[Zipperfish]

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

I'm not sure if this an attempt at humor, but I agree. And I'm not talking about 15,000 missiles like the US and Russia has, but a dozen or two...and why not? France and the United Kingdom have the same capabilities, why not us?

[Proculation]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

I'm not sure if this an attempt at humor, but I agree. And I'm not talking about 15,000 missiles like the US and Russia has, but a dozen or two...and why not? France and the United Kingdom have the same capabilities, why not us?

Because nukes are more a defensive weapon. We don't really need defense, specially from nukes.

[SigPig]

commanderkai commanderkai:

But can we TRULY get rid of nuclear weapons? I don't think so, in the end, all it will do is create a black market, where rogue nations like North Korea will just build them for the highest bidder.

In all reality, nuclear weapons will always exist, until we find something better. Maybe we shouldn't build new and better weapons, but the simple rule of geopolitics is this. "If you don't build it, somebody else will". It's the reality we live in

No getting rid of all of them is probably not very likely. Some will probably need to be maintained as a deterrent against the situation you mentioned. But, do we really need thousands of them for this purpose? I don't see the harm in trying to curtail the arsenal as much as possible. Less to watch would mean, hopefully, that less can go wrong.

[tritium]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

I'm not sure if this an attempt at humor, but I agree. And I'm not talking about 15,000 missiles like the US and Russia has, but a dozen or two...and why not? France and the United Kingdom have the same capabilities, why not us?

With Russia claiming part of the Canadian artic and oil, it sure seems it would be vital to have a few stock piled.

[SigPig]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

I'm not sure if this an attempt at humor, but I agree. And I'm not talking about 15,000 missiles like the US and Russia has, but a dozen or two...and why not? France and the United Kingdom have the same capabilities, why not us?

It is this kind of thinking that I just don't understand. WTH do we need nukes for? we would never ever use them, they would only be there as a defense against a nuclear attack on us. And for that, the US is ready and willing to use their much larger arsenal for the purpose of nuking the crap out of anyone who nuked us. For Canada to maintain nukes is a ridiculous waste of already stretched military resources.

[Proculation]

SigPig SigPig:

commanderkai commanderkai:

But can we TRULY get rid of nuclear weapons? I don't think so, in the end, all it will do is create a black market, where rogue nations like North Korea will just build them for the highest bidder.

In all reality, nuclear weapons will always exist, until we find something better. Maybe we shouldn't build new and better weapons, but the simple rule of geopolitics is this. "If you don't build it, somebody else will". It's the reality we live in

No getting rid of all of them is probably not very likely. Some will probably need to be maintained as a deterrent against the situation you mentioned. But, do we really need thousands of them for this purpose? I don't see the harm in trying to curtail the arsenal as much as possible. Less to watch would mean, hopefully, that less can go wrong.

The US passed from 32,000 to about 5,000 today. That's a lot less. Russia didn't do it because it's too expensive.

[PJB]

I agree that all of the nukes in the world should be scrapped but, logically, that would never happen. Inspectors would not be allowed to oversee the decommissioning of every nuke in the entire world. The other problem is if we get rid of the existing ones what is stopping nations from simply building more secretly.

Deterrance is good but having the capability of destroying the world how many times over is not deterrance.

[stemmer]

Yeah...does he really think Iran or North Korea will surrender over their nukes????

[bootlegga]

SigPig SigPig:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Honestly, nuclear weapons are basically really powerful bombs with interesting side effects (like how cluster bombs can create minefields). Now, no doubt those side effects suck, but sooner or later we'll be developing something better, like a meteor launcher, or something

But lets be honest. We aren't ever going to use nuclear weapons because we are too damn afraid of the consequences. Right or wrong we still use cluster bombs. Other conventional bombs, we can control where they hit and their effects. Nuclear bombs are very different and since we aren't going to use them, why not get rid of them so they don't end up in the hands of some nutcase who wants to make a briefcase dirty bomb?

As for us developing new and bigger weapons you are probably right, but does that mean we should still build and amass it? The same goes for nukes. Just because we can, doesn't necessarily mean we should.

[stemmer]

What a typical Leaf Nation fan member looked like when the Make Me Laughs last won the Cup.....


Ooops wrong thread...my bad...!!!!

[roger-roger]

My understanding is that 'dirty' nuclear bombs are not a large threat. That even those at ground zero would not have lethal ammounts of radiation, and that serious side effects would only happen if those contaminated stayed in the area untreated for 2 years. I get this info on the heels of a BBC documentery though, so you have to consider the source.

[bootlegga]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

I'm not sure if this an attempt at humor, but I agree. And I'm not talking about 15,000 missiles like the US and Russia has, but a dozen or two...and why not?
France and the United Kingdom have the same capabilities, why not us?

Because they are a colossal waste of money. Even the UK and France are scaling back their nuclear deterrent because it's cost so damn much. And they only built them to show the world (and the US) that they were still relevant as world powers after the onset of the Cold War and the US and USSR eclipsing both of them. We have no need to swing our dicks around and the billions they would cost annually can be spent far better to defend Canada.

I'd far prefer nuclear-powered subs than a couple of useless missiles sitting in the ground.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Never mind banning them; Canada should be building them.

I'm not sure if this an attempt at humor, but I agree. And I'm not talking about 15,000 missiles like the US and Russia has, but a dozen or two...and why not? France and the United Kingdom have the same capabilities, why not us?

No it wasn't an attempt at humour; I'm quiote serious about it. The technology is not excatly cutting edge anymore and the nuclear club grows every year. Refusal to go nuclear will soon be akin to Quakers not weearing buttons on their clothes because they are too modern.

[Scape]

Till the next fad in MWD makes it passe.