What is the point of having nukes? We cant use them and if we do we destroy the planet? Why haven't they been completely banned?
>>66889017
Because humans are insane.
Bump.
This is a great question.
Fuck we outlawed napalm in acts of war after WWII (I may be wrong, I have to check) simply because of how cruel of a death it is to die from napalm; slow and agonizing.
Maybe they haven't outlawed them *because* of their strength and potential.. They can wipe shit out so quick that "pain" doesn't matter.
>>66889017
>>66889630
>>66889638
because muh dick that's why.
>>66889732
lost
>>66889017
Because the Jews would have to give up their Samson Option, which is basically their policy of killing everyone in the world if they're invaded.
Literally.
Because it's like the 2nd ammendment. In a perfect would we wouldn't need it. But it's not a perfect fucking world, so we do need it. Everyone has nukes, so it has to stay that way. If every country in the world except Russia or the US dismantles their nukes, that country is gonna rule the fucking world.
>>66889017
The ban could only be enforced by somebody with a supernuke.
>>66889017
>Fuck with me and I will kill us all.
That's it, it really is that simple.
>>66890210
Also biological warfare is more common here in Europe. "Do what we want or we will infest your country with niggers and muslims."
>>66889017
Because MAD. Two powers with the ability to simultaneously completely destroy each other can not engage in conventional warfare.
>>66889017
>Why haven't they been completely banned?
Who's going to ban them?
The UN?
>>66889638
>outlawed napalm ww2
>all those napalm clips from Vietnam
>I love the smell of napalm in the morning!
>We cant use them
False.
>if we do we destroy the planet
Also false.
>Why haven't they been completely banned?
Much like the reason guns can't be banned, there are too many and nobody wants to anyway.
>>66889638
>>66889017
The reason to have nukes is to make sure that no one will use them against you. Its called mutually assured destruction.
If china or Russia tries to nuke you, you nuke them too.
>>66890699
>mfw I hadn't looked it up to check
>mfw I said I'd be back after checking
>mfw you clearly didn't pay attention to the anything
Its okay anon. Thanks for fixing my mistake.
>>66889638
>>66889017
Are you guys stupid or something? We can't get rid of them if our potential enemies don't agree to get rid of them. This really isn't difficult.
>>66890895
if that is true tho why have those who posses them nuked everyone who doesnt? lets face it all that talk about human morality and respecting life is a lie anyway
Because they are a bargaining chip that makes any country that has them a major player that cannot be as directly bullied as countries without them.
Saddam and Gadaffi would still be around if they had nukes, for instance
>>66891132
>have those who posses them nuked everyone who doesnt
wat?
this is the worst and most confusing sentence iv ever read in my life
>>66891128
This, and nuclear deterrent is arguably the reason we haven't had another big war in years with major powers or ww3
>>66891132
>if that is true tho why have those who posses them nuked everyone who doesnt?
Can someone fucking explain to me why almost everyone on this board is a complete idiot?
>>66889732
kek
>>66891278
/pol/ attracts a lot of anti intellectual blue pilled christcucks, /x/ tier conspiracy theory tards, and uneducated rednecks.
>>66889017
because nukes 100% garantuee you of not getting invaded by another country.
If it wasn't for nukes, there probably would have been a third or even fourth world war by now.
>>66891251
I thought this was common knowledge. I just left another thread because some An-cap wouldn't acknowledge that law and order has the purpose of creating law and order.
Why is it so hard to have an even slightly intelligent conversation on this board?
>>66891409
>you of not getting invaded by another country.
so thats why germany is being invaded by mudslimes? They agreed not to build nukes after WW2
>>66891418
>Why is it so hard to have an even slightly intelligent conversation on this board?
because it attracts the least intelligent people on the internet/
>>66889017
>Why haven't they been completely banned?
So what you're saying is that you actually think making international legislation banning the production and possession of nuclear weapons will work?
So, here's a fun question: Let's assume all the reasonable countries in the world disarm and say "No more nukes."
