The stupidity of Nuclear weapons in 2018.

Sure during the cold war, we needed more than "they" had. Now we all have plenty. Even new countries are trying to get them some, so they can feel as important as the big kids. But to what end? In the year 2018, I think the big picture has been realized and nobody is going to use one in anger. It would mean the end. Some other player would back the attacked, and launch a counter strike, and then it's game on. They serve no purpose at this point. I think the next big phase of the nuclear era will be us all looking at each other trying to figure out what the fluck to do with all these weapons that just don't serve any purpose.

I'd like to see a world where when two countries decided to go to war, the leaders would have to fight to the death in a no holds barred cage match. I think diplomacy would be a much more widely used tool knowing that one and only one will survive in that scenario.

Maybe our reptilian overlords could work on that.

originally posted by: network dude
Maybe our reptilian overlords could work on that.

On it.

Do you think ISIS would refrain from using a nuke if they had it? There are fanatics in the world who don't really care about what damage they cause. Who would retaliate where? That's why Israel takes out nuclear reactors in the Arab world. The are an existential threat. One bomb would wipe out Israel. They can't afford to assume the next dictator down the pike will be rational. You are expressing rational thought in a world that isn't so it doesn't really matter what you think. It was France that built Saddam's reactor. Why in the world would a first world modern, enlightened country like France build a nuclear reactor for a thug like Saddam? That was an irrational act, yet they did it anyway.

a reply to: network dude

... They serve no purpose at this point. ...

Well, as you have probably seen me say previously, conventional "war" in the shadow of nuclear weapons is really not possible. That said, I agree with you. However, nukes to serve a very real deterrent role. So, for now anyway, they still have a purpose...BUT ONLY as a deterrent weapon.

Countries like NK and Iran are developing nukes as offensive weapons and this is a completely different paradigm. The US, Russia, China and others once developed nukes as offensive weapons, but this was decades ago in a different time. Now, I think most "civilized" countries view nukes almost exclusively as a 'Nuke and be nuked yourself' deterrent type weapon. That philosophy doesn't work very well with a country who doesn't value human life in the first place. That, or one who views large scale death and destruction as a holy honor.

... I'd like to see a world where when two countries decided to go to war, the leaders would have to fight to the death in a no holds barred cage match. I think diplomacy would be a much more widely used tool knowing that one and only one will survive in that scenario. ...

I really like this idea! In fact, I like it so much I'd like to see it get some traction in real life! It's probably about the best use of politicians who, like nukes, serve no valid purpose other than destruction. Well, other than corruption and lies. It also might deter some of these 'career politicians', the establishment elites, from entering the game.

Oh man, what I wouldn't give to see some of these cowardly politicians have to actually fight to the death!! That would be so awesome it's almost indescribable!!

ETA...I don't subscribe to pay-per-view stuff, but I damn sure would for that!!!

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
Maybe our reptilian overlords could work on that.

On it.

You are not a reptilian overlord, you merely work for them. A foot soldier, if you will.

originally posted by: ZombieZygote

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: network dude
Maybe our reptilian overlords could work on that.

On it.

You are not a reptilian overlord, you merely work for them. A foot soldier, if you will.

no, actually, he's in charge. He's the head BFGSG in charge. (Big friggin green scaley guy) He has a bigger ego than Trump and makes us all refer to him like that. He even speaks about himself in the third person like that.

a reply to: schuyler

those who make it to the top tier have enough sense usually to understand the concept of MAD. And those who don't will, once they open pandora's box. I fully understand it could happen and if it does, there likely won't be a long drawn out warning, I was just lamenting on the idiocy of trying to procure one at this juncture.

And to FCD, pay per view will all proceeds going to a fund to put "lazer beams" on sharks.
When I wrote that, I had a vision of Trump using his tiny hands to pin Kimmy. And both of them would be winded and have their hair all messed up.

a reply to: network dude

War used to be fought by armies.

The army that was bigger, smarter, meaner usually won.

Nukes changed the paradigm of war.

