Nuclear weapons still? We'll never use them again.

Discussion in 'The Hangout' started by hades_leae, Jun 17, 2016.

Nuclear weapons still? We'll never use them again. 5 5 1votes
5/5, 1 vote

  1. hades_leae

    hades_leae Active Member
      48/93

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Why keep them? Why would a government allow putting the human population back to what it was 300 hundred years ago? Why would a government think that it really is in control after such a planetary disaster.

    What is to come of a way of life after a nuclear event?

    There really is no way to build our current standard way of life back to what it is if anyone of these countries make that choice.
     
    Keith H. likes this.
  2. lonewolf

    lonewolf Legendary Survivalist Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    if there is ever a nuclear war you can forget going back 300 years, you'd be going back to the stone age and starting from scratch again.
     
    hades_leae likes this.
  3. Keith H.

    Keith H. Moderator Staff Member
      525/575

    Blog Posts:
    7
    Go
    Governments that have nuclear weapons are NOT concerned with the well being of it's citizens. Government officials & the very wealthy have the means to escape the death & destruction caused by nuclear weapons.
    Keith.
     
  4. remnant

    remnant Expert Member
      190/230

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I believe nukes are kept for the purposes of deterence. They were made due to the quest of man wanting to have an upper hand over his opponents. The greatest danger from nukes at present is not governments, rather, its non stake actors in connivance with rogue governments or the possibility of terrorists managing to design a crude device. There is also the danger of an accidental discharge or phantoms appearing on the radar of an adversarial nation alerting them of a nuclear strike as it once happened with Russia when an incoming nuclear missile was detected.
     
  5. lonewolf

    lonewolf Legendary Survivalist Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I know the USA likes to portray the Russians as their own personal "bogey man", but I think the threat is more likely to come from a rogue state like Iran or more likely North Korea.
     
  6. John Snort

    John Snort Well-Known Member
      92/93

    Blog Posts:
    0
    If country A has nuclear weapons and country B is their enemy then country B will build their own nuclear weapons. If country A has 100 nukes then country B will want as many nukes. It's all about maintaining the equilibrium. Neither of the two countries will want to attack the other first because they expect a response in kind.
     
  7. OursIsTheFury

    OursIsTheFury Expert Member
      153/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Technically it's called a deterrent, which means that they only have / build them for the sake of maintaining a balance. It's a threat, that if you break the nuclear laws, you will get a taste of nuclear attacks from everyone else. So even though countries all over the globe DO NOT plan to use them, they are still there, just in case someone is crazy enough to start a world war, and to end it quickly. It also makes any country wary and have second thoughts if they want to attack another country. A tactical nuke strike is still a pretty infamous weapon, and almost everyone would rather have peace talks and negotiations rather than have it land in your area.
     
  8. djordjem87

    djordjem87 Member
      18/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    They should all be dismantled and used as a power source or something. That is what should be done but people are just a bunch of insecure idiots and they think that they hold the cards if they have these kinds of weapons. It is disturbing to know some psychopaths hold our lives in their hands. Your question is very good. Why do they have something that can cause entire world to go back to dark ages if survive at all. I was better off these kind of thoughts. I wonder why do we do what we do and why people have this privilege to live here?
     
    hades_leae likes this.
  9. hades_leae

    hades_leae Active Member
      48/93

    Blog Posts:
    0
    Yeah but the cost of maintaining those weapons are on the citizens. That's not fair on behalf of the people but these governments don't really care about that, I honestly believe it's all about who power, etc. They know what kind of damage these weapons can do but that's irrelevant because they also know the chances of using them.

    Nuclear weapons are human-kinds biggest error. We sleep with the threat of extinction like it's TED.
     
  10. tb65

    tb65 Active Member
      33/47

    Blog Posts:
    0
    This may sound really skeptical but I doubt it'll ever happen. From what I'm seeing in the news all major countries are starting to work together to form some kind of order. Most of the worlds powerful countries are talking about a New World Order. I seriously doubt that our planet is going to be nuked, there will probably be a whole lot of other messed up things that are going to take place tho.
     
  11. DecMikashimota

    DecMikashimota New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    It seems valid that most of you have the same deterrent idea. When you think about it, it makes all of the sense in the world. It is the same as living in a rough neighborhood, someone is less likely to threaten you with typical bullying if they know that you are capable of defending yourself.
    In the case of Nuclear warheads being dispersed to a few countries instead of just one, it does not allow one person to overpower the other by simply exerting themselves in a threatening manner solely because they are capable of nuclear bombing other countries.
    It is a smart move to have an equalizer in a world that can appear as if it is war ridden at times.
     
