What does /pol/ think of nuclear warfare?
>>73660658
It's something to be avoided. Therefore I propose we nuke countries who can't retaliate in kind, specifically latin american, middle eastern, and african population centers
>>73660658
Pretty shitty and should be avoided at all costs, but I wont say it is 1000% never justified.
>>73660658
Not desirable, but also far less destructive than Hollywood has led everyone to believe.
>>73660751
Sound logic, let it be so.
>>73660658
can't wait t b h f a m
It sucks.
I wish we could just have a proper WW3 without nukes fucking it all up.
>>73660658
Let's be reasonable here. What we really need are less nuclear weapon tests. And more effective usage.
>>73661011
Test them in >>73660751!
We should use nukes to build a interstellar spaceship
>>73661156
We shouldn't fuck up the landscape and wildlife though.
Just do some cleansing and recolonize it with whites.
>>73661592
That's why I said major population centers, those are urban areas so the landscape and wildlife are already fucked
just drop guided bombs on smaller settlements
>>73660658
We need more nukes. 5,000 is pretty pathetic. Russia is clearly beating our nuke game.
>>73661007
This. World War Three could actually bring the world into something new. Good, bad, who knows? It could change it for the better but we can't risk it because "OH NO WORLD END"
>>73660903
How destructive would it be if 5,000 nukes were launched at Antarctic ice shelves?
>>73661592
>>73661742
Well, nature recovers and handles radiation just fine. See Chernobyl.
>>73661806
Not all nukes are created equal.
Most of those are dumb bombs and artillery nukes, just like Russia.
Our strategic arsenal is smaller.
>>73660658
What is with all the nuclear war threads? Are you planning something, CIA?
>>73660658
pretty shitty, 2bh w/u, famalama ding dong.
>>73661883
Depends on the total yield and how spaced out they were... but overall, wouldn't make a dent.
Might have some more moisture in the atmosphere for a while, but most would just fall back to the Earth as snow, that far north.
A lot of the polar ice melts every year anyway, and the lack of heavy metals in the area would mean the fallout would be minor and short lived.
>>73662206
>>73661883
I read Arctic.. but pretty much the same for Antarctic.. unless you vaporized a lot of rock/soil, but most nukes are designed for airburst these days.
>>73661884
a low level of backround radiation is different than the massive amount spewing out of the reactor in the days after it blew up. it killed most of the plants in and around the town, and the area has only recovered because the plant was sealed off with the Sarcophagus
>>73661851
Last time there was a world war, the 1950s happened. It could be just the thing to help bring that culture back
>>73660658
What the fuck is with all these nuclear warfare threads?
>>73663558
Russia just announced a new ICBM.
We announced dick.
>>73663558
>>73663729
Kim just wanted to live out the old days and Putin is putting on a show for him.
