Thermonuclear disarmament: Is this a safe way to take America?

Back

Thermonuclear disarmament: Is this a safe way to take America? by Takeo The Wise Wolf on 29 Jun, 2011 13:44
Country   Warheads active/total*   Year of first test   CTBT status
The five nuclear-weapon states under the NPT
United States   1,950 / 8,500[3]
Russia (former Soviet Union)
United Kingdom
France   290 / 300[3]
China   ~180 / 240[3]
Non-NPT nuclear powers
India   n.a. / 80-100[3]
Pakistan   n.a. / 90-110[3]
North Korea   n.a. / <10[3]
Undeclared nuclear powers
Israel   n.a. / 80[3]
(source: wikipedia)
With today's nuclear world, is it safe for the US to start disarming it's arsenal, as some politicians would have us do?

What are your thoughts on this?
Reply #1 by (=CG=) DoomBringerDANTE on 29 Jun, 2011 13:48
At first im like, destroy them all i dont want a nuclear winter, then i renember borderlands and deadlands games and then i am like: DOO IT, DOO IT!!!!
Reply #2 by Bjork on 29 Jun, 2011 14:46
To be honest all countries should have to at least disarm them (Not completely destroy them) unless its a matter of great urgency to kill thousand of innocent people e.g. never.

Of all the things nuclear power could be used for we of course have to make it a bomb.
Reply #3 by (=CG=) DoomBringerDANTE on 29 Jun, 2011 15:18
Quote from: Bjork on 29 Jun, 2011 14:46
To be honest all countries should have to at least disarm them (Not completely destroy them) unless its a matter of great urgency to kill thousand of innocent people e.g. never.

Of all the things nuclear power could be used for we of course have to make it a bomb.
What about nuclear sub marines and poer plants?
Reply #4 by Bjork on 29 Jun, 2011 15:56
I mean we HAD to create the most devastating weapon known to man with it. It has plenty of useful non-dangerous uses as well.
Reply #5 by Finniespin on 29 Jun, 2011 17:00
From what I recall. Wikileaks released documents of Holland having small nuclear bombs aswell...

Or was it stored in Holland ?
Reply #6 by Old Crow on 30 Jun, 2011 04:42
If everybody could get rid of them then it would be cool but with North Korea and Iran joining the club i wouldn't get rid of them too fast. It either has to be a total ban for everybody otherwise it'll never happen.

P.S. till we build the Death Star!!!!
Reply #7 by Wholegrain on 30 Jun, 2011 04:52
someone needs to fuck north korea and iran's shit up

Iran is the only country that has legitely said they will not live with a Israeli state and will do everything within their power to destroy it

frightening if you ask me
Reply #8 by Takeo The Wise Wolf on 30 Jun, 2011 07:45
I frankly think that we need to keep ahold of all of our stockpile; It's the only deterrent we've got against hostile thermonuclear powers.
Reply #9 by Jorgen on 30 Jun, 2011 07:50
Well to be honest a nuclear bomb has too many side effects to be a usefull means of war, nuclear winters and ofcourse mutations in both human life and wildlife around the area of impact.
That said, making a nuclear bomb is to a degree simpler science now than what we are strugling to do, if rich countries want nuclear bombs they will get them.

So if you push all the rich countries America others will go to your measures and we are talking about small rich countries too, like Norway (my country of birth), Holland, Germany etc you cath the drift.
I'd say get rid of it not only due to theese reasons but also do to the geneva convention in which America and other countries agreed upon the anti ABC weapons agreement, ABC weapons ofcourse being atomic, biological and chemical boms. If you guys can break it why can't every other country do so to?
Reply #10 by Old Crow on 30 Jun, 2011 07:57
yeah but nobody follows the any of the Geneva accords to a T. I know most countries won't deal with the bio or chemical because its scary stuff and fucks up people real bad (not saying a nuke doesn't), and in times of war is there really any point of some kind of regulation because in the end the more desperate country usually ends up throwing out all rules to try and survive.
Reply #11 by Jorgen on 30 Jun, 2011 08:10
Quote from: Old Crow on 30 Jun, 2011 07:57
yeah but nobody follows the any of the Geneva accords to a T. I know most countries won't deal with the bio or chemical because its scary stuff and fucks up people real bad (not saying a nuke doesn't), and in times of war is there really any point of some kind of regulation because in the end the more desperate country usually ends up throwing out all rules to try and survive.
What you guys are talking about thuough is breaking the geneva convention even before the war strikes, keeping active nuclear warheads that you can throw at people if you feel like it.
Reply #12 by Takeo The Wise Wolf on 30 Jun, 2011 09:08
Actually, the United States may be prohibited from MANUFACTURING more thermonuclear weapons (The conventional explosive MOAB has the same explosive power as the hiroshima bomb without the radiation, so we just make those now), we ARE allowed to modernize and manufacture new components for the arsenal. This includes, but is not limited to:
- Manufacture of new plutonium pits for the weapons to replace aging fissile material
- New payload-delivery methods (ICBM/SBM/bombs)
- New warhead assemblies
- Guidance system improvements
- New "Safety" systems
Also, Geneva convention has no bearing on the use or deployment of thermonuclear weaponry. The only deterrent to the deployment of said weapons is MAD: Aka, Mutually Assured Destruction.

To simplify that further: If someone throws a nuke, the UN and NATO getting pissy is the LEAST of our problems.
Reply #13 by Jorgen on 30 Jun, 2011 11:12
So you are looking away from every other reason and only targeting the morale reason that is the geneva convention.

I am not gonna go diggin trough that thing now but I am pretty sure there is a limit towards the usage of so called ABC bombs.

still even looking away from that reason the cons outweigh the pros, you might have the bragging rights to say we have nuclear weaponry but there is really no use in it, if a nuclear war were to happen it is basically a fight for the least destroyed territory after the world goes under. Lets face it most of our planets life will not survive a nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?
Reply #14 by Takeo The Wise Wolf on 30 Jun, 2011 11:34
Quote from: jorgen
...nuclear winter and most likely human life will go extinct, now is it better to go down in history as the country that contributed to the end of human life or go down in history as the country that went down willingly to save human existance?

This is Mutually Assured Destruction. Also, after a nuclear war, there wouldn't be anywhere LEFT to live.
That's why it's the ultimate deterrent; You can't live on a planet after that kind of disaster.

And it's better to KEEP our weapons and NOT have to go down. I'd rather keep living and NOT live at the whim of North Korea or Iran, tyvm...