Home General Chat
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Nuclear Weapons

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Ok, dont let this turn into a sucky thread, where people moan, or it goes straight to the bottom. Try and give me ur opinion, argue or sumthin. I didnt know which board it should go it, it might be political, but I was completely unsure.




Discuss the view that as more and more countries have nuclear weapons, their effect as a deterent is reduced.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My opinion....Nuclear weapons have always been useless as a deterant as if you set one off the whole world will suffer the consequences.

    get rid of them all I say.
  • Flake_MustaineFlake_Mustaine Posts: 1,261 Wise Owl
    It's probably getting to the stage where nobody will use the weapons against someone in fear that they'll just get one thrown right back at them...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Nuclear Weapons

    I do not like ur new av adam.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny
    My opinion....Nuclear weapons have always been useless as a deterant as if you set one off the whole world will suffer the consequences.

    get rid of them all I say.

    Uh no, its a total deterrant... there would probably be a lot more wars if it wasn't for nuclear weapons, seens as all the countries know full well that if they nuke another country they'll easily be able to nuke them back, resulting in both countries being entirely destroyed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Flake_Mustaine
    It's probably getting to the stage where nobody will use the weapons against someone in fear that they'll just get one thrown right back at them...

    Yeah, ley`s just say if you`re facing imminent annihilation you don`t exactly have a lot to lose, do you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Shukes
    Uh no, its a total deterrant... there would probably be a lot more wars if it wasn't for nuclear weapons, seens as all the countries know full well that if they nuke another country they'll easily be able to nuke them back, resulting in both countries being entirely destroyed.

    A lot more wars than the 60 odd that have taken place since 1945?????

    lets get rid of them all!! they are weapons of mass destruction are they not?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny
    A lot more wars than the 60 odd that have taken place since 1945?????

    lets get rid of them all!! they are weapons of mass destruction are they not?

    Yes, there would have been even more wars.

    And yes they're weapons of mass destruction, and as I said, thats why they're a deterrant - no country is going to use nuclear weapons because if they did they'd just get nuked back, resulting in them both being destroyed.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Shukes
    And yes they're weapons of mass destruction, and as I said, thats why they're a deterrant - no country is going to use nuclear weapons because if they did they'd just get nuked back, resulting in them both being destroyed.

    Surely by that reasoning the only thing they`re a deterrant of is themselves?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Miffy
    Surely by that reasoning the only thing they`re a deterrant of is themselves?

    No... nations will be more caucious about invading another country or using regular non nuclear bombs on a country, fearful that it could somehow lead to a nuclear conflict.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny

    get rid of them all I say.

    As Shukes said, they act as a deterant, as neither country want's to end up nuked.

    The Cold War, for example, would have probably escalated into an out-and-out conflict if it wasn't for nuclear weapons.

    As for the topic, the danger only lies in rogue nations, or terrorists gettign their hands on them.
    Originally posted by Miffy
    Surely by that reasoning the only thing they`re a deterrant of is themselves?

    More like a deterant of going to war in the first place, as one, or both of the countries are likely to get nuked.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kiezo
    More like a deterant of going to war in the first place, as one, or both of the countries are likely to get nuked.

    Trouble with that is that by definition we have no way of actually knowing exactly how much of a deterrant they are.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Miffy
    Trouble with that is that by definition we have no way of actually knowing exactly how much of a deterrant they are.

    I think it's kinda obvious.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Nuclear Weapons
    Originally posted by Klever




    Discuss the view that as more and more countries have nuclear weapons, their effect as a deterent is reduced.
    i can't stand it when people tell me what to do ...so sod off!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kiezo
    I think it's kinda obvious.

    Well yeah! Everyone is saying they are a deterrant, but tell me how you establish causality for non-events??
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Miffy
    Well yeah! Everyone is saying they are a deterrant, but tell me how you establish causality for non-events??

    Probability/common sense/reason.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Shukes
    Yes, there would have been even more wars.

    And yes they're weapons of mass destruction, and as I said, thats why they're a deterrant - no country is going to use nuclear weapons because if they did they'd just get nuked back, resulting in them both being destroyed.

    right...:eek2:

    Aren't you pro-war with Iraq?

