Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Why the fuck would the UK, Pakistan, or India attack America?

And on top of that, how does a country that doesnt have nukes (Iran) and a country who cant deliver them (North Korea) manage to strike America? I understand your point but damn, it sure as hell wasnt well done.

You could have said it a lot better and easier by saying their is the destruction part but none of the mutually assured part.

Banning, or destroying all nuclear weapons would not lead to the destruction of the US. If the US's only guarantree of not being destroyed is because it has nuclear weapons... lol. Then I would seriously laugh, because then it must be an extremely inept country, if that was the only thing saving its ass.

One, the US still has an extremely powerful military, not to mention dozens of high tech weaponary that does not consist of a 'Nuclear' Reaction. Building, developing, and refining weapons grade uranium is not an easy task. This means activity of this kind would be detected either by satellite, or by espionage, well before launch capablity of smuggling of nuclear weapons could happen. Thus, the blowing up/dismemberment of such a facility would be santioned.

Two, If a world wide ban of nuclear weapons occured, then anyone breaking it would receive a severe backlash from the world, instead of the current "Well.. these people have nukes so...". At least it should be a more severe one. Communal support of preventing nuclear weapons from being developed would be paramount - and toleration of nuclear weapons programs would be extremely low.

In fact, because of nations signing a non-proliferation treaty, and disarmament of such weapons, some say it prevents a total banning of all nuclear weapons (because of philosophy of slowly destroying them). I would still encourage defensive technologies to be continuously refined, if such a day happened and someone launch nukes... but its totally ridiculous that america would be blown apart, simply because it does not have nukes. It can still blow a big chunk of land up (air-burst weapons do considerable damage, bunker-penetrating bombs can pierce 6 feet of steel-reinforced concrete, etc).

I disagree. Nuclear weapons are a needed piece of the peace we are enjoying. If every country had nukes and every country was stable and didnt feel like getting anhillated, no one would touch eachother. However, we have unstable countries and people who arent countries trying to get nukes. So thats why we have non proliferation.

If every country was stable and not led by psychotic bastards, Id have no problem with everyone having nukes. However, we dont. We live in this world as best we can.

And your idea of taking everyone out of the nuclear age and getting rid of nukes is ridiculous. Its like those people who said everything was better back in the day when we were hunter gathers because we were all equal, never mind the horrors and problems associated with everyday living, let alone thriving.

Fact is we cant uninvent something and pretend like it never existed. Because in your world all it would take is one country hiding a nuclear program to destroy world stability and wield power over all. Just a single North Korea. A single AQ Khan. Thats it.

At 11/1/05 03:29 AM, FAB0L0US wrote: And your idea of taking everyone out of the nuclear age and getting rid of nukes is ridiculous. Its like those people who said everything was better back in the day when we were hunter gathers because we were all equal, never mind the horrors and problems associated with everyday living, let alone thriving.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whoa. I never said nuclear technology was bad - just the weapons itself. Personally, I'm a strong supporter of finding energy producing ways using nulcear fission methods - but I feel nuclear weapons (ICBM's) are an ineffective way, in the sense of thousands upon thousands of missiles, for determent - much more effective ways can accomplish the same goal. Controversially, weapons in space (High precision lasers) have been in thought from at least the 1970's 'Star Wars' - but I support defensive mechanisms in the event of such a nuclear attack.

Fact is we cant uninvent something and pretend like it never existed. Because in your world all it would take is one country hiding a nuclear program to destroy world stability and wield power over all. Just a single North Korea. A single AQ Khan. Thats it.

This wouldn't be too different from where it is now - taking away nuclear weapons from peaceful countries would not affect our decision making. We haven't nuked North Korea or Iran into submission yet. But we are thinking about taking military action, while trying to pursue a peaceful resolution. I was saying that the only thing that would disapear is the allied nuclear weapons - not any other weapon. Defensive technologies, I would support - and numorous weapons are at our disposal to disarm, forcibly if necessary, an enemy who refuses to cooperate with global rulings.

P.S. Tactical Nuclear Weapons (fusion based) I support, primarily because of the goal to handle a localized issue, not the utter destruction of a society (Mass ICBM launch!)
For me, a blast area of 20 km radius is a bit too much to subdue an enemy ;)

1) You cant seperate the nuclear plants from the weapons. You have one, you have the means to get another.
2) All it takes is a single person who goes unnoticed to create nukes, smuggle them into cities and arm them to blacmlail the entire world. All it takes is a couple of ICBM's.
3) There is really no possible way we are ever going to rid ourselves of these weapons. Not ever.

Thats my general view.

At 11/1/05 12:48 AM, Hamslice wrote: Bush also said that Iraq had WMD's...>_> i still see none.

i swear for every single time i answer this stupid fucking question some other fucktard decides to be all smart-looking and ask it again.

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME.

He used them so he mustve had them. if he got rid of them then why was he so secretive about his plants?(e.g. no unanounced inspections or flyovers)
they have sattalite photos of trucks fleeing from the back of the sites litterly minutes befor the inspectors arrive.
satisfied?

FABOLOUS!

i agree nukes should not be used in WAR but if iran had the only nukes on earth then iran would hold the earth to ransom

At 11/1/05 12:45 AM, Nomader wrote:

At 11/1/05 12:39 AM, hellsgift wrote: Nobody has a right to nuclear weapons, that would just be dumb.
well in that case don't you think all of the worlds nukes should be disarmed?

Ok. Let's make it the perfect pacificist world for a moment.

Missiles don't exist! Gone! The US has literally destroyed all its weapons.

Pakistan, India, Iran, and North Korea see the opening.

*BOOM*

Alaska falls.
California Falls
Oregon holds for one hour, then falls.
Washington falls.

*BOOM*

UK strikes at DC.

Washington DC is gone
Maryland falls

*BOOM*

Terroirsts buy nuclear weapon, use it on US

New York gone

etc.

With America being the way it is, it has a need to have WMDs, just so it can tell other countries,

"Don't do this, or else"

We wish we could get rid of our weapons, but we can't.

what? if there were no bombs in the world, then what are they going to blow us up with? im not saying that we need to dismantle our basic military, just the bombs. read THOROUGHLY before you post