Nuke development?

Do you think nuclear bombs should be allowed to be made? That goes for EVERY country. Because at the end of the day, the only person who is going to drop that is going to be someone who's plans are kill the world.

The fact they are buildings these mass destruction weapons just for 'RESPECT' is stupid. If one of those goes off near ground it will obviously kill tons around the area and eventually kill everyone on the earth because nothing would grow.

It's a ticking bomb for respect overall and we are the ones that will suffer. Them nukes would never be used if they wanted to attack someone because if US went a nuked someone, they'd be killing themselves.

Now I am not going to be racist at all but put all the countries that religion tells extremists to do suicidal things. (9/11 for example). If them countries put someone in-charge of the nuclear weapons who has a plan to kill the world, they could easily do it. How do we know these countries aren't going to secretly plan to end the life on earth? They are developing these bombs without telling us... pretty worrying in my view to be honest.

Do you think nuclear bomb production should be allowed?

To destroy the entire Earth, the only countries with enough nuclear arsenal capable of doing that are the United States and the Russian Federation who have dramatically reduced nuclear stockpiles since the end of the Cold War. A nation cannot just make a nuclear bomb, it needs the knowledge from another state and also needs the technical advances to make enrich the uranium, and in North Koreas' case; to make the missile the bomb would be deployed on.

A nuclear bomb will never go off itself, infact there is one at the bottom of the sea right now that the United States still hasn't recovered, it could stay down there for millions of years and it will never be set off. There are so many safety precautions its unimaginable.

On the case of the Trident system in the United Kingdom, of course we should keep it, it would be foolish to scrap our independant nuclear deterrant. In the future we face an energy crisis which will put the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe in the hands of the Russian Federation, now i'm not saying we would use them in that case but i'm sure Russia would think twice about using energy tactics against us if we are a nuclear armed state, if tensions do rise that high at one point.

You cannot uninvent something, and while nuclear bombs are around - the world is a much more safe place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

To destroy the entire Earth, the only countries with enough nuclear arsenal capable of doing that are the United States and the Russian Federation who have dramatically reduced nuclear stockpiles since the end of the Cold War. A nation cannot just make a nuclear bomb, it needs the knowledge from another state and also needs the technical advances to make enrich the uranium, and in North Koreas' case; to make the missile the bomb would be deployed on.

A nuclear bomb will never go off itself, infact there is one at the bottom of the sea right now that the United States still hasn't recovered, it could stay down there for millions of years and it will never be set off. There are so many safety precautions its unimaginable.

On the case of the Trident system in the United Kingdom, of course we should keep it, it would be foolish to scrap our independant nuclear deterrant. In the future we face an energy crisis which will put the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe in the hands of the Russian Federation, now i'm not saying we would use them in that case but i'm sure Russia would think twice about using energy tactics against us if we are a nuclear armed state, if tensions do rise that high at one point.

You cannot uninvent something, and while nuclear bombs are around - the world is a much more safe place.

---

Even if Russia or someone came bombing us or the USA like mad, they won't ever use a nuke because it would just end life on the earth eventually. Nothing would grow.
It's just the fact of physically having a nuke sitting there gives you power that is fustrating. It's dangerous power that is messing around with us.

A nuclear bomb could go off at anytime, yeah its TOTALLY unlikely but there is always the risk.

It only takes 1 nuke to spread its poisonious chemicals around killing our food resources.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sam Carvalho

Even if Russia or someone came bombing us or the USA like mad, they won't ever use a nuke because it would just end life on the earth eventually. Nothing would grow.
It's just the fact of physically having a nuke sitting there gives you power that is fustrating. It's dangerous power that is messing around with us.

A nuclear bomb could go off at anytime, yeah its TOTALLY unlikely but there is always the risk.

It only takes 1 nuke to spread its poisonious chemicals around killing our food resources.

---

That is called MAD (mutually assured destruction) and would only happen in an all out conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, long which has been avoided. A bomb could go off anytime, but that machine also carried a risk of a black hole, theres also more of a risk of your car crashing, a plane crashing into a skyscraper by mistake, and an asteroid coming down, combined with the fact solar radiation is hitting the Earth constantly makes the chances of a nuclear bomb going off, very unlikely.

The incident at Chernobyl let off more radiation than the bombs used on the Japanese Empire in World War II, yet even now Chernobyl is recovering fast with wild life coming back (although small defects still occur) and Nagasaki and Hiroshima are now bustling cities with safe radiation levels.

I'm confused as to what your arguing for, the United Kingdom to remove its nuclear defence system or for the world to disarm?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

That is called MAD (mutually assured destruction) and would only happen in an all out conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation, long which has been avoided. A bomb could go off anytime, but that machine also carried a risk of a black hole, theres also more of a risk of your car crashing, a plane crashing into a skyscraper by mistake, and an asteroid coming down, combined with the fact solar radiation is hitting the Earth constantly makes the chances of a nuclear bomb going off, very unlikely.

The incident at Chernobyl let off more radiation than the bombs used on the Japanese Empire in World War II, yet even now Chernobyl is recovering fast with wild life coming back (although small defects still occur) and Nagasaki and Hiroshima are now bustling cities with safe radiation levels.

I'm confused as to what your arguing for, the United Kingdom to remove its nuclear defence system or for the world to disarm?

---

No i'm arguing that why are we making weapons that would kill everyone including yourself if you used them, when we know they will NEVER be used and are just a showcase to gain power.

It's like walking around a public place holding a massive gun up, warning people to stay away.

[QUOTE=Sam Carvalho;6073006]No i'm arguing that why are we making weapons that would kill everyone including yourself if you used them, when we know they will NEVER be used and are just a showcase to gain power.

It's like walking around a public place holding a massive gun up, warning people to stay away.[/QUOTE]

You've just answered your own question. :)

Nuclear weapons ended World War II by many years it has to be said. Although it killed hundreds of thousands of people, if the war was to go on just a year more, it's likely that millions would of died so it certainly helped World War II.

I also think without the deterrent of mutually assured destruction, that they'd of actually been a war between NATO and the Eastern Pack. Both sides tried very hard to ensure that there wasn't mutually assured destruction. I reckon that if nuclear weapons didn't exist they'd of probably just gone to war and it'd be more lengthy and devastating than World War II.

I'm confident that nuclear weapons will be phased out during our lifetimes, there's a clear agreement that stockpiles should be reduced and I'm glad about that. Britain however shouldn't get rid of Trident just because Russia is getting rid of a few nukes, when Russia/China gets rid of all theirs, so should we. It's also likely that things such as satellite warfare will be much more powerful so that'll eradicate their need anyways.

If it was simpler and I was the president of the US, I'd go 'Well yeah they've got tons of Nukes but they are never gonna use them cause they'll kill themselves, its a showcased weapon that will never be used and doesn't affect us so I'll go do what i'm gonna do (e.g war or w.e)'

i think if they don't threaten to use them it will be ok

like for emergencies and stuff

but yeah i see the point of "whose got the biggest and the best nukes".

To say that 11 of the 9, 2001 was caused by an extremist religion is very discriminative, weather it be intentianal or not. Dont you remember the IRA? The Catholic group thats started modern terrorism? Hypocritical. Second of all, to whoever said that Nuclear weapons ended world war two, well, your very mistaken. The war in Europe, which ended in april 1945 which is now considered the "official" ending of world war two, where as the Americans (btw the Nuclear Bomb was created by Germans, not Americans) bombed Japan during August 1945. In other words. The war ended everywhere around the world except in Asia, which is quite comedic as Japan was already retreating out of many of it's strong holds like the phillipines by this point.