    If he wouldn't use them if he had them, why bother trying to stop him getting them? And wasting many lives doing so?

    And surely if "everyone knows that no one would use them" they don't act as a deterrent, because everyone knows that no one would use them? Especially in regards to your argument that they dissuade conventional wars?

    And what about the fact that the American and British and numerous other less scrupulous (ie North Korea) governments have said they are willing to use Nukes on a first strike option?

    And what about when a govern,ment collapses (eg USSR, or if there is a revolution in Pakistan, very likely) them falling into the hands of maniacs?

    And if they are never going to be used why spend more money per year than could be used to clothe, feed and house the entire world building and maintaining them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    right...:eek2:

    Aren't you pro-war with Iraq?

    If he wouldn't use them if he had them, why bother trying to stop him getting them? And wasting many lives doing so?

    And surely if "everyone knows that no one would use them" they don't act as a deterrent, because everyone knows that no one would use them? Especially in regards to your argument that they dissuade conventional wars?

    And what about the fact that the American and British and numerous other less scrupulous (ie North Korea) governments have said they are willing to use Nukes on a first strike option?

    And what about when a govern,ment collapses (eg USSR, or if there is a revolution in Pakistan, very likely) them falling into the hands of maniacs?

    And if they are never going to be used why spend more money per year than could be used to clothe, feed and house the entire world building and maintaining them?

    Uh, did you read what Kiezo and I said... most normal countries wouldn't, but some rogue states/countries with questionable violent leaders (such as Iraq that you mentioned) possibly might - which is why we're trying to make sure such people don't get hold of them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kiezo
    Probability

    I would have thought there are too many variables for that.
    common sense/reason.

    Common sense interpretations are vague. One man`s common sense is another man`s lunacy.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Shukes
    Uh, did you read what Kiezo and I said... most normal countries wouldn't, but some rogue states/countries with questionable violent leaders (such as Iraq that you mentioned) possibly might - which is why we're trying to make sure such people don't get hold of them.

    Ok well that answers the first point I made, what about

    "And surely if "everyone knows that no one would use them" they don't act as a deterrent, because everyone knows that no one would use them? Especially in regards to your argument that they dissuade conventional wars?

    And what about the fact that the American and British...governments have said they are willing to use Nukes on a first strike option?

    And what about when a government collapses (eg USSR, or if there is a revolution in Pakistan, very likely) them falling into the hands of maniacs?

    And if they are never going to be used why spend more money per year than could be used to clothe, feed and house the entire world building and maintaining them?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: Re: Nuclear Weapons
    Originally posted by morrocan roll
    i can't stand it when people tell me what to do ...so sod off!

    lol. It was a question I was asked for school. I typed it in word for word to see the response I got
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    Ok well that answers the first point I made, what about

    "And surely if "everyone knows that no one would use them" they don't act as a deterrent, because everyone knows that no one would use them? Especially in regards to your argument that they dissuade conventional wars?

    Yes, but countries are still going to be more weary of attacking a country with nuclear weapons as opposed to one without them, even though they can be fairly sure they wouldn't be used.

    And also, its going to stop wars where a country would completely take over another country with normal weapons, because if they managed to get into a position where they would definitely win, the losing side would probably fire a nuclear weapon as they'd know they were fucked anyway.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito


    Aren't you pro-war with Iraq?

    If he wouldn't use them if he had them, why bother trying to stop him getting them? And wasting many lives doing so?

    Who says he wouldn't use them? Also, does it matter what reasons the US and the UK give for the war? The fact is it will saves innocent lives in the long run, which is reason enough.
    And surely if "everyone knows that no one would use them" they don't act as a deterrent, because everyone knows that no one would use them? Especially in regards to your argument that they dissuade conventional wars?

    Not so much conventional wars, as world wars.
    And what about the fact that the American and British and numerous other less scrupulous (ie North Korea) governments have said they are willing to use Nukes on a first strike option?

    Part of the deterrant. Do you honestly think Britain or America, or to a lesser extent North Korea, would use them as a first resort?
    And what about when a govern,ment collapses (eg USSR, or if there is a revolution in Pakistan, very likely) them falling into the hands of maniacs?

