darkSpyro

Just as the title says.


I personally believe that tactical nukes are the best way to go.

Terrible thing. Ruins quite literally everything.

Nope.

Don't do it. The consequences are too severe and we still don't seem to fully understand them all (hell we don't know how to properly deal with nuclear waste).

Which is why tactical nukes are the best way to go. Designed to be used on the battlefield at a moment's notice, designed to kill the enemy and ONLY the enemy: minimum (if any) civilian casualties.


Never ideal, but it's the lesser of two evils.


In fact, nuclear warfare itself (historically speaking) is the lesser of two evils.

Tactical nukes are still nukes and nukes are still very harmful.

Lesser of 2 evils, pfff.

Wow how bored are you right now

-----

Quote: Trix Master 100

Tactical nukes are still nukes and nukes are still very harmful.

Lesser of 2 evils, pfff.

Hopefully we won't need to use them again until we enter a war against a conventional military force.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Tactical nukes are still nukes and nukes are still very harmful.

Lesser of 2 evils, pfff.

Hopefully we won't need to use them again until we enter a war against a conventional military force.

Or we can just, never use nukes regardless if they are tactical or not. Seriously we're already killing our planet with a lot of other things, we really don't need nukes to contribute to it.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Tactical nukes are still nukes and nukes are still very harmful.

Lesser of 2 evils, pfff.

Hopefully we won't need to use them again until we enter a war against a conventional military force.

Or we can just, never use nukes regardless if they are tactical or not. Seriously we're already killing our planet with a lot of other things, we really don't need nukes to contribute to it.

If you want to talk about energy, burning fossil fuels is far worse for the environment than making use of nuclear energy.

If we can find a way to contain nuclear fallout (in much the same way nuclear waste is contained after utilizing it), then there we go.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Hopefully we won't need to use them again until we enter a war against a conventional military force.

Or we can just, never use nukes regardless if they are tactical or not. Seriously we're already killing our planet with a lot of other things, we really don't need nukes to contribute to it.

If you want to talk about energy, burning fossil fuels is far worse for the environment than making use of nuclear energy.

If we can find a way to contain nuclear fallout (in much the same way nuclear waste is contained after utilizing it), then there we go.

But seriously though, have you seen the effects of 1 nuke? Do you have statistics of this? No. We don't know a lot about Nukes, and how harmful they are.

Plus since we're using fossil fuels, add a nuke on that, thing will be far worse.

Quote: Iceclaw

all i know about nukes are the cold war stuff and even that sounds terrifying s:

click links and read all about it plz

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Or we can just, never use nukes regardless if they are tactical or not. Seriously we're already killing our planet with a lot of other things, we really don't need nukes to contribute to it.

If you want to talk about energy, burning fossil fuels is far worse for the environment than making use of nuclear energy.

If we can find a way to contain nuclear fallout (in much the same way nuclear waste is contained after utilizing it), then there we go.

But seriously though, have you seen the effects of 1 nuke? Do you have statistics of this? No. We don't know a lot about Nukes, and how harmful they are.

Plus since we're using fossil fuels, add a nuke on that, thing will be far worse.

Yes, we do. Nuclear weapons have been tested extensively since their invention. A quick Google search will give you all of the info: the good, the bad, and the ugly.


I'm not saying nukes are good, I'm just saying that when in a dire situation when ass absolutely needs to be kicked, there's nothing that quite gets the job done like a nuke. They're constantly being worked upon and perfected. And if we* do get another war with a conventional military (probably a Second World country, like Russia, China, or Iran), they won't hesitate to nuke us.* I guarantee it.


*By "we" and "us," I mean all NATO-affiliated countries, not just America.

Nukes are great when they keep the global balance of terror in status quo situation.

But as weapons to be used, it is as dumb as a bag of wet mice.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Iceclaw

all i know about nukes are the cold war stuff and even that sounds terrifying s:

click links and read all about it plz

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

If you want to talk about energy, burning fossil fuels is far worse for the environment than making use of nuclear energy.

If we can find a way to contain nuclear fallout (in much the same way nuclear waste is contained after utilizing it), then there we go.

But seriously though, have you seen the effects of 1 nuke? Do you have statistics of this? No. We don't know a lot about Nukes, and how harmful they are.

Plus since we're using fossil fuels, add a nuke on that, thing will be far worse.

Yes, we do. Nuclear weapons have been tested extensively since their invention. A quick Google search will give you all of the info: the good, the bad, and the ugly.


