Why don't we use nuclear weapons more often?

Why don't we use nuclear weapons more often?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OsS_TGFjAXA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

We have Israeli neutron bombs for that
Last year. It's essentially a tactile nuclear weapon with more radiation
youtube.com/watch?v=OsS_TGFjAXA

so make the land a crap hole that cant sustain life?

the militar complex makes more money selling 100000 bombs than 1

That isn't a neutron bomb you Fucking colossal retard

Because of mutual destruction?

Cos dem mufuckas cost five fiddy million dollars fool

...

>It's essentially a tactile nuclear weapon
kek

That's an ammo cache blowing up you retarded shit

human rights or some other pc bullshit

Why kill everyone that you would enslave/conquer/comand?
Why destroy all natural resources that you would rob it?
Why turn a big ass territory into a unusable wasteland if you would conquer it?

Ah yes, let's just go and fuck up several future generations of people to come all because we nuked their country that one time. Real fuckin' smart.

thats a pretty stupid answer. they have already been made so the cost is irrelevant. If one person uses a nuclear weapon that allows all the other countries that have nuclear weapons who have signed the nuclear proliferation act open to use theirs too. All counties who have nuclear weapons have signed the Act except 1. Places that have been destroyed by a nuclear weapon are inhabitable for up to 50+ years. Even after 50 I wouldnt be one of the fucktards that lives there. Not to mention it has catastrophic effects on the earth and the ecosystem. you cant just drop nuclear weapons willy nilly.

The only 2 posts that make sense

Thant means weaker future generations to fight back though

Japan seems to be doing ok.
Argument is invalid

oh lawdy

Exactly this, if several generations of people are being fucking dicks like the muslims, chances are their offspring will be dicks too... so fuck em

Because if we do it, everyone else will want to.

The bombs dropped on japan were absolutely devastating in the years after. Shit like microcephaly saw massive increases in newborns.. The bombs dropped back then are also nowhere near as powerful as the ones we have now, too.

We used hydrogen bombs on Japan. Nuclear bombs are incredibly more destructive with a lot more radiation.

Please go to en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sup Forums&action=edit&oldid=723790644 and click "Save page."

Because of liberals. That's why.

>Because if we do it, everyone else will want to.

well fuck them.. we run this shit

Not for long, because then they'll be nuking you.
>we'll just nuke them back
And this is how the world ends. Have fun 'running' nothing more than heavily irradiated and uninhabitable land with whatever's left of the U.S.

Who exactly should we be nuking?

I wouldn't be disappointed to see places like Detroit, Baghdad, Africa, California, etc get nuked, but the fallout would fuck everything else.

>habububububububububububububu 1:10
fucking kekla akbar

maximum cringy and stupid kid detected.
LE NUKES, LE COOL, LE MILITARY, LE WAR
KEK
Idiots (I hope they are kids) trying to talk and act tough; internet is good, right kiddo?

.>implying
What the fuck nation do you think would make any meaningful hits on the US? The Soviet Union is gone and Russia is bankrupt. The USnuclear subs crawling around every corner of the ocean would have free reign. The Air force would be able to detect and neutralize any potential launch while raining hellfire down themselves. MAD died with the soviets.

The only reason nukes worked on the chinks, is because everything they know about is made of BAMBOO.
Nukes are pretty useless unless they're right on top of you.

Yes, yes, all the places with brown people. But, nukes don't share your biases.

China, and even though the Soviet Union is dissolved, Russia itself is still there.
>note: these aren't the only two countries that can or would strike the U.S.

must be troll.
but i am gonna bite for the sake of it.
you sir need to read some history little boy was uranium based and fat man was plutonium based

There are some places around the world (Middle East) and even in the US (Detroit for one) which could stand to be scraped off and start over. The areas are shit and the people there are shit. Sometimes it's necessary to hit the reset button.

Sometimes radiation isn't the way to go about holocausts.

Agreed. I'm indifferent about how we get to that point (and nukes are a dangerous way), but I think one way or another those places need a fresh start.

>Japan is pretty fine after nuke
Invalid argument.

Them being there is irrelevant. They don't have the money or resources to fight on that level. We have fleets on their doorstep, they'd be limited to ICBM's and bombers which the US is more than capable of handling. They might have limited success in protecting themselves but they'd have no shot at successful counter offensive

plus thermonuclear weapon where first tested like 7 years after the bombings of japan

>what are submarines with launch-capability

...

...

>>note: these aren't the only two countries that can or would strike the U.S.
Name more.

Damn. I think I'd rather be nuked. Especially if it means my future children will become math geniuses. Detroit got torn up.

Really any country we've pissed off, especially if we're supposed to be some kind of 'example' for the rest of the world, yet we're nuking people left and right just because we want to. It wouldn't take long for total chaos to ensue.

toppest of keks
>what is a p-3 Orion
>what is the SH-60
>what is ACTUV

hm, america has been giving a bad example for a while and no one has done anything.

I'm not in favour of nukes btw I just dont think anyone could step to USA in an all out nuclear war. Certainly wouldnt have the balls to try and start one. N.K couldnt get a missile anywhere near USA anyway.

It's chemical.

It is a tactical nuclear bomb.

>It's essentially a tactile nuclear weapon with more radiation
>tactile nuclear weapon
>tactile

...

M.A.D. is the answer, OP. That, and instant repercussions from the U.N.

Those who have nuclear arms play by the rules. The rules prohibit their use without a consensus.

Mutual assured destruction is a contingency plan that we've all agreed to. If country A launches a nuclear strike against country B, country B retaliates with their own strike, assuring both countries are destroyed (in addition to allies firing off, then the other country's allies in retaliation, etc.)

In other words, think of that cliche moment in action movies where all of the characters have guns pointed at one another. If one fires, they all fire.

It's a deterrent. You launch, you get hit too. Mutual assured destruction.

>instant repercussions from the U.N.
There's nothing more devastating than the sternly-worded letter

If that's how you choose to interpret the word, feel free.