With nukes it just takes one nut case.

Too many crazy people in power today to risk it.

I mostly agree. The existence of nukes alone is the greatest deterrent against aggressive warfare in all human history. I wouldn't want them to disappear.

But, it's also a minor miracle that everyone with the power to launch nukes has been a mostly rational actor, thus far. It's not true that no one at all would be willing to launch. Gambles fail, things get miscommunicated, people crack under pressure...

Also, if nukes were to be used, the way they kill is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ gruesome. Death by burning and radiation poisoning are arguably the most painful deaths, and nukes do both.

I mean, the intuitive leap to go from dynamite to splitting the atom in less than a hundred years was pretty impressive.

Not nearly as impressive as going from vacuum tubes to solid state electronics in just 20 though.

Idea: If we both have nukes we wont dare attack each other.

Reality: I'm going to attack you by normal means and if you nuke me I'll nuke you back.

Nuclear weapons are not one of the greatest things created by mankind in any meaning of the word.

Originally posted by xDDD:

Nuclear weapons are not one of the greatest things created by mankind in any meaning of the word.

I was about to say that.

Originally posted by xDDD:

Nuclear weapons are not one of the greatest things created by mankind in any meaning of the word.

I mean, yeah, soap has probably had a greater effect on mankind.

Industrial fertilizers are way up there too.

I use to have the mw2 nuke voice-line set as my alarm clock that goes like:"A TACTICAL NUUUUKE! INCOMIIIING! BUUWOOP! 🚨 BUUWOOP! 🚨

Originally posted by xDDD:

Nuclear weapons are not one of the greatest things created by mankind in any meaning of the word.

If the meaning is greatest destruction by a single weapon, then they are.

Originally posted by Grendalcat:

Originally posted by xDDD:

Nuclear weapons are not one of the greatest things created by mankind in any meaning of the word.

If the meaning is greatest destruction by a single weapon, then they are.

Destruction isn't great.

Originally posted by Jared:

I'm tired of hearing people saying nuclear weapons should be simply erased off the earth, or in more realistic terms, have disarmament treaties in place to prevent nuclear weapons being used. But I think not. Nuclear weapons are like, "Hey, let's attack this country, but they have nukes, what if they nuke us? Nah, let's nuke them back, but then we'll get nuked in return!" There is no world in which nuclear weapons will be used without the total destruction of earth itself. No man, no matter how much of a dictator they are, would want to do something like that. Nukes keep countries in place, and have prevented WW3.

Nuclear weapons don't bring total destruction of Earth, they usually bring total destruction of a city or few cities that include mainly innocent citizens, a dictator might not care about it. Only if countries would nuke themselves over and over and over again, many times, that's when we can start talking about total destruction.

Agree. Let's all launch them to showcase their firepower

It made terrorism more effective and countries without nukes are at mercy of the countries with them.

Originally posted by Solvnblom:

Originally posted by Jared:

I'm tired of hearing people saying nuclear weapons should be simply erased off the earth, or in more realistic terms, have disarmament treaties in place to prevent nuclear weapons being used. But I think not. Nuclear weapons are like, "Hey, let's attack this country, but they have nukes, what if they nuke us? Nah, let's nuke them back, but then we'll get nuked in return!" There is no world in which nuclear weapons will be used without the total destruction of earth itself. No man, no matter how much of a dictator they are, would want to do something like that. Nukes keep countries in place, and have prevented WW3.

Nuclear weapons don't bring total destruction of Earth, they usually bring total destruction of a city or few cities that include mainly innocent citizens, a dictator might not care about it. Only if countries would nuke themselves over and over and over again, many times, that's when we can start talking about total destruction.

The nukes used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki were big enough to wipe out a city.

The biggest nukes today can put out over 100,000 times that power. And the fact is, most countries are just two or three cities. Two, maybe three or four large nukes on London and Edinburgh, then Manchester would wipe out the UK and its entire Government structure. Ireland in a single strike on Dublin. Russia in three or four on Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinberg, Volgograd. France in 3. Germany in 4. Spain in 2. Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden in 1 each. US in 5 maybe. New York and Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, Dallas, Chicago and Houston.

The US and Russia have over 5000 nukes each, pointed at each other.

Nukes are a double edged sword. It may be used to stop conflict but when an animal is cornered it will do everything in its power to win.

In my opinion I feel like nukes are a ticking time bomb. No pun intended.