The upcoming nuclear war

Maybe do some research, and then have an informed opinion

Also re the violence is the answer thing, that is what drives countries to have WMDs, which is the opposite of what the world needs to survive.

Which is why having the UN is a good thing.

 

Funnily enough, nukes have stopped and limited violence and the mutualy assured destruction regulates their use. Don't be fooled anyone with them will use them in anger should the need arise that is key to possessing them, the will to use them and to enforce mutual destruction. There is also a reason why people want to stop the prolification of them, it maks a coutnry in possiesion of them harded to influence and threaten and it also makes them a threat.

I will re word what i put above, i dont know what the reason the Norks want them is.

Let me ask you this? Is the bigger dream full disarment of all nuclear weapons or everyone possessing a small amount of them as a just in case measure?

 

Nukes have stopped?

Please explain what you mean by this?

Mad only works when people act rationally, and people don't act rationally, so long term it's a terrible plan.

As my example has already proved.

Stanislav Petrov - Wikipedia

 

The U.K, France (i think) U.S and Russia have stopped producing nuclear weapons. But with civilian nuclear tech ( a good power source no one should not have) comes the ability to make weapons. I belive Iran ha s anuclear program and other budding countries like that will edventually try to start them and may very well make weapons, especially if no one else has them.

To elaborate on what i meant better, If you give up your nuclear weapons and somone keeps theirs, you are not at a tactical disadvantage and its a dream to assume everyone trusts each other that much, or if somone makes WMD's you then dont have any to deter their use agaisnt yourself. That and if your countries existance is at sake, nuclear weapons have a high chance of being deployed to ensure it doesnt happen. the big part is MUTUAL in assured destruction, the fear is somone having the ability to systematically wipe out your country and you have to real retaliation to it. That was the main reason why the japanes esurrended after the two bombs, the second one proved the threat of systematic destruction was a real threat and would be done. Well, up to debate it was that or the Russians where coming for their souls.

another anology is, if everyone on your road had a rifle, would you want to give up your rifle and trust everyone else does? Do you want to risk you needing that rifle and you being the only one without one? No is the answer any sane person gives.

 

Trump has recently suggested he wants to increase their amount of nuclear weapons.

Trump wanted dramatic increase in nuclear arsenal in military meeting


Britain has recently refused to sign a anti nuclear weapon treaty.

Pressure mounts on Theresa May to sign UN anti-nuclear treaty


And recently in the election the tories changed their policy and said they would use nuclear weapons in a preemptive fashion.

Theresa May would fire Britain’s nuclear weapons even if the UK is not under nuclear attack


Nuclear weapons have not stopped at all.

 

Skimmed it and i agree, dont sign somethign which ultimately wants to get rid of Trident. We however are not producing anymore nuclear weapons past those still in service which was my point.

Which supports the above, why remove your nuclear program and put yourself at the whim of another state.

is it better to say you will do soemthing and dont do it, or not to do it?

 

So how your arguing against anti nuclear proliferation treaties??

The ones that both Russia and America, Britain and France etc signed?

So logically your against the Iran anti nuclear deal, so that Iran can continue tobdevelop nuclear weapons, and MAD can be maintained?

 

Im not, just not in the fantasy land of everyone giving them up. the numbers can be reduced and are, but they will not stop existing so nobody will give up their programs. They are inherently for defence anyway.

The real question is, what are you going to do to stop Iran? Nuclear power is highly useful and if they get a functional nuclear weapon, you cant enforce any demands on it.

Bear in mind they are like North Korea, not really aligned or in the best of relations with many people especally some nuclear powers and thus need a defensive program themselves. Logically everyone should have access to nuclear power and no one should have it restricted.

Also at the time the U.S started a dud program or it was rumoured they were developing a means to stop/reduce the effectiveness of nuclear balstic missiles. That scared the Soviets into more nuclear weapon cuts. Now im getting a flashback to tom clancy's end war.

 

If that's your conclusion, maybe you need to think about of the consequences of that.

Multiple nuclear wars, which is literally the worst outcome we could have.

I've not mentioned unilateral disarmament, unilateral disarmament doesn't work overall (but can do for single small countries) but multilateral/bilateral would.

Although we're never going to get complete disarmament, a few stable countries need to keep a small supply to stop other countries devoloping them.

The USSR and the USA reduced their stockpiles partially due to money, and partially bacause they realised it was insane have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many times over.

The Iranian deal prevents them developing nuclear weapons, so that would be a good thing overall.

 

So living in a country makes all people there terrorists and enemies?
Do you ever think in grey?

But interesting logic: The whole US is full of racist, dumb, women hating people! We that even within this forum all the time!

As for the other part: What do you want to ask them? How they had so much luck that nothing happened?
Because luck is so replicable?

Good to see, that your use of smileys is still disgusting.
Anyway: You prove again that you only think grey.
A nuclear strike won't only effect the place it took place.

So the logical consequence is war and enmity?

Simon addressed that already and I give him a "+1" for it.

Maybe, just maybe, because it needs them (from their perspective) to be sort of save.
Take the current situation: All the possibilities to deal with North Korea, but Trumps starts with nuclear war right away.
I mean - of course he does. Obviously it's the sanest alternative to play chicken right now. And provoke even more...

That alone shows how wrong it is.
Nuclear weapons shouldn't be used out of anger.
Anger is usually rather short lived and due to something stupid, but it's not a valid reason to start wars or nuclear strikes.
It's like throwing a tantrum with nuclear weapons instead of dropping to the floor, kicking and hitting it.

And since nuclear weapons have no other side effect, that needs to be taken into consideration...

 

Let's not forget that the more nuclear weapons that exist, the more likely they are to fall into the hands of non-state actors, be that a corporation, private individual, militia, terrorist group.

 

Wut? No them being fanatical in their dedication to their leader makes them enemies. They are not a friendly state to the U.K, there for they are enemies of it, definately so to the U.S and south Korea. I also compared north koreas nuclear capacity to a terrorist cell.

They should and have, you have to use them out of anger to ensure MAD takes place. out of anger in that context means done as aprt of a war, or so i used it and took it to mean that. why wouldnt you use this weapon if you have little to no repercussions in doing so?

That is probbly the only point i agree with as to stop lots of the things kicking around.

 

I think if there's one thing we've learned over the past 50 years or so, decapitating an extremist regime produces suboptimal outcomes. Much better to provide them with sitcoms and allow the populace to take over.

To avoid the widespread extermination of civilian lives.

 

I dont think that is the case, i cant say what the majority is but im pretty sure at least some of the populace is fanactical out of just being forced to belive that their entire lives, if you get told just lies they are the Truth. Its kind of isolationist and controls the media quite a lot. Its hard to say until their country is invaded how much of the population would surrender, run or fight.

 

Oh, please!
That would mean thinking in grey!
You can't expect that!

 

What does that even mean?

Going to have to elaborate. Im not a expert on North korea nor ever claimed to be, i dont think i have googled information on it once past to know what the hell it was or about the Korean war.

You know the quote form the full metal jacket door gunner? "If they run they are a VC if they stand still they are a well disiplined VC"

 

So let's talk about what led to the fanaticism of North Korea. In the 50s, the US bombed out 80% of the structures in NK. We targeted civilians without discrimination... So rinse and repeat?

I've never met someone online who was quite so confident or blatant in regards to holding very strong opinions while remaining deliberately ignorant. You could run for President someday.

If you think that movie was glorifying that stance, well, you need to watch the film again.