Poll: Nuclear bombs+Human thinking=???

[Blatherscythe]

So, with the threads of, how using nuclear warheads is wrong or whatnot, and games like Fallout and Borderlands, it begs the question? Will humanity ever be stupid enough to wipe themselves and everything around then with nuclear warheads or any superweapon for that matter?

I think we won't, because we all pretty much know the outcome, the earth would be a scorched piece of shit if we all launched our nukes. North Korea's leader probably won't use the warheads he makes (which estimate to about 8) because all the other countries have a larger amount then he will ever posses, although we don't know how unstable he is so the outcome could be differant then thought.

So I've added a poll, yes meaning absulutly, no means we will never do that, and maybe means our way of thought may change and we could. Keep in mind this is a topic on nuclear weapons in general, and maxthereaper if you start blabing on about how restriction of knowledge is the most horrid crime out there please don't on acount of you do that with any topic that it may fit in with and we get your point already.

 

[BonsaiK]

The big mondo kick-ass nuclear war will not happen.

Here's why:

1. Conventinal weapons actually work better and are more reliable with less risks
2. It's bad for PR, and no-one wants to be "that guy"
3. Wars these days are ALWAYS about control of territory and resources, nothing else. Although governments and other groups will do their best to make people think wars are about "religion", "freedom" and other such concepts because it's an effective rallying cry and a good way to make people want to fight, war is never about these things in reality (this rule always applies, from the smallest fringe terrorist group to the largest country). Nukes are very indiscriminate weapons and tend to destroy or render unuseable the territory/resources that people would like to control.

 

[Timotei]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs. You fear the man with one bomb.

Besides, if say a nation was to lauch all of it's nukes at any missile bearing nations, only a few would make it through as most would be shot down by interceptor missiles.

 

[Blatherscythe]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs, you fear the man with one bomb.

Yeah, just takes one to start it all.

 

[KarumaK]

With nuclear weapons, I doubt it. We understand the damage and the dangers and are not prepared for mutual extinction.

I figure our end will be delivered in a far more ironic fashion as we try and advance in a way that will benefit the world only to discover that we've gone to far and created something we cannot control.

Maybe a cure that kills or mutant plants.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Congratulations. You've just rediscovered the Cold War. During which, I might add, there were at least two occasions where we came close to launching nukes at other people. Testing them was bad enough; the US, USSR, Britain, France, and China killed tons of people entirely by accident simply by testing nuclear weapons (when they weren't using them for in hindsight extraordinarily laughable demolitions that ruined the landscape for decades).

You are also ignoring one very, very crucial detail: countries are unlikely to launch nukes at each other. What about groups of people who aren't their own country? I can think of one group in particular that would absolutely love to get their hands on nuclear weapons, and feel absolutely no compunction about using them.

The extremely ironic thing about nuclear weapons is that they can't be used. Seriously. The only thing that could actually justify a nuclear attack is another nuclear attack. By this point, they are militarily and economically worthless. Their only use is deterrent, something that would go away and change form the instant the damn things were eliminated.

Sadly, they're also like loaded guns that countries have pointed at each other, so getting rid of the lot of them will take ages. I know that whole "Obama peace prize" thing was really weird, but I absolutely agree on one of their reasons: he's doing the right thing when it comes to nukes. We get rid of them, the world will be safer. Not before.

 

[Timotei]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs, you fear the man with one bomb.

Yeah, just takes one to start it all.

That wasn't the point. A nation with many nuclear missiles has their mind focused mainly on deterrence. However a nation or group of people with only a few will most likely use them offensively.

 

[Kollega]

You know,one crazy psychotic is enough to start nuclear war. But it's not like a crazy psychotic will easily be able to reach the red button. So maybe,but not neccesarily. That said,i think we should get rid of as much nukes as we can - what if one goes off by accident? Chances are extremly small,but still.

 

[tthor]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs. You fear the man with one bomb.

Besides, if say a nation was to lauch all of it's nukes at any missile bearing nations, only a few would make it through as most would be shot down by interceptor missiles.

i think that quote came from the movie i am watching right now xD

 

[Timotei]

You need not fear the man with a thousand bombs. You fear the man with one bomb.

Besides, if say a nation was to lauch all of it's nukes at any missile bearing nations, only a few would make it through as most would be shot down by interceptor missiles.

i think that quote came from the movie i am watching right now xD

You can't get anymore ninja than that.

