Nuclear Weapons: Yeah or Nah?

Yeah i agree about trident, Never thought about it in the context of protecting our allies though. Thanks.
>Britannia Rules The Waves

Can you imagine how big of a boner all these proxy wars give the power brokers? Getting to cause all the mayhem and destruction of before, but without major loss of American troops, getting to loot all that fine booty and fill power vacuum with puppet of choice. Predator drones flying around like buzzards, their operators somewhere in a Grecian island with a bag of cheetos in their non-joystick hand.

Wew lads

memes

fun stuff, most of which is still black project mumbo jumbo.

imagjne being able to vaporize someone on the third story of a hotel and in a room that does not have a window

imagine flatening a city with no radiation

imagine wiping out a population without hurting a single stone, shingle or street lamp

imagine getting a population to devour itself and government.

imagine it, and the black projects already jave them in production.

This.

Yeah but those proxy wars are the cause of the refugee cri xD
>Love War by Proxy
>Hate the people claiming asylum from it.

No problem, also to argue emotionally towards the end say

"Although it can easily be argued that the world would be a far safer place without nuclear weapons, and we can all dream of this, the world shall never be like this.
However by the same token it can also be argued that the world would be a far more chaotic place without nuclear weapons, can you imagine if the USSR had went to war with NATO? This was largely prevented due to MAD.

Although we can come to terms with foreign powers in slowly getting rid of nuclear weapons together we cannot immediately get rid of them, nor can we ever uninvent them."

Its a good way to get some emotional points while sounding rational.

>>Hate the people claiming asylum from it.
if we hate them already we shouldn't need to give them asylum.

Can't uninvent them. That's such a good line.
And yeah that's basically my thoughts.
>Advocate for Nuclear Disarmament
>But say that it should be down incredibly slowly. like over the next hundred years.
By then we'll be glassing planets from orbit.

Exactly user.

This should be an easy win for you.

post updates when you're done,I'm off to play vidya.

If this thread is dead post them in Brit/pol/(?). I'll check later

He really should work on his art.

oh also

when advocating for nuclear disarmament ensure you say that it has to be done at the same pace by every nuclear power or it cannot ever work.

Its important to stress the risk of doing something like that on our own for both us and our allies.

protecting people always gets women to vote your way.

Play this card as often as possible and as emotionally as possible for any women in the audience, also nu males.

It is obvious that the atomic bomb ruined the world. Leading human civilizations can longer have big wars to settle their differences and must act in a cunning/feminine way. No wars means less disciplined and tough men. Instead, we get soft civilian men who let women and minorities bully them. Just say no to the nuclear jew.

Yea

But keep in mind while MAD worked it was called mad for a reason

But bro, after the bombs drop. The fourth Reich will rise from the ashes. Only cities advanced enough to have metros will endure.

Nuclear weapons are mostly a good thing and it's a shame they're haven't been used more than twice in wars despite all those many opportunities. A good nuclear hellfire should provide us with the reset we really need in order to get rid of leftists.

Is there any chance of those things coming to light with the HRC leaks? I'll believe it when I see it.

But the bombs will never drop. That's the whole problem.

Dude, what the fuck is up with that Barack. That's some Picasso shit.

Yes nuke the Burgers

Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons to remove Israel's dominance in the region

Took me a while to realize what his ears were

They don't exist, he's full of shit. Yes black projects exist, no, none of them are going to replace nukes for what they do.

Give Pooinloo and Islamic Pooinloo a chance, I really have faith in them.

>Can you imagine how big of a boner all these proxy wars give the power brokers? Getting to cause all the mayhem and destruction of before, but without major loss of American troops, getting to loot all that fine booty and fill power vacuum with puppet of choice.
Hillary knows that feel. Just ask the Libyans.

Stuxnet.
Imagine permanently turning of water, and electricity in a huge city.
Nukes are for show and nuking Poland if Eu tries to enter Russia or vice versa.

youtu.be/LLCF7vPanrY

This is a pretty cool map of nuclear explosions. I was, and I assume many people will be, shocked by the amount. I had no idea.

Countries that have nukes are much less likely to go to war with each other and keep tensions below the armed combat threshold. You might say it's because of the spread of nuclear weapons there has been generally less war than there used to be. If there was no Manhattan Project, maybe the US and the USSR would have entered into another world war where many more lives were lost. Because both countries had nuclear weapons, the Cold War never went hot.

>MAD worked

>can you imagine if the USSR had went to war with NATO? This was largely prevented due to MAD.

Source? there is no evidence MAD did anything but risk annihilation. Without MAD maybe a small war would have forced the powers to be more reasonable.

Whatever the case there really is no justification at all for threatening to destroy the world. Until MAD is dismantled those who take part in it have no moral authority even against fucking ISIS.

Even the most extreme actions against those who threaten to destroy the world are easily justifiable.

So you genuinely believe that with the global political climate as it was (ie more tense than before WW1) that a war would not have erupted between the US, UK, France, etc and the USSR if nukes were not invented?

also
>nukes will destroy the world meme
ask me how I know you listen to too much propaganda

Nuclear weapons are good

Honestly they've made the world more peaceful. Can you imagine the carnage and devastation a war between NATO and the communists would have caused if they had not been prevented by MAD?

What would life be like in an area that wasn't bombed post-nuclear war?

Just cite the cold war as an example.

Burgers and Vodkas were simply too afraid to turn the world into STALKERverse such that they never went into any open war with each other.

You have no moral authority, I don't pity you for anything that happens to you. Nothing you say can be taken seriously as long as you are pointing a gun to my face. The USSR boogeyman was a burger meme. Conventional war in 1950 would have been fine and the thing could have been over.

There is nothing even slightly suggesting we would have been worse off in the long run without MAD except burger propaganda.

Apparently radioactive dust gets everywhere eventually, degenerate aussies in this book just lay down and die but I think most would find ways to survive
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)

nukes are science-fiction tier weapons.

>You have no moral authority,
so this entire argument is an appeal to emotion where you ignore the blatant fact that WW1 was fought over less tension

we didn't "give" them the nukes, they build the nukes themselves, starting with enriched uranium which they stole.

so is cyber warfare and biological weapons then

that obama caricature is kinda petty and autistic

Your fear mongering is an appeal to emotion.
I am stating facts about the very real harm MAD is doing to the nations that take part in it.

How can other countries take someone seriously as an ally under this threat? Why shouldn't countries support terrorists or whatever who are working against the governments making these threats? I am talking in terms of rational self interest not emotions. Rational self interest is the basis of morality, read the selfish gene by le euphoric dawkins.

yeah

>Why shouldn't countries support terrorists or whatever who are working against the governments making these threats?
because they don't have nukes.

If they are caught supporting these terrorists then they should be nuked,

Simple.

>Your fear mongering is an appeal to emotion.
in what way am I fear mongering?

I simply stated that MAD likely prevented the Cold War from escalating
thebackbencher.co.uk/what-role-did-nuclear-weapons-play-during-the-cold-war/

this article deals with it in more detail

>the very real harm MAD is doing to the nations that take part in it
Its not, its preventing full scale wars for them and enabling proxy warfare to become the primary means of war between them.

Its still saving thousands, if not millions, of lives because no one wants to be the winning side only to have the other side push the button.

If you honestly believe that the political tension between the West and the USSR would not have led to another war on the same scale as the previous two then I believe you are an idiot.