Now it's just a few insane people in a bunker, a button and civilians are dead by the millions.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea, when you look at it like that, it takes all the fun out of war.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea, when you look at it like that, it takes all the fun out of war.

War used to be real. A life or death situation for everyone. If you lost, even civilians felt the effect.

But nukes?

Since nukes, war has been "pretend" because if the US was fighting anyone they know they'd win because nukes.

We could just nuke any country and immediately win the war.

So why do we still fight?

Money, primarily.

originally posted by: DBCowboy


Since nukes, war has been "pretend" because if the US was fighting anyone they know they'd win because nukes.

that is the part where I shake my head. Win? what does that even look like? My country is only 92% destroyed, while yours looks to be about 95%, so I win?

We all seem to have lost the plot. You are right, war has lost it's glamor.

a reply to: network dude

War is glamorized in books, movies, poems, tv.

"Thank you for your service"!

SMH


You want to know what war is? What war is to me?



Years ago I was at a Class VI picking up my weekly rations of bourbon and was waiting in line. A kid, just back from downrange was also in line. He just started crying. Just crying and crying. We took turns hugging the kid until he got himself back in control.

No one said a word.


That's war.

originally posted by: schuyler
Do you think ISIS would refrain from using a nuke if they had it? There are fanatics in the world who don't really care about what damage they cause. Who would retaliate where? That's why Israel takes out nuclear reactors in the Arab world. The are an existential threat. One bomb would wipe out Israel. They can't afford to assume the next dictator down the pike will be rational. You are expressing rational thought in a world that isn't so it doesn't really matter what you think. It was France that built Saddam's reactor. Why in the world would a first world modern, enlightened country like France build a nuclear reactor for a thug like Saddam? That was an irrational act, yet they did it anyway.

The obvious answer is 100% NO. They would've nuclear suicide bomb Assad already and all chaos would be let lose by USA to invade, then Russia have to jump in and save the Syrian people targeting US. You better off giving nuclear bombs to Taliban at this rate. Least they could've tried on Washington.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: DBCowboy

Yea, when you look at it like that, it takes all the fun out of war.

War used to be real. A life or death situation for everyone. If you lost, even civilians felt the effect.

But nukes?

Since nukes, war has been "pretend" because if the US was fighting anyone they know they'd win because nukes.

We could just nuke any country and immediately win the war.

So why do we still fight?

Money, primarily.

Nuking countries doesn't equate to winning. France and UK was also given nukes. If US used nukes after Japan, the UK and France gets an excuse to Nuke USA. They go like wtf, backstabbing son of #$%%#es! Even Canadians will despise US. Plus nuclear wastelands can't grow food and be mined.

Right now Iran is in the news. Lots of players.

I think more in terms of End Timed, Revelation Armageddon Scenario where they are unleashed all over the Earth. Yes there certainly enough to go around. It would be harder to undo them all perhaps ?

www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: schuyler

those who make it to the top tier have enough sense usually to understand the concept of MAD. And those who don't will, once they open pandora's box.

You don't need to make it to the "top tier" to just steal a nuke. And if Pandora's box is opened, it's too late. If ISIS or some other hare-brained group got hold of a nuke and let it off in NYC, just who would the US retaliate against?

originally posted by: network dude
He even speaks about himself in the third person like that.

No he doesn't.

originally posted by: schuyler
There are fanatics in the world who don't really care about what damage they cause. Who would retaliate where? That's why Israel takes out nuclear reactors in the Arab world. The are an existential threat. One bomb would wipe out Israel.

Yes, so true schuyler. There is a very good book on the subject that is worth the time to read, written by an Israeli author:

archive.org...

originally posted by: schuyler
Why in the world would a first world modern, enlightened country like France build a nuclear reactor for a thug like Saddam? That was an irrational act, yet they did it anyway.

Why in the world would a first world country like the USA give Saddam chemical weapons? That was an irrational act, yet they did it anyway.

Governments act irrationally quite often, even to the point of creating events that spark wars...