They are now at the mercy of anyone who actually makes a nuke.
Whoops.
>>66891399
This is disappointing. I wanted an unfiltered and uncensored political discussion, but it doesn't really mean anything when most of the people are too stupid to actually have a rational adult discussion.
>destroy the planet
lel
this planet has suffered far far worse than all the nuclear arsenals of the world combined could ever achieve.
we'd just wreck our ecosystem.
>>66891591
>have a rational adult discussion.
its a 1/10 rule. 10% of the people who browse /pol/ are intelligent enough to hold proper discussions and the rest are.
IF you have patience you learn how to sift through the common rabble.
>>66891734
>and the rest are.
are retarded as fuck*
The Planet has already been destroyed dingus. And I don't mean environmental decay brought by humanity.
I mean actual destruction by celestial objects. The dinosaurs didn't use nukes to ruin the entire planet OP.
>>66891591
Well for what it's worth I think the conversation is over anyway. They're not good, they shouldn't exist, but if you don't have them prepare to get fucked. It's literally what was already said, they are a nonverbal, "fuck with me and you'll go down (when) it's the last thing I do." North Korea so far is the only anomaly in the whole situation, because they're too close to innocent countries to nuke if they do eventually obtain them. That's why Kim Jung Un is a scary bastard, it's not his arsenal but what he's supposedly willing to do.
>>66890802
>Much like the reason guns can't be banned, there are too many and nobody wants to anyway.
>nobody wants to anyway.
>>66891948
>because they're too close to innocent countries to nuke if they do eventually obtain them.
Nah man, modern nukes can be pretty small and relatively clean (you want them to be clean, because it implies higher yield)
>>66891591
people don't take you seriously because what you're proposing is stupid bullshit
first:
>ban
who's going to enforce it and how? how will they know what I have? what will prevent me from stashing some away? how will you get all nations worldwide to enact it? Especially the dirtbox nations that are notorious for shenanigans?
second:
>implying you can ban knowledge
let's say superman comes and takes all the bad missles away. How do you prevent the production of it in the future?
third:
>le slippery slope is a fallacy
No it fucking isnt. Actions have consequences and repercussions. You ban nukes and manage to get rid of them all and prevent anymore from being made in the future. Congrats. What's the next stop on the "remove things I don't like tour" and how do you continue to ensure global cooperation?
M.A.D is bullshit, but barring the appearance of some crazy bond villain, it's the best we have right now
>>66889017
>ban them!!!!
Then we wouldn't have them, and others would.
>>66892235
Well you learn something new everyday. If that's the case then yeah, that's nice but again there's not much else to say about nukes in general. Sorry, OP, until we all live in a fairybook they will be a necessary evil.
>>66892433
Who are you arguing with right now?
>>66891278
I assume a lot of these morons are young kids from /b/ that are at the start of their redpilling.
>>66892544
my dead father
:_(
OP and all the "please take me serious" faggots. The problem isn't us most of the time, the problem is bullshit theories you guys like to present
>>66889732
You may laugh but this is the correct answer. Is literally the muh dick version of war.
>>66892235
>modern nukes
Norks do not have this.
>>66892124
Well, nobody that matters anyway.
Nukes won't actually destroy the planet. Stop basing your reality on Fallout you dumb shit.
Dunno man can japs answer this question since they have the most experience with it?
>>66892543
It's a pretty interesting subject. The first nukes were set off by shooting one hunk uranium against another, but modern ones use basically an eggshell of plutonium sandwiched with a bunch of other materials which is set off by compressing it with extremely carefully timed high explosives all around it.
>>66893116
I thought the discussion was about a foreign power nuking NK, not the other way around. I may have been mistaken.
>>66889017
That's the whole point of having nukes. It's like a dead man's switch. Nobody tries to incite civil wars, revolutions or launch any kind of invasion on a country with nuclear missiles. Imagine if someone tries the same shit it Russia as in Ukraine, there would be nukes flying in a matter of days. Same with Iran/Iraq. Why do you think North Korea still exists?