    Then that wouldn't be a country having them, would it?
    And if they are never going to be used why spend more money per year than could be used to clothe, feed and house the entire world building and maintaining them?

    Agreed. It shouldn't have got to the excessive stage of total over kill we have now. They should have stopped building the things when we reached MAD.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    i don't mind the cold, in fact i quite like snow, BRING ON THE NUCLEAR WINTER! :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Shukes
    Yes, but countries are still going to be more weary of attacking a country with nuclear weapons as opposed to one without them, even though they can be fairly sure they wouldn't be used.

    And also, its going to stop wars where a country would completely take over another country with normal weapons, because if they managed to get into a position where they would definitely win, the losing side would probably fire a nuclear weapon as they'd know they were fucked anyway.

    So first countries WOULDN'T use nuclear weapons, and then the WOULD use nuclear weapons. Right.

    And surely that means that if we ever had to use military force against a country that had nuclear weapons, like you think is necessary with Iraq, we wouldn't be able to, or if we did we would suffer destruction on an unprecedented scale.

    Also I'm confused as to your logic when you say "no one would ever use them" and then in another argument you say "you could be FAIRLY sure they wouldn't"...

    To be fair I'd rather have more certainty when it comes to hundreds of millions of lives at stake.
  • Flake_MustaineFlake_Mustaine Posts: 1,261 Wise Owl
    if Saddam had nukes, he'd probably have already used them.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by carlito
    So first countries WOULDN'T use nuclear weapons, and then the WOULD use nuclear weapons. Right.

    And surely that means that if we ever had to use military force against a country that had nuclear weapons, like you think is necessary with Iraq, we wouldn't be able to, or if we did we would suffer destruction on an unprecedented scale.

    Also I'm confused as to your logic when you say "no one would ever use them" and then in another argument you say "you could be FAIRLY sure they wouldn't"...

    To be fair I'd rather have more certainty when it comes to hundreds of millions of lives at stake.

    God, do I really have to try make things simpler for you?

    Normal countries WOULDN'T use nuclear weapons - I gave an example of a country attacking another country with conventional weapons, and then when one country is almost defeated, it launches a nuclear weapon as a kind of last resort - I'm saying conventional wars would never get to a state when one country was really at it knees now BECAUSE of the fear of the nuclear situation I just mentioned.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kiezo
    Who says he wouldn't use them? Also, does it matter what reasons the US and the UK give for the war? The fact is it will saves innocent lives in the long run, which is reason enough.


    So you aren't pro-war for the government stated reasons. Or you are?

    Part of the deterrant. Do you honestly think Britain or America, or to a lesser extent North Korea, would use them as a first resort?

    To be honest I don't know. But don't you think that if YOU'VE worked out that saying that is "just for the deterrent" and a bluff, the other worlds greatest minds haven't also? And therefore made that argument defunct?


    Then that wouldn't be a country having them, would it?

    Well yes it would, for example if there was a revolution in Pakistan and a group of extremists came to power as the new Government.

    What you mean is "well it would work if only people who all agreed they wouldn't ever use them had them" which is the same as saying "well if everyone decided theyd work for free and love one another we'd be sorted and could live in a socialist utopia"

    If everyone who had them KNEW they wouldn't ever use them, then there would be no point in having them by definition, and we could spend the money on something else.
  • Flake_MustaineFlake_Mustaine Posts: 1,261 Wise Owl
    it's just a total last resort..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Flake_Mustaine
    it's just a total last resort..

    You mean like, er, oh yeah! Suicide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Shukes
    God, do I really have to try make things simpler for you?

    Normal countries WOULDN'T use nuclear weapons - I gave an example of a country attacking another country with conventional weapons, and then when one country is almost defeated, it launches a nuclear weapon as a kind of last resort - I'm saying conventional wars would never get to a state when one country was really at it knees now BECAUSE of the fear of the nuclear situation I just mentioned.

    So a normal country would use themif anothercountry was stupid enough to attack them, which is what your saying. And as we know full well there are people in the world who fight even though they know they will lose.

    And you didn't answer the other point I made- surely this means we have ruled out military action (which you approve of incertaqin cases) on any country with nuclear weapons?
Sign In or Register to comment.