100 megaton bomb which would stir up so much dust it would create a nuclear winter. but if you want to really destroy it you would need a nuke big enough to create a nuclear fusion ball big enough to swallow the earth which is way beyond our capabilities.

Efan
offline
Efan
3,086 posts
Nomad

technically there shouldn't be any weapons but that will never happen as all countries want the the upper hand in case of conflict.also there are always going to be people that build their own weapons for private use.

greg_greg
offline
greg_greg
440 posts
Peasant

in an ideal world, yes, they should, nuclear warfare is not right.

grimml
offline
grimml
879 posts
Nomad

I'm against nuclear weapons. BUT they also have advantages: They can frighten countries from starting a war (for example Iran/Israel). The problem is that there are propably enough crazy people out there who give a sh*t about their own life and aren't afraid of using nuclear weapons...

CruelAce
offline
CruelAce
71 posts
Nomad

No, there shouldn't be any nukes. :3

djfinalmix
offline
djfinalmix
196 posts
Nomad

even if nuclear bombs were banned or something, i dont think the countries will be intent on getting rid of them:
France has a nuclear bomb. China has a nuclear bomb. US and America have nuclear bombs. all 4 countries want to keep their nuclear bomb in case one of the other countries bomb them. countries that dont have a nuclear bomb want to get a nuclear bomb because if another country was to bomb them, they will have nothing to counter. Japan gets a nuclear bomb. Spain gets a nuclear bomb. Canada and England have nuclear bombs. soon every darn country in the world gets a nuclear bomb.

Showing 46-56 of 56