I'm not saying nukes are good, I'm just saying that when in a dire situation when ass absolutely needs to be kicked, there's nothing that quite gets the job done like a nuke. They're constantly being worked upon and perfected. And if we* do get another war with a conventional military (probably a Second World country, like Russia, China, or Iran), they won't hesitate to nuke us.* I guarantee it.


*By "we" and "us," I mean all NATO-affiliated countries, not just America.

Yeah more bark with no bite.

Remember the time when North Korea threatened to nuke the US, and that didn't happen? Yeah no hesitation my arse.

why cant we just invent a black hole bomb to destroy the earth already jfc

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Iceclaw

all i know about nukes are the cold war stuff and even that sounds terrifying s:

click links and read all about it plz

Quote: Trix Master 100

But seriously though, have you seen the effects of 1 nuke? Do you have statistics of this? No. We don't know a lot about Nukes, and how harmful they are.

Plus since we're using fossil fuels, add a nuke on that, thing will be far worse.

Yes, we do. Nuclear weapons have been tested extensively since their invention. A quick Google search will give you all of the info: the good, the bad, and the ugly.


I'm not saying nukes are good, I'm just saying that when in a dire situation when ass absolutely needs to be kicked, there's nothing that quite gets the job done like a nuke. They're constantly being worked upon and perfected. And if we* do get another war with a conventional military (probably a Second World country, like Russia, China, or Iran), they won't hesitate to nuke us.* I guarantee it.


*By "we" and "us," I mean all NATO-affiliated countries, not just America.

Yeah more bark with no bite.

Remember the time when North Korea threatened to nuke the US, and that didn't happen? Yeah no hesitation my arse.

Do you know anything about global defense at all? North Korea ranks nowhere near the military might of the former USSR-affiliated superpowers. They're irrelevant. I'm talking about the big dogs.


Comparing North Korea to them is like comparing a poodle to a pack of wolves.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

click links and read all about it plz


Yes, we do. Nuclear weapons have been tested extensively since their invention. A quick Google search will give you all of the info: the good, the bad, and the ugly.


I'm not saying nukes are good, I'm just saying that when in a dire situation when ass absolutely needs to be kicked, there's nothing that quite gets the job done like a nuke. They're constantly being worked upon and perfected. And if we* do get another war with a conventional military (probably a Second World country, like Russia, China, or Iran), they won't hesitate to nuke us.* I guarantee it.


*By "we" and "us," I mean all NATO-affiliated countries, not just America.

Yeah more bark with no bite.

Remember the time when North Korea threatened to nuke the US, and that didn't happen? Yeah no hesitation my arse.

Do you know anything about global defense at all? North Korea ranks nowhere near the military might of the former USSR-affiliated superpowers. They're irrelevant. I'm talking about the big dogs.

No not really, though I guess I should learn about global defense rules and laws or at least the more important ones. But this isn't my shtick. This among other 'facts' or military and other things that I believe are not true, is your shtick. Killing things/anything is your shtick.

I only know the bad effects of Nuke and Nuclear things that give people diseases and basically kill off an entire city making it radiate for 500 years or so. Making it toxic to most life there.

Quote: Metallo

Comparing North Korea to them is like comparing a poodle to a pack of wolves.

Actually poodles are smart and considerably a type of guard dog. You certainly choose the wrong breed of dog to call small and weak.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Yeah more bark with no bite.

Remember the time when North Korea threatened to nuke the US, and that didn't happen? Yeah no hesitation my arse.

Do you know anything about global defense at all? North Korea ranks nowhere near the military might of the former USSR-affiliated superpowers. They're irrelevant. I'm talking about the big dogs.

No not really, though I guess I should learn about global defense rules and laws or at least the more important ones. But this isn't my shtick. This among other 'facts' or military and other things that I believe are not true, is your shtick. Killing things/anything is your shtick.

I only know the bad effects of Nuke and Nuclear things that give people diseases and basically kill off an entire city making it radiate for 500 years or so.

oh the irony


Some of the larger ones invented during the Cold War, maybe, but those will never be used. Not by a First World nation, at least.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Do you know anything about global defense at all? North Korea ranks nowhere near the military might of the former USSR-affiliated superpowers. They're irrelevant. I'm talking about the big dogs.

No not really, though I guess I should learn about global defense rules and laws or at least the more important ones. But this isn't my shtick. This among other 'facts' or military and other things that I believe are not true, is your shtick. Killing things/anything is your shtick.

I only know the bad effects of Nuke and Nuclear things that give people diseases and basically kill off an entire city making it radiate for 500 years or so.

oh the irony

You get the idea though. It radiates a city for a good long time, maybe not 500 years. But a pretty long arse time.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

No not really, though I guess I should learn about global defense rules and laws or at least the more important ones. But this isn't my shtick. This among other 'facts' or military and other things that I believe are not true, is your shtick. Killing things/anything is your shtick.