 

[duchaked]

mutually assured destruction, anyone?

but I agree there are far more effective methods to wage war and destruction...without totally screwing yourselves up as well

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Congratulations. You've just rediscovered the Cold War. During which, I might add, there were at least two occasions where we came close to launching nukes at other people. Testing them was bad enough; the US, USSR, Britain, France, and China killed tons of people entirely by accident simply by testing nuclear weapons (when they weren't using them for in hindsight extraordinarily laughable demolitions that ruined the landscape for decades).

You are also ignoring one very, very crucial detail: countries are unlikely to launch nukes at each other. What about groups of people who aren't their own country? I can think of one group in particular that would absolutely love to get their hands on nuclear weapons, and feel absolutely no compunction about using them.

The extremely ironic thing about nuclear weapons is that they can't be used. Seriously. The only thing that could actually justify a nuclear attack is another nuclear attack. By this point, they are militarily and economically worthless. Their only use is deterrent, something that would go away and change form the instant the damn things were eliminated.

Sadly, they're also like loaded guns that countries have pointed at each other, so getting rid of the lot of them will take ages. I know that whole "Obama peace prize" thing was really weird, but I absolutely agree on one of their reasons: he's doing the right thing when it comes to nukes. We get rid of them, the world will be safer. Not before.

Well that pretty much sums what I was going to say.

On paper everyone knows that a nuclear attack will plunge a continent or an entire civilization into the dark ages but no one will want to pull the trigger. Modern warfare is now more political than combat, explaining to the rest of the world why you launched nukes is going to be one hell of a mission and nothing short of a "they were about to nuke us" might save the poor soul that ordered the attack.

The political and economical fallout will be catastrophic, words like sanctions and embargoes will start flying about..in short nukes are more trouble than they are worth. As was said before, the only thing they are good for is as a deterrent against foreign nuclear attacks or maybe an alien invasion. It's just that extreme.

That said, the only two occasions where nuclear weapons were used against a nation was during a period of desperation (in terms of getting results fast) mixed with experimentation (a new toy). Perhaps, if a nation was to encounter a scenario that would incorporate both these factors again, it might drive someone to commit a desperate move. I mean if you rob hope from a man, you should expect him to hit back with everything he has.

It's possible we would see a nuclear war but not very probable.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh I'd bet money on it and here's why, if we were smart enough not to use them for fear of the inevitable outcome, then we wouldn't build them in the first place. However the predicted outcome is obviously not THAT terrifying because we keep making the damn things.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Oh I'd bet money on it and here's why, if we were smart enough not to use them for fear of the inevitable outcome, then we wouldn't build them in the first place. However the predicted outcome is obviously not THAT terrifying because we keep making the damn things.

Who's this "we," kemosabe? The US and Russia aren't building any more (unless you count replacing warheads, and there's question as to whether that will actually happen), and as far as I know, the other declared nuclear powers (barring N. Korea) aren't increasing their stockpiles, either.

Not that the others really matter, since the other countries' warheads numbers in the hundreds at best. As for the US and USSR, there was never a question that they'd be used except in self-defense...but both sides kept making them for reasons that are both hideously complex and (mostly in retrospect) insanely stupid. Irrational behavior was the mode of the day (possibly reaching its culmination in the Soviets under Khrushchev building a 100 megaton bomb that even then served literally no purpose). The predicted outcome of nuclear war was shit-scary ever since Hiroshima; that hasn't changed. The only things that changed were just how paranoid the superpowers got, and how little trust there was between them during the entire Cold War (sure, you can stop building nukes, but what if the other guy doesn't?). Other than people like General Curtis "Fucking Psycho" LeMay, absolutely no one in a position of power on either side was crazy enough to think they could actually be used.

Nuclear stockpile building was never anything more than, if you'll pardon the phrase, a colossal dick-waving competition, basically. Unfortunately, until we actually make more major headway into dismantling the damn things, the world climate threatens to become more Freudian by the year.

 

[Aardvark]

Nah. Behind the strings of every stupid, irresponsible pack of political morons and militaristic hard-heads sits a cabal of lobbyists, advisors and other rich, powerful, influential people. They have everything to lose and nothing to gain from a nuclear war. Even the regimes that swear they will nuke everybody who aren't them are kept on a tight leash from within. All WMDs will do and will ever do is maintain peace by keeping equal tension in all directions. And help us fuckslap any alien bastards silly enough to float over our way with a bad look on their face without having invented the appropriate shield technology first.

