Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why do Nations Have Nuclear Weapons

  • 22-12-2004 8:08pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭


    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=how+many+nuclear+weapons+does+america+have&btnG=Search&meta=

    Why Do Nations Have Nuclear Weapons?

    I am bit puzzled as to why Nations, none in particular, have Nukes.
    Especially America, who seems to be condemning nations for the possibility of even being able to posses these when it itself has tens of thousands, more than enough to blow up the world many times.
    It makes me wonder, Are they actually going to use them or are they constatly building up nukes just to look big.
    If they actually did use them, we'd die and I don't want to know how much money has been thrown away making these.

    We all think, yeah they have them but they're never going to use them.
    WRONG, these are still being tested so we can build bigger and "better" rockets of death.

    Whether being tested eep underground or in some island in the middle of the ocean these are being detonated and yet we worry about Sellafield.
    It's not as if we shouldn't worry about Sellafiels it's just I'd have more concern about Nuclear Explosions happening right now rather than one that could happen.
    ________________________________________________________________
    Merry Christmas And a Happy New Year.
    OmniCorp
    English_holly.jpg


Comments

  • Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 21,504 Mod ✭✭✭✭Agent Smith


    apparently a good defence is a strong offence


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 270 ✭✭Bass.exe


    They aren't allowed to test nukes above ground, anymore.
    And the point of various nations holding nukes is MAD. Mutually Assured Destruction. If one little pissant country, say, France, decides to launch a nuke, at say... Russia, then Russia retaliates. The US and Britan launch nukes at Russia to counterattack. China gets in on the action, and nukes the US, so everyone attacks china.

    For more detailed information, see here :D

    As for why they are improving them.... maybe they are thinking forward to some sort of Alien attack, or a giant meteor stirke.....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Nasty_Girl


    Well the reason for nukes is because in WW2 when everyone had a good excuse to test out new ways of beating each other they came up with the nukes and it was like "Oh hey look that ended the war that's interesting" Then along came the cold war and America and Russia and other countries were like "Oh f8ck maybe we could have a few more a them yokes" so it escalted out of control and now no one wants to back down and scrap em... but anyway if they all got sense and turned around in the mornin and said "This is a bad idea lets not have nuclear weapons that'll maim and feck innocent people up for generations to come" ...what would they do with them?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭Syth


    You might as well ask why do nations have armies or guns or rockets. In an ideal world we would we would need no weapons nor armies. But we don't live in an ideal world.

    As for the USA complaining about other nations haveing nukes, I agree it's a bit stupid, but then again, I think some branch of the Gardai should have guns, but I don't think everyone should be packing heat.Just cause some people have a thing doesn't mean everyone should.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭elivsvonchiaing


    Someone should have these. The tracking of every device should be meticulous.

    Banning nuclear weapons outright might make sense when you don't understand the big picture. The BIG picture! It is late and hope mods will settle for my dogma here! to be debated tomorrow when I'm not so wrecked!

    There can only be one legitimate use for such weapons... incoming asteroid/comet nucleus.

    We will need them until we know how to tackle our sky defense in a better manner.

    They should only be allowed to fall into the hands of terrorists when the device is past it's sell-by-date and the terrorists get fúcked!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    You might as well ask why some people ask stupid fcuking questions. Cos they can and cos they think they have to have them.

    MrP


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭elivsvonchiaing


    MrPudding wrote:
    You might as well ask why some people ask stupid fcuking questions. Cos they can and cos they think they have to have them.

    MrP
    Agree to some extent... would guess billions of $ spend everyyear to keep it's nuclear stockpile hot''n ready.

    To evolve into a society on the JW's Watchtower mag where the lamb licks the lion's bollix is where this thread was heading... This is bullsh!t we will need nuclear weapons maybe for centuries...


  • Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    There can only be one legitimate use for such weapons... incoming asteroid/comet nucleus.
    Sadly, that only works in sci-fi movies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 775 ✭✭✭Evilution


    Because they have the people to develop them and world leaders are a paranoid bunch. Or just idiots in some cases (*cough*USA*cough*).
    I find it humourous that the one's who have the most nukes are trying to disarm those with only a few.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,249 ✭✭✭omnicorp


    mmm, USA and Korea who they think have one but then they are allied with Israel who DOES have them


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,746 ✭✭✭pork99


    omnicorp wrote:
    mmm, USA and Korea who they think have one but then they are allied with Israel who DOES have them

    I can understand Israel having them. Being a very small country in area they are very vulnerable in the case that any of it's enemies developed nuclear weapons. It would only take 2 or 3 warheads to wipe Israel off the face of the earth so I assume they want them on the basis of "getting their retaliation in first". That's why they were very quick to bomb the nascent Iraqi nuclear weapons programme back in 1981.

    Of course in the long run the best defence is regional nuclear disamament.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,007 ✭✭✭Moriarty


    The cat is out of the bag for nuclear weapons. Proliferation is inevitable. No one likes to be at a percieved disadvantage, most espically when it comes to national defence. Nuclear weapons won't be decommisioned until something is discovered that gives an even bigger bang.


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 93,567 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    Agree to some extent... would guess billions of $ spend everyyear to keep it's nuclear stockpile hot''n ready.
    yip.. Tritium has a short half life and has to be replenished regularaly to prevent H-bombs only fizziling.

    the real reason is to keep the arms industry running so they can provide backhanders and jobs in key marginals.

    Pork99 - Isreal could have been attacked by biologicals a long time ago... also there are over 1 million arabs citizens of the country and what people fear most about Isreal is the Masada option (SP)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement