ITT we discuss if we should we get rid of all Nuclear Weapons

here are a few reasons why I think we should eliminate them

>Legal obligation
Every signatory to NPT has commited to "good faith efforts" to reduce the nuclear arsenal

>They're a constant threat, not a source of security
Nuclear specialists, strategic analysts and historians regularly express surprise about how many times we've come close to "ultimate doom" by human or computational error alone. Several times, the world was literally minutes away from destruction before either the error could be corrected or individual commanders refused to follow the protocol.

>Nothing justifies their use
There is no scenario in which the use of these weapons makes sense or is beneficial.

Lastly, we shouldn't grant states the right to instant destruction of the entire human species in pursuit of policy goals

Other urls found in this thread:

cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma
youtu.be/k_s9VmptHJ4
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Mutually assured destruction keeps nuclear powers at peace, even if that's an "on-edge" peace. If not for the invention of the atomic bomb, there WOULD have been a world war 3.

We should get rid of them by using them all.

Only if we do it cobra commander style

So the countries that disarm themselves do what, exactly, to those countries that dont? Waggle their fingers and give them a stern look? Disarmament is suicide.

No. We should use them more frequently.

/thread

Getting rid of all nukes only requires bad faith in a single nation to offset total destruction.

Nuclear bombs are the real peace treaty. Without them our masters wouldn't fear retribution. They'd send the peasants to fight and die for them. But with nuclear weapons everything is fucked so they play it nice.

OP assumes any of them even work at all.

There is a slim possibility that the entire "arms race" is a face.

The strange 1967 incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana could be an indication that our nuclear missiles have been deactivated.

cbsnews.com/news/ex-air-force-personnel-ufos-deactivated-nukes/

*facade, not "face"

While this is true you could say the opposite is true. One nutbag and we all die.

Bullshit aside we really should shut them all down. there is no way any country can use them without having fallout effect them one way or another. Be it financially or radiation wise.

>Nuclear specialists, strategic analysts and historians regularly express surprise about how many times we've come close to "ultimate doom" by human or computational error alone
no they fucking dont you fucking retard

nuclear weapons prevent great power wars

great power wars kill millions of people

if you want to climb into a trench in the future and live in a fortification made of human bodies while the enemy showers you with poison gas and bullets, then by all means "get rid of" nukes

how would you even get rid of them you fucking idiot? we arent about to collectively forget how to make a nuclear weapon

disarmament fags are the dumbest people on the face of the earth

They completely revolutionised warfare. To the point that I think if they are ever used in a full scale conflict, they will be completely dismantled afterwards.

>One nutbag and we all die
what are controls, what are safety protocols etc etc

>the rest of your post
>muh fallout
its time to stop posting and admit you dont know what you are saying

Take that away and most countries would end up killing each other in a matter of months. The only way we stay put is because we know we´ll be just as screwed as the guy we attack if we ever want to take action against them.

It's too late mate.

did they shut down the atoms?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

If we get rid of nukes there will be a massive WW3. China will try to take over Asia and Africa.

Are you a dumbass liberal? You do understand that the big red button you see in movies that allows a single person to use nukes does not exist, right? There is a whole chain of events and safety procedures before a nuke is used.

The Generlas would off a crazy president if they have to.

It's a double edged sword
>Nukes force superpowers to stay out of direct conflict
>No war leads to stagnation and makes it harder to settle disputes
You can't win

according to General George Lee Butler (the last commander of Strategic Air Command)
"we escaped the Cold War without a nuclear holocaust by some combination of skill, luck and divine intervention—probably the latter in greatest proportion"

We need it for ayy lmaos.

If for example south Korea said fuck it and nuked north Korea. No other country would treat Korea the same.

>what are controls, what are safety protocols etc etc

Not as dynamic and complex as you think. A nuclear weapon detonated in low orbit would fuck your electrical grid. The same goes for all countries. We simply are not ready for the ramifications nuclear weapons cause.

I'M NUCLEAR
I'M WILD

>get rid of all nuclear weapons
Will literally never happen barring an apocalyptic nuclear war where they are all used and never replaced because we've bombed ourselves into effective extinction.

>There is no scenario in which the use of these weapons makes sense or is beneficial.
Turning iran into a glass parking lot seems pretty benficial.

Nah, the Jews can use their own nukes.

yeah OP, you are right, you just deactivate yours then ill do that same (^:

i promise i wont just nuke you

If nuclear-armed nations are desperate to attack non-nuclear armed nations, why doesn't the US attack Brazil right now?
This picture of an irrational state that can't wait to declare total wars of destruction against all its neighbors is complete fiction.

This plus the fact that knowledge only goes forwards.

Now that ppl know how to make bombs, there is no turning back.