I only know the bad effects of Nuke and Nuclear things that give people diseases and basically kill off an entire city making it radiate for 500 years or so.

oh the irony

You get the idea though. It radiates a city for a good long time, maybe not 500 years. But a pretty long arse time.

Which is why tactical nukes are better, because they have a smaller yield and a more isolated target area.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

oh the irony

You get the idea though. It radiates a city for a good long time, maybe not 500 years. But a pretty long arse time.

Which is why tactical nukes are better, because they have a smaller yield and a more isolated target area.

No. They still kill and still do the same effects just smaller range. Which is still harmful.

Quote: Metallo

Which is why tactical nukes are the best way to go. Designed to be used on the battlefield at a moment's notice, designed to kill the enemy and ONLY the enemy: minimum (if any) civilian casualties.


Never ideal, but it's the lesser of two evils.


In fact, nuclear warfare itself (historically speaking) is the lesser of two evils.

Nuclear weapons still leave a pretty nasty fallout.

Nuclear energy is a good alternative to fossil fuels, but we don't know how to properly deal with that waste in a manner that doesn't harm anything.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

You get the idea though. It radiates a city for a good long time, maybe not 500 years. But a pretty long arse time.

Which is why tactical nukes are better, because they have a smaller yield and a more isolated target area.

No. They still kill and still do the same effects just smaller range. Which is still harmful.

Understandable, but by that logic, we might as well just ban firearms and go back to fighting with sticks and rocks.


Quote: CAV

Quote: Metallo

Which is why tactical nukes are the best way to go. Designed to be used on the battlefield at a moment's notice, designed to kill the enemy and ONLY the enemy: minimum (if any) civilian casualties.


Never ideal, but it's the lesser of two evils.


In fact, nuclear warfare itself (historically speaking) is the lesser of two evils.

Nuclear weapons still leave a pretty nasty fallout.

Nuclear energy is a good alternative to fossil fuels, but we don't know how to properly deal with that waste in a manner that doesn't harm anything.

France is doing a pretty good job.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Which is why tactical nukes are better, because they have a smaller yield and a more isolated target area.

No. They still kill and still do the same effects just smaller range. Which is still harmful.

Understandable, but by that logic, we might as well just ban firearms and go back to fighting with sticks and rocks.

No what I'm saying is, we shouldn't be assed to use any nukes for war anymore. No one said crap about firearms in this topic, but you.

Quote: Trix Master 100

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Trix Master 100

No. They still kill and still do the same effects just smaller range. Which is still harmful.

Understandable, but by that logic, we might as well just ban firearms and go back to fighting with sticks and rocks.

No what I'm saying is, we shouldn't be assed to use any nukes for war anymore. No one said crap about firearms in this topic, but you.

My point is that with nuclear weapons, we can IMPROVE them, but if we were to ban them just because they kill and have harmful effects would be the exact same principle. That was kind of a bad analogy, though.


Once again, I am not saying that nuclear weapons are the way to go and we should nuke everything in sight. I'm saying they should always be at our disposal, just in case.

If nukes actually do get used rather than just being a show of who's got bigger and better, it's the end of the world. Each country will just retaliate back and forth with their own nukes until there's nothing left of the planet or life on the planet.

Quote: Seiki

If nukes actually do get used rather than just being a show of who's got bigger and better, it's the end of the world. Each country will just retaliate back and forth with their own nukes until there's nothing left of the planet or life on the planet.

Who's to say that's not the only reason that we haven't been nuked yet? Because they know that we have them and can therefore retaliate?

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Seiki

If nukes actually do get used rather than just being a show of who's got bigger and better, it's the end of the world. Each country will just retaliate back and forth with their own nukes until there's nothing left of the planet or life on the planet.

Who's to say that's not the only reason that we haven't been nuked yet? Because they know that we have them and can therefore retaliate?

I wasn't saying that as the reason why it hasn't happened yet, rather as the reason no one needs to fire that first shot and that it shouldn't be a thing.

Quote: Seiki

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Seiki

If nukes actually do get used rather than just being a show of who's got bigger and better, it's the end of the world. Each country will just retaliate back and forth with their own nukes until there's nothing left of the planet or life on the planet.

Who's to say that's not the only reason that we haven't been nuked yet? Because they know that we have them and can therefore retaliate?

I wasn't saying that as the reason why it hasn't happened yet, rather as the reason no one needs to fire that first shot and that it shouldn't be a thing.

