Should it be allowed for average person to own private nuclear weapon? If not, why?

Should it be allowed for average person to own private nuclear weapon? If not, why?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=gUBb4cunagA
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Because one could detonate his and kill millions in a second.

Because nukes don't make good pets, thats why.

You can oppose opressive governments in the other hand.

DON'T TREAD ON ME AND I WON'T NUKE ON YOU.

Or you can detonate it and kill millions in a second.

It would certainly make things interesting.
Nukes for everyone!

As far as I know, there aren't laws against it here.
Good luck building and maintaining one though, the cost are insane.

Youd have to be Donald Trump tier to be able to afford it, man it, maintain it.

How a civilian could justify using it I dunno.

I don't think anyone should have nukes, but unfortunately Oppenheimer and Einstein let the nuclear cat out of the bag.

I have become death, the destroyer of worlds....

Get the fuck out of here Ukraine.

Go fight Russians with your Haji allies you clown.

why do hajis and inbred slavs give Russia such a hard time?

don't they have an overwhelming military advantage?

Yes but only if they pass a background check, and only if it is restricted to a 10 re-entry vehicle missile, and only if those independent re-entry vehicles separate from the main missile one at a time.

Average person would not be able to afford nuclear weapons in the first place

If we let free market do it's thing, even poor people could own a nuke!

3 minutes until midnight.

The concept is actually quite simple. Obtaining the fissionable material on the other hand...

if it keeps people off my lawn, sure.

>(((doomsday clock)))

Nuke aren't good for individual deterrence

The danger outweighs the benefit

>.000000000000000000000000000000001 minutes to midnight

Nor do toilets but you should get one of those.

Physics Major here. Nuclear Weapons are actually rather easy to make if you have: 1) the proper Bomb Grade Fissile materials and 2) te proper triggering system. Apart from that it's better if terrorists use C4 explosive or similar much easier to obtain and conceal inside common everyday objects as an localized IED.

youtube.com/watch?v=gUBb4cunagA

That's because you will bury it again.

Yep it's Jewish owned that site.

Makes perfect sense as Jews developed the Atom Bomb in the first place.

Common, russia. You tricked us.

You remember that deal where America and Russia had Ukrane give up it's nukes, in exchange for promisng to protect Ukrane's borders?

Of course, it's an every man's God given right to own personal recreational nukes.

Which do you think is easier; the atom gun or implosion type?

Possession of enriched nuclear material is strictly regulated. Anything above a tiny amount used for education or medical uses would fall under terrorism law, written to prevent dirty bombs, especially if you said "what? this officer? I'm using it to build a nuclear warhead!".........

Yep, we all remember. There was Britain too.

You mean Soviet nukes that happened to be stationed on Soviet territory that would later form a new country. Those had to be transferred to the country that was the legal successor of Soviet Union.

I don't think you truly understand the cost of housing and maintaining a nuclear weapon. Anyone who did would be bankrupt and watch their nuke get towed off by Cletus

"retarded - the post"

You ever heard of Ruby Ridge? How about Waco? MOVE?

How big would the blast be of a theoretical suitcase nuke?

It's "I am become death", Jesus, haven't you seen Indiana Jones?

not an argument, not a defensive weapon.

Just tax them heavily if you actually have an issue.

That'll fix all the problems.

It's good for hunting and recreational use.

Sure, the same as any other weapon - as long as you have a big enough property to store it without potentially affecting your neighbours if there's an accident.

My bad, I'm not up on my ancient street shitter texts; the Bhagavad Gita.