  12. lonewolf

    lonewolf Legendary Survivalist Staff Member
      510/575

    Blog Posts:
    0
    its called M.A.D..........mutually assured destruction!!!:D
     
  13. Moroccanbeauty2266

    Moroccanbeauty2266 Active Member
      33/47

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I do not think it makes sense to keep weapons of mass destruction after an apocalypse.
    The apocalypse itself could be happening because of such weapons and the competition
    between countries and governments that refuse to cooperate.
    It is only about power and which country leads the world.
    Governments do not care about the citizens. They care about
    who is in power , who they can control and who they can threaten.
    A country that cares about peace will not build or support carrying weapons of mass destruction
    instead it will focus on improving the lives of the people.
     
    hades_leae likes this.
  14. explorerx7

    explorerx7 Expert Member
      143/173

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The apocalypse may be brewing as we speak because powerful who see the need for beating their chests and affirm how powerful they continue to produce these devices of mass destruction and devastation. Therefore, each time a weapon of this type is produced there is a move by the opponent to better that creation, therefore, there is this constant production of more sophisticated nuclear weapons. There been numerous accidents involving the handling and transportation of nuclear weapons:
    There was an incident where somewhere in the US some nuclear bombs were being transported on an airplane on of the bombs was dislodged from the aircraft and sunk into a swamp area. The bomb sank so deep into the ground that it could not be retrieved, therefore, the army had to purchase the land and make into containment site. The most alarming factor was that all but one of the 5 safety device on the bomb had not been triggered, therefore, the bomb was on the brink of being detonated. I have no doubt that probably accidents of a similar nature have occurred in other jurisdictions, but wherever it may be they all try to hide this type of information from the public. They don't care about the well being of inhabitants around the globe, they are only interested in wielding power.
     
  15. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The doctrine of deterrence. Simply put, the one with the biggest club doesn't usually get messed with, and the H-Bomb is the biggest club ever devised by mankind. That and one of the things stopping a hostile foreign state that has the capability to strike us with some form of WMD (nuclear, biological, chemical, etc.) is they know we have retaliatory strike capabilities. And that strike would be the total annihilation of their society.
     
  16. chelsknits

    chelsknits New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I don't think a lot of the leaders in the world think of the effects a nuclear attack would have, or the fact that it would effect more than just the country that they're targeting. It's all about control and power and they'll do anything to get it. Their need for it makes them blind to the effects their actions will have on the world.
     
    hades_leae likes this.
  17. hades_leae

    hades_leae Active Member
      48/93

    Blog Posts:
    0
    I believe now that they know because they can't be dumb enough to destroy a planet and think that they still have power over the people afterwards. When the planet becomes habitable again, those who arise from their caves will revolt against any one who tries to gain control over the people again, especially if they knew they had something to do with the last disaster.

    I would be one of them because your not going to be my leader, then cause hundreds of millions of deaths thinking that you are still the best option as a leader of humanity.
     
  18. chelsknits

    chelsknits New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    They could think that by cause such destruction, any people left behind will fear them to the point of submission. That's just a theory, of course. I completely agree with you though, there would definitely be people who wouldn't tolerate such a thing.
     
  19. My3Sons_NJ

    My3Sons_NJ New Member
      8/23

    Blog Posts:
    0
    The concept of M.A.D. probably saved hundreds of millions of lives over the last half of the 20th Century since it has deterred many brutal regimes such as Soviet Russia and Red China from invading their neighbors with impunity due to the risk that their victims may retaliate with nuclear firepower if all seemed lost. It, however, only works if the would-be-invader has an interest in self-preservation which some Middle Eastern countries seem to lack.
     
  20. CivilDefense

    CivilDefense Expert Member
      235/345

    Blog Posts:
    0
    ^ This guy gets it. What has, at least so far, prevented another world war is the fact that the aggressors know it is the end of civilization. No one really "wins" a full nuclear exchange. On the other than, the small, wackjob enemies may not grasp this reality or even care. Which is why we should have a missile defense system, a harden infrastructure, and a robust civil defense plan. Alas, none of those things are even remotely in place now. Ergo, one has to be prepared.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Rehab Of Iran Nuclear Deal ? News, Current Events, and Politics Nov 10, 2020
Some Us Nuclear Site Info Re Safety News, Current Events, and Politics Oct 27, 2020
Med Center Prepared For Nuclear Disaster News, Current Events, and Politics Feb 12, 2020
Surviving A Nuclear Bomb Attack Other Not Listed Situations Jan 10, 2020
Nuclear Disaster Exercise Starting News, Current Events, and Politics Dec 5, 2019
Nuclear Disaster Emergency Exercise News, Current Events, and Politics Oct 23, 2019
Grid Down/nuclear Winter What do you believe? Predictions? Oct 12, 2019
Nuclear War From Unexpected Direction??? News, Current Events, and Politics Oct 3, 2019
Virginia's First Nuclear Shelter The Hangout Sep 15, 2019
Neutralizing The Nuclear Worries Mental Preparedness Aug 10, 2019

Share This Page