If all countries gave up their nuclear arsenal, on the next day, their enemies would start building un to get the edge in the arms race. A few countries like Iran would not think twice in using it against Israel.

Better stay like this. The mexican nuclear standoff is precisely what keep us of being vaporized by nukes.

you just know that there is some US general that wants to push the button though.

No.

>If for example south Korea said fuck it and nuked north Korea
South Korea doesn't have nukes dipshit.

Hey Sup Forums, why are leafs always so retarded?

not while germany still exists

This.

>I don't understand fiction!

This

But that aside, you'd have to forcefully remove any and all information pertaining to the construction of nuclear weapons in order for this to be effective, which is nigh impossible.

We should create a new organization who's sole purpose is to own all nuclear weapons, and determine if and when it is okay to use them. Conventional war scenarios would be a big no no, and the only reasonable scenario in which it would be okay is if there was a global scale war or a rogue state has its own nukes.

Or of course, when the hostile ayylamos show up.

>We simply are not ready for the ramifications nuclear weapons cause.
We never will be retard, that's the entire point of nuclear weapons. By making the cost of war between superpowers extinction we eliminate war between superpowers.

This is the most retarded shit I've read all day, nuclear weapons need to be as decentralized as possible, else we risk a single committee bullying the entire world into doing whatever they demand.

There would be representitives from all countries that would have to agree upon using them. It wouldnt he a soverign entity.

>Everyone gets rid of nuclear weapons
>Jews, being Jews, illegally rebuild nukes in secret, like they did before
>Israel nukes all of America, Europe, and the Middle East with noone to stop them

How is this any different than the countries remaining in control of their own nuclear weapons? It's feel-good bullshit that has the potential to make nukes a much larger threat to international security than they are currently.

By making multiple countries agree before using them... It would require a 3/4 vote in favor of pushing the button.

no, one day we are going to need them to glass some Alien armada

An often forgotten factor of nuclear weapons is that their potential for blowing up meteors is pretty important.

Following this, nuclear weaponry have so far prevented major outbreaks of war between major powers. Their presence allows the status quo to maintain their power, and prevent upstart powers from acquiring force equalizers of that level - the major exception being DPNK. However, it should be noted that they increase low-level conflict prevalence (Stability/instability paradox).

DPRK is a completely different scenario and is more in the basket of 'racing towards survival' in order to hedge against invasion. In this light they are more of a defensive tool to assure regime change from external shift.

Nuclear weapons do nothing to prevent civil conflict, terrorism, and come with such a massive maintenance cost that their use becomes even less likely because of the sunk cost.

The US president has de jure control of nuclear launch capability, but ultimately it comes down to the chain of command following the order. There's nothing in the constitution that says the president has control of the nuclear stockpile, it's just developed over tradition.

Yes, we should "get rid" of them by using them

>An often forgotten factor of nuclear weapons is that their potential for blowing up meteors is pretty important.
Nukes dont have the necessary kinietic power to crash or detour meteors user.

Also, you have to take into account the accuracy for such a thing. Accuracy that we dont possess

If the president commanded a nuclear launch, US nuclear commands across globe would receive it. All would know that they don't know the whole story (maybe the president is reacting to China launching?). They wouldn't all assume that the president ought to be undermined, especially since failure to launch would either mean their death in a nuclear holocaust or a court martial, depending on how justified the launch order was. A commander or several might not launch, but surely most of them would.

We don't know exactly how it's structured for security, but I would be willing to guess the order comes down through NORAD which can determine the accuracy of such a command. The president's decision to launch most likely comes from there and other sources, so if they just received a launch order out of the blue some general would probably try to figure out what is happening in the intervening minutes.

Which is why I said 'potential', in such a scenario I would imagine not using a single warhead but many.

Depending how much warning is given prior to impact (Years, months, etc.) developing along that line to make up these shortcomings would take priority.

They would only need to change its trajectory very slightly.

>the world was literally minutes away from destruction

Might surprise you to know the radius of a nuke isn't actually that large.

what?

Make something bigger.

The radius of a nuke really isn't as big as people think it is.

It doesn't matter if we get rid of them as we would just design a new weapons that wasn't in the no use contract. Did banning waterboarding end extreme torture? Banning nukes will not end the threat of mass extinction it will force it into a new shape.

That is not entirelly correct.

There are meteors that are running at 3 times the escape velocity of Earth.

On the other side, a nuclear warhead would be send at 25.000+ km/h against tha target totally about 100.000 km/k.

Imagine how precise it should it be for that nuke to explode on the right moment.

Just think about the tech we have today. Is not uncommong for missiles to fail exploding when chasing a jet. There are some of them that dont even explode, passing right through the plane.

The most accurate missiles we have in possession today have an accuracy of about 10 yards. And they are travelling with military GPS and at a much slower speed.

Now back to space. Imagine how to make a nuke that dont have any GPS to rely on, flying "blind", at a much higher speed, being able to explode on the meteor with enough precision to at least detour it's path.

It's just not realistic.

Yes, no man should hold that much power.

Honestly nuclear weapons were inevitable as humanity will continue to develop and progress until they make more and more weapons that make nukes look like toy guns.
Nukes also bring a lot of uncertainty and overwhelming fear in regards to engaging in warfare. Conventional arms and boots on the ground are a lot more controllable so it increases the possibility of war being agreed upon as it by far causes less destruction.
Think of it as positive terrorism. And let's be real, no country is either smart enough nor stupid enough to dispose of nuclear weapons.

>Several times, the world was literally minutes away from destruction
>Implying a full-scale nuclear exchange would destroy the entire world
No.
>There is no scenario in which the use of these weapons makes sense or is beneficial.
Eh... not MANY, but I can think of at least one. Supposedly North Korea has thousands of artillery emplacements near the West end of the DMZ, positioned to hold Seoul and Incheon (and millions of civilians therein) hostage. Were large-scale hostilities to resume, I wouldn't object whatsoever to using nukes to destroy these emplacements (especially considering how the surrounding area North of the DMZ is largely uninhabited).

Even the isolated racist government of apartheid SA, who was guilty of several violations of internal law, wasn't irrational enough to acquire apocalyptic weapons of instant destruction. They ended their weapons program in 1989 because they thought this would stabilize the region and help end the status of SA as an international pariah.
Also I think nuclear weapons being uncontrollable is a point against them, not in favor of them, since it means to take a gamble with the fate of the entire species

>nuke a meteor
>you now have a million smaller, irradiated meteors coming for the Earth
youtu.be/k_s9VmptHJ4

Because if we ever stuck to the commitment of not building or using nuclear weapons, we'd be going to war with major powers every other week.

Yes, I agree with your premise but you haven't solved the primary problem of nuclear proliferation (don't worry, no one has).

How do you put Pandora back into the box?

What used to be state secrets which would lead to your execution are now available on wikipedia. Everyone knows how to implement a nuclear device, even if it wasn't delivered on an ICBM vehicle or MIRV. Let's say you just wanted to make a two-stage nuclear device, the hardest thing to obtain is U238, which has been recovered as being bought and sold on the black market all the time. If you have sufficiently long aluminum tubes, you can purify U238, there are mineral-rich soils all over the world. Deuterium is easy-mode, and lithium is sold all over the world legally in various isotopes for batteries. Every undergraduate chemist in the world knows how to make a two-stage thermonuclear bomb.

That's why LPT says to "reduce", and not to eliminate. Complete disarmament is analogous to gun control -- now only people who have made no such commitment have the best weapons.

Worse, not only can you not prevent proliferation in practice, you can't even prevent it in theory. The combination of solar and nuclear energy is objectively the best mankind has got so far. Nuclear energy can provide hundreds of years of stable electricity with just a small amount of fissile material. That's what Iran has been saying for years, and the UN has tried to make some arbitrary distinction about the quality of fissile material involved, but it really doesn't matter. Once the infrastructure for researching, purifying, and deploying high concentrations of fissile radioisotopes exists, it's just a matter of time. It's like having a computer in your teenagers bedroom which you say, "can't be used for looking at pictures of naked women". Listen, it doesn't matter how many net nannies you use, how frequently you come and check, if he has enough interest he'll be booting to Tails and watching pornhub the moment you turn around.

>daily reminder that Israel nukes re based on the american W-87 series before the retrofitting of the 90s.

Still thinking the AYYS let us near the button. Get out normie.

Have you even been near one though?

Because Brazil isn't an overtly aggressive challenger to American, Russian or Chinese power.

And because without us, there is no more cacaine for those wild parties they throw.

You know what could be a decent compromise, though? If nuclear powers agreed to draw down the number of operational warheads to an amount that would guarantee limited damage to those that don't have them. Fifty nukes per power is still more than enough to fuck shit up without fucking all of the shit up

Nobody would compromise with such numbers because 50 warheads could be stopped by anti-missiles shields thus neutralizing the advantage of having nukes.

Unfortunally the only awnser for why not to have nukes its to have more nukes.

Pretty much the same with guns.

Then there are other factors to consider, such as the composition and mass of an incoming asteroid or comet.

Stop selling me on the idea, Joe.

Very doubtful scenario. A French submarine could level Copenhagen with a warhead traveling at near sea level at 30,000 kilometers per hour. SSBMs are terrifying for a reason.