| What would you rate the need of Nuclear Weapons |
|
|
|
Asked 143 days ago
by Awesomeness  Australia |
|
About
I...AM...AWESOMENESS! I'm also a master of Pure Awesomeness Bending (PAB)-my own idea, copyrited
|
4 Points
|
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 143 days ago by deleted user ReplyI agree with you in general.
None whatsoever. They are mostly "used" to deter other nations that in turn might seek such a bomb themselves, we could very well do without that.
They provide the illusion of security and a way to siphon money into the military-industrial complex. They have no real value, since they can't be used in any major way. Use of more than a very small number of them would be as destructive as a major non-nuclear war, and could result in devastating retaliation from desperate enemies. There are ways to use them that would absolutely cripple our technical civilization for decades at a time, without even impacting the ground, in a physical sense. They are bad news, which why we and the major powers have begun backing away from them. Most powers come to this realization after they already have developed them, unfortunately.
nuclear weapons have done enough damage, remeber the cold war?
How about the first nuclear war (The people of Japan remember it, let me tell you) and the current one being waged in Iraq/Afghanistan.
You can find pictures of the deformed children being born over there after their parents were exposed to spent uranium rounds. Looks like it will be an even more horrific problem than the three generations (and counting) of deformities caused by our chemical warfare in Viet Nam.
Ya gotta admit, it is pretty sneaky to fight a war with radiation without causing an explosion that would alert the world.
the term "depleted uranium" is about as useful as "honour killing".
APFSDS-U rounds were developed for the cold war, the same war that could well have used nuclear artillery and short range nuclear missiles, so what was a tiny bit more radioactive material on the battlefield anyway :(
Of course when conventional wars were fought, somehow that got overlooked, and while standard (tungsten core) APFSDS rounds could have been used and been quite effective against the available targets, they were not.
Perhaps they have all been scrapped in a short-sighted cost saving exercise, or perhaps they were just too lazy to switch, guess we will never know :(
Or perhaps 'they' are perfectly alright with causing birth defects for generations in any people we invade.
As DU rounds are optimised for killing heavily armoured targets (basically enemy tanks), you have to wonder why any were used or are being used in Afghanistan. As for as I know, there are, and never were, any talibal armoured divisions?
Even in Iraq, after the initial destruction of the regular army tank brigades, it is hard to see why any DU rounds would be used, HEAT, HESH, MPAT and Beehive rounds would be much more useful against any expected targets.
Try googling "depleted uranium Afghanistan" and decide if you find any of the reports credible.
I am fascinated by the reports of a plant in Albany, NY, leaking depleted uranium dust back in 1979. That kinda puts a spike in the guns of those who declare we have have never had a nuclear accident in this country, if true.
Aha. A report by The Guardian, which, in my mind, lends it a high degree of credibility.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/18/usa.nuclear
We can't uninvent nukes, so we need to make sure we have enough to deter anyone else using them against us.
For better or worse, the west has gone to gret lengths to prevent less stable countries getting nukes fo their own.
Of late this has been less sucessful than in earlier times.
Unilateral disarmament is just as stupid in for nations as it would be for civilians in a crime ridden area!
This comment was deleted.
[-5 points] 142 days ago by deleted user Reply