Is there any good to come out of nuclear weapons?

"If WWIII was fought with Nuclear Weapons, WWIV shall be fought with sticks and stones"- My History Teacher

Should we just get rid of them , including our own? So we have the most nuclear weapons ( Do we?). It would cause more harm then done. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 2 times. Its ironic, we want to rid the world of terror and violence, when we have the most terrifying weapon of all time ( Other then the DEATH STAR :P ) Many argue we need them to fight off anyone from using their own nuclear weapon. That is true. But what if they agree to the riddance of their own ?Can we agree with them? Can we or should we have riddance to nuclear weapons? I understand that countries will always have nuclear weapons , no matter if they agree . But lets just dicuss the main concept of this topic. Is there any benefit to nuclear weapons? I am shocked that there are some people who believe that nuclear weapons are good.

VensInferno

[QUOTE="VensInferno"]

"If WWIII was fought with Nuclear Weapons, WWIV shall be fought with sticks and stones"- My History Teacher

Should we just get rid of them , including our own? So we have the most nuclear weapons ( Do we?). It would cause more harm then done. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 2 times. Its ironic, we want to rid the world of terror and violence, when we have the most terrifying weapon of all time ( Other then the DEATH STAR :P ) Many argue we need them to fight off anyone from using their own nuclear weapon. That is true. But what if they agree to the riddance of their own ?Can we agree with them? Can we or should we have riddance to nuclear weapons? I understand that countries will always have nuclear weapons , no matter if they agree . But lets just dicuss the main concept of this topic. Is there any benefit to nuclear weapons? I am shocked that there are some people who believe that nuclear weapons are good.

The_Gaming_Baby

Well you might as well say, is there any good to come out of weapons at all? and the answer is none

real men use their fists :P

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Well nuclear weapons did stop the US and USSR from going to war. Having a 3rd World War wouldn't be good.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Except when the plant suffers a meltdown like the one in chernobyl. I dont think thats environmentally friendly.

DroidPhysX

Yeah because all nuclear power plants are like chernobyl. Chernobyl had more to do with the lax safety standards of the USSR. Building a nuclear power plant without a containment building isn't a good idea.

All nuclear power plants have the potential to be like chernobyl.

Absolutely not. That would necessitate modern nuclear power plants to operate using using similar procedures and equipment that were used by Chernobyl. Which they don't. The chances of a nuclear power plant failure similar to that of Chernobyl are essentially non-existent.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Chaos_HL21"]

Yeah because all nuclear power plants are like chernobyl. Chernobyl had more to do with the lax safety standards of the USSR. Building a nuclear power plant without a containment building isn't a good idea.

coolbeans90

All nuclear power plants have the potential to be like chernobyl.

Absolutely not. That would necessitate modern nuclear power plants to operate using using similar procedures and equipment that were used by Chernobyl. Which they don't. The chances of a nuclear power plant failure similar to that of Chernobyl are essentially non-existent.

This is assuming nuclear power plants are 100% safe...which it isnt.

[QUOTE="The_Gaming_Baby"][QUOTE="VensInferno"]

"If WWIII was fought with Nuclear Weapons, WWIV shall be fought with sticks and stones"- My History Teacher

Should we just get rid of them , including our own? So we have the most nuclear weapons ( Do we?). It would cause more harm then done. We have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the earth 2 times. Its ironic, we want to rid the world of terror and violence, when we have the most terrifying weapon of all time ( Other then the DEATH STAR :P ) Many argue we need them to fight off anyone from using their own nuclear weapon. That is true. But what if they agree to the riddance of their own ?Can we agree with them? Can we or should we have riddance to nuclear weapons? I understand that countries will always have nuclear weapons , no matter if they agree . But lets just dicuss the main concept of this topic. Is there any benefit to nuclear weapons? I am shocked that there are some people who believe that nuclear weapons are good.

Overlord93

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

All nuclear power plants have the potential to be like chernobyl.

DroidPhysX

Absolutely not. That would necessitate modern nuclear power plants to operate using using similar procedures and equipment that were used by Chernobyl. Which they don't. The chances of a nuclear power plant failure similar to that of Chernobyl are essentially non-existent.

This is assuming nuclear power plants are 100% safe...which it isnt.

No, it is assuming that the mechanisms utilized by the nuclear plants inherently function differently. Which they do.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Absolutely not. That would necessitate modern nuclear power plants to operate using using similar procedures and equipment that were used by Chernobyl. Which they don't. The chances of a nuclear power plant failure similar to that of Chernobyl are essentially non-existent.

coolbeans90

This is assuming nuclear power plants are 100% safe...which it isnt.

No, it is assuming that the mechanisms utilized by the nuclear plants inherently function differently. Which they do.