We don't need to fire the first, no. But we might be able to fire the last if we aim correctly.

Quote: Seiki

If nukes actually do get used rather than just being a show of who's got bigger and better, it's the end of the world. Each country will just retaliate back and forth with their own nukes until there's nothing left of the planet or life on the planet.

This. Once a single nuke is launched a lot of countries would retaliate before the first one even landed, and then everyone would be screwed.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Seiki

Quote: Metallo

Who's to say that's not the only reason that we haven't been nuked yet? Because they know that we have them and can therefore retaliate?

I wasn't saying that as the reason why it hasn't happened yet, rather as the reason no one needs to fire that first shot and that it shouldn't be a thing.

We don't need to fire the first, no. But we might be able to fire the last if we aim correctly.

Assuming there's anything left of the US to be able to fire and properly target that shot.

Quote: Muffin Man

-----

For posting that video

let's make/awake godzilla.

nuclear weapons shouldn't evolve past any use than maintaining the deterrence theory, anything else is literally suicidal.

They're not good.

That's why the new Iran deal the USA is making is bad.

I think nuclear weapons should be kept as a deterrent against attack, and only used when absolutely necessary.

Quote: Badwolfmichael

They're not good.

That's why the new Iran deal the USA is making is bad.

It's either that or war with Iran, which means World War III.

the entire point of building nuclear weapons is so that they are never used, you guys understand that, right? the threat of retaliation and mutually assured destruction is the exact reason nuclear weapons haven't been used since more than one nation had them. two nations with nuclear weapons literally cannot fight for the sake of life on this planet, and they know this.

Quote: valskeletor

the entire point of building nuclear weapons is so that they are never used, you guys understand that, right? the threat of retaliation and mutually assured destruction is the exact reason nuclear weapons haven't been used since more than one nation had them. two nations with nuclear weapons literally cannot fight for the sake of life on this planet, and they know this.

Exactly.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Badwolfmichael

They're not good.

That's why the new Iran deal the USA is making is bad.

It's either that or war with Iran, which means World War III.

Oh yeah, I defiantly know that, but the feat ails of the deal allows for Iran to pick and chose what we can inspect, so I have a feeling they'll still get their hands on nuclear weapons,

Quote: Badwolfmichael

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Badwolfmichael

They're not good.

That's why the new Iran deal the USA is making is bad.

It's either that or war with Iran, which means World War III.

Oh yeah, I defiantly know that, but the feat ails of the deal allows for Iran to pick and chose what we can inspect, so I have a feeling they'll still get their hands on nuclear weapons,

iran having nuclear weapons is probably best for peace in the world tbh

america wont be as quick to trample all over them for the sake of oil.

Quote: Badwolfmichael

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Badwolfmichael

They're not good.

That's why the new Iran deal the USA is making is bad.

It's either that or war with Iran, which means World War III.

Oh yeah, I defiantly know that, but the feat ails of the deal allows for Iran to pick and chose what we can inspect, so I have a feeling they'll still get their hands on nuclear weapons,

Take a look.

Quote: Metallo

Quote: Badwolfmichael

Quote: Metallo

It's either that or war with Iran, which means World War III.

Oh yeah, I defiantly know that, but the feat ails of the deal allows for Iran to pick and chose what we can inspect, so I have a feeling they'll still get their hands on nuclear weapons,

Take a look.

Okay.
Good.
I'm glad I must have misheard wrong, because I've been pretty worried over the deal, I'm glad I got that cleared up.

I mean, we should use them if needed. Not just go around using them like they were normal bombs, only certain situations we should use them.

I live in a country that's been entirely nuclear free for literal decades, what do you think?

Tho this topic does remind me of that crazy bus driver we had one time in middle school on a trip to the local art gallery, he went on and on about how close we were to a nuclear war at the end of WWII, like wth man we're a bunch of 12 year olds going to look at weird art what does this have to do with anything.

For serious tho, while the threat of them on both sides itself is ironically a good way of preventing their use, actually using them under ANY circumstances? Wtf no. What's the point in defending your "country" if you end up literally destroying it in the process?

Quote: Dragons-go-hrr

For serious tho, while the threat of them on both sides itself is ironically a good way of preventing their use, actually using them under ANY circumstances? Wtf no. What's the point in defending your "country" if you end up literally destroying it in the process?

It's never good. It's never ideal. Like I said, sometimes it's the just the lesser of two evils. The alternative to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings was Operation Downfall, a full-fledged invasion of Japan in which death tolls would've gone into the millions and much more land would've been destroyed (detailed in one of the links above).