 

[crepesack]

Considering the state of Montana packs enough nuclear fire power to kill maybe the entire population of your average European country, it's not out of the realm of possibilities. Although it will take a mighty shit storm to actually cause an all out nuclear Holocaust. My best bet is the North Koreans in all their kimchisanity will launch a failed ICBM that will swerve off course and strike somewhere in Japan. The resultant catastrophe will force japan into converting their vast supply of enriched uranium to ballistic warheads and fire into NK. China and Russia (if they are stupid) will in turn fight back. Japan draw's forth it's NATO allies and resultant nuclear shit storm will wipe out the world's population except for some minute regions in africa and australia.... Possible but not probable.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Oh I'd bet money on it and here's why, if we were smart enough not to use them for fear of the inevitable outcome, then we wouldn't build them in the first place. However the predicted outcome is obviously not THAT terrifying because we keep making the damn things.

Who's this "we," kemosabe? The US and Russia aren't building any more (unless you count replacing warheads, and there's question as to whether that will actually happen), and as far as I know, the other declared nuclear powers (barring N. Korea) aren't increasing their stockpiles, either.

Not that the others really matter, since the other countries' warheads numbers in the hundreds at best. As for the US and USSR, there was never a question that they'd be used except in self-defense...but both sides kept making them for reasons that are both hideously complex and (mostly in retrospect) insanely stupid. Irrational behavior was the mode of the day (possibly reaching its culmination in the Soviets under Khrushchev building a 100 megaton bomb that even then served literally no purpose). The predicted outcome of nuclear war was shit-scary ever since Hiroshima; that hasn't changed. The only things that changed were just how paranoid the superpowers got, and how little trust there was between them during the entire Cold War (sure, you can stop building nukes, but what if the other guy doesn't?). Other than people like General Curtis "Fucking Psycho" LeMay, absolutely no one in a position of power on either side was crazy enough to think they could actually be used.

Nuclear stockpile building was never anything more than, if you'll pardon the phrase, a colossal dick-waving competition, basically. Unfortunately, until we actually make more major headway into dismantling the damn things, the world climate threatens to become more Freudian by the year.

Ok to clarify, by "we" I meant humanity as a collective whole. And as any country, esp. the United States, maintains a nuclear stockpile I'm going to continue to bet money on it. After all who are the ones who have the greatest need to compensate for something.

 

[michael_ab]

oh hell yeah were gonna kill ourselves. but not with nukes.

im thinking a super virus, that is either made by us or one that becomes immune to everything we throw at it.

really with everything saying "kills 99% of germs" well that 1% lives on and is now immune to your cleaner.

although i am confident that bleach will forever be the uber cleaner

 

[Good morning blues]

Generally speaking, nuclear proliferation is a positive force because it locks a great number of states into a mutually assured destruction scenatio, meaning that a nuclear conflict would never happen because nobody is stupid enough to risk annihilation of their own state, and that conventional conflicts would become less common, because of the risk of escalation to a nuclear conflict.

The only problem is security of weapons. Groups such as Al-Qaeda could conceivably make use of nuclear weapons because you cannot respond to a nuclear attack by such a group with a nuclear counter-attack.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Oh I'd bet money on it and here's why, if we were smart enough not to use them for fear of the inevitable outcome, then we wouldn't build them in the first place. However the predicted outcome is obviously not THAT terrifying because we keep making the damn things.

Who's this "we," kemosabe? The US and Russia aren't building any more (unless you count replacing warheads, and there's question as to whether that will actually happen), and as far as I know, the other declared nuclear powers (barring N. Korea) aren't increasing their stockpiles, either.

Not that the others really matter, since the other countries' warheads numbers in the hundreds at best. As for the US and USSR, there was never a question that they'd be used except in self-defense...but both sides kept making them for reasons that are both hideously complex and (mostly in retrospect) insanely stupid. Irrational behavior was the mode of the day (possibly reaching its culmination in the Soviets under Khrushchev building a 100 megaton bomb that even then served literally no purpose). The predicted outcome of nuclear war was shit-scary ever since Hiroshima; that hasn't changed. The only things that changed were just how paranoid the superpowers got, and how little trust there was between them during the entire Cold War (sure, you can stop building nukes, but what if the other guy doesn't?). Other than people like General Curtis "Fucking Psycho" LeMay, absolutely no one in a position of power on either side was crazy enough to think they could actually be used.

Nuclear stockpile building was never anything more than, if you'll pardon the phrase, a colossal dick-waving competition, basically. Unfortunately, until we actually make more major headway into dismantling the damn things, the world climate threatens to become more Freudian by the year.

Ok to clarify, by "we" I meant humanity as a collective whole. And as any country, esp. the United States, maintains a nuclear stockpile I'm going to continue to bet money on it. After all who are the ones who have the greatest need to compensate for something.

The UK? France? I mean, that was their original reason for getting nukes in the first place...

By this point, both the US and Russia have discovered just how incredibly useless giant penises are. I'd continue that metaphor further, but not without some terrible pun involving cockfighting.