Are we under the assumption that nuclear power plants dont have uranium and plutonium in it? Becuase a nuclear power plant is a sitting atomic bomb in a nutshell with those elements. And if it suffers a catastrophic meltdown it might result in....DARE I SAY....another chernobyl

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

This is assuming nuclear power plants are 100% safe...which it isnt.

DroidPhysX

No, it is assuming that the mechanisms utilized by the nuclear plants inherently function differently. Which they do.

Are we under the assumption that nuclear power plants dont have uranium and plutonium in it? Becuase a nuclear power plant is a sitting atomic bomb in a nutshell with those elements. And if it suffers a catastrophic meltdown it might result in....DARE I SAY....another chernobyl

Erm, no, that's not how nuclear weapons work. Suffering a meltdown like Chernobyl would require a failure on various systems. (including automatic failsafes) Those of which are modernly utilized fundamentally differ on a technical level from those used by Chernobyl. But what the hell, fear mongering is fun. So, screw facts.

[QUOTE="Kcube"]

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"] And how do you do that?Dark__Link

Launch them all

The longest stretch of world peace the world has ever seen? No world war will ever occur while there are nuclear weapons.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

This is assuming nuclear power plants are 100% safe...which it isnt.

DroidPhysX

No, it is assuming that the mechanisms utilized by the nuclear plants inherently function differently. Which they do.

Are we under the assumption that nuclear power plants dont have uranium and plutonium in it? Becuase a nuclear power plant is a sitting atomic bomb in a nutshell with those elements. And if it suffers a catastrophic meltdown it might result in....DARE I SAY....another chernobyl

The longest stretch of world peace the world has ever seen? No world war will ever occur while there are nuclear weapons.

airshocker

Nuclear weapons or the threat of their use is what has kept most of the world from having to speak Russian or Mandrine. However all of America's power is coming to an end so maybe Mandrine very soon. If the world only had conventional weapons China would rule the world. They will eventually rul the world short of being stopped by some other force. Parity is coming Eschatter

What? "Mandrine"?

The language is known as Mandarin...

And your post is completely wrong... Threats to use nuclear weapons rarely cause any change and are rarely even made... The threat to use nuclear weapons is basically "Stop what you are doing or I will commit suicide." As there is no way you can deploy nuclear weapons and not suffer retaliation, there is literally no way at all.

And what are you going on about China ruling the world?

1) China has very few nuclear warheads... They are taking the stance that everyone should take (very few, very innaccurate missiles)... Those weapons are for retaliation only... Weapons like what the US and Russia have, very accurate, MIRV'd (Multiple Independent Re-Entry Vehicle), and on alert at all times... Imply they are designed for one thing, first strike... Where one missile is able to take out multiple enemy missiles... China has as few as 20-50 nukes, all of which are designed for placement of a single warhead on a single innaccurate missile, and are not on alert, meaning the rocket needs to be fueled prior to launching... If the United States wanted to, it could literally attack right this moment and destroy China's entire nuclear arsenal... Literally... But they have no reason to, nor do they want to...

2) China has a large army, but their military is 20-30 years behind ours and no where near parity as you describe it. They just unveiled their first jet that uses stealth technology and it won't widely be in service until 10-15 years from now... We have had the technology they are just starting to use since the 60s... And we currently have research going into actual invisibility... Literally... Scientist have already discovered ways of bending light and microwaves around objects to make it appear as if said object is not even there... And Michio Kaku (a theoretical physcis professor from NYU who is often cited and brought on to explain things in the media) explained that our military is already well under way researching these things and 10-20 years from now we could see cloaking devices on anything from a single soldier to a tank or even a fighter jet...

they're good for one thing.

really, really cool photos.

Radiation

I didn't know Albert Einstein was your history teacher, though. I take it Max Weber teaches Physics and F. Engels Chemistry, right? :lol: I'm just kidding, but if your teacher took credit for that phrase, shame on him.

i think that they can be used as a power source and a last ditch earth defense weapon (from aliens to asteroids. yes i am serious)

No sane nation wants to use nukes. No sane nation wants to be hit by nukes. As a result, they do have the benefit of deterrence since not too many countries are crazy enough to attack somebody who has a nuclear arsenel. The bombs dropped on Japan caused a lot of devastation but the good thing about them was that it was estimated millions would have died in a land invasion of Japan and by using them we didn't have to do the invasion. It would be nice to just get rid of all of our nukes but you'll have those countries who will keep at least one just in case.

So when exactly is this world peace due to start? or have you spent your entire life avoiding reading any global news? The atomic bomb helped end the second world war much faster for America, there is no other way Japan would have been neutured as quickly as that and with as little bloodshed. Lets hope we never have to witness anything like that in our lifetimes.SapSacPrime

Has World War 3 started without me knowing?!?!?!?! DAMN I SHOULD HAVE STAYED IN THE AIR FORCE!!!

Give me a break. The occaisional curb stomps on Middle Eastern countries are nothing compared to WW2.

No. We can't. It keep world peace in order.