• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.

Miz en Scène

Everybody's connected
  • 1,645
    Posts
    16
    Years
    I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds...

    Robert Openheimer once said that he was reminded of these lines from the Hindu scripture the Bhagavad Gita. The Trinity nuclear test is said to be the start of the Atomic age and the beginning of the practical use of Nuclear weapons.

    The only pros that I can see from the usage of Nuclear weapons would have to be that it helped end WW2. Wait no, scratch that, my heart goes out to the people from Nagasaki and Hiroshima who were directly or indirectly involved.

    Still, have we any use for Nuclear Weapons? Why can't we all just disarm the nuclear weapons. They're creating unnecessary tension among the countries of the world. I'm okay with nuclear power as a clean alternative to fossil fuels. I'm banning nuclear energy outright but wouldn't it be more practical too use Nuclear Power for something other than destruction.

    So, should we disarm all nuclear weapons?
     
    Yes, but since human nature is so competitive, they will never do it. If they say they will, they lie, and will continue secretly. It always comes down to the guy who has the biggest gun. XD
     
    Yes, but since human nature is so competitive, they will never do it. If they say they will, they lie, and will continue secretly. It always comes down to the guy who has the biggest gun. XD
    Well yeah, I thought about that too. Even if they say they disarm, there will always be a secret stash of ICBMs hidden somewhere, ready to launch. XD
     
    In the last few decades, Russia and USA compete with each other in terms of power, either nuclear or space transportion, which is practically the Cold War. And I don't want one, honestly...

    It may be the cause of all the uneasiness, but to me, nuclear weapons should be used on the last-stand basis. If we don't have choice, we should use it. Like in the war. Nuclear weapons should not be the basis of the military power of the country. I mean look at USA and Russia, they have a powerful military.
     
    It may be the cause of all the uneasiness, but to me, nuclear weapons should be used on the last-stand basis. If we don't have choice, we should use it. Like in the war. Nuclear weapons should not be the basis of the military power of the country. I mean look at USA and Russia, they have a powerful military.
    However, nuclear weapons can't move fast enough to not be detected. When one side launches their ICBM, the other one will most likely retaliate before the first one reaches.

    Won't we end up destroying ourselves?
     
    And I thought you are online(lol invisible).

    There are a lot of other methods that can launch nuclear weapons. I'm not saying that the only conventional way to launch nukes. Any way, the fastest hypothetically is through rail-guns(experimental).

    That's the reason for the joint operation of Russia and USA to dismantle and dispose most of the nukes, to try not to end mankind early. But Korea is so hard-headed. >: (
     
    And I thought you are online(lol invisible).

    There are a lot of other methods that can launch nuclear weapons. I'm not saying that the only conventional way to launch nukes. Any way, the fastest hypothetically is through rail-guns(experimental).

    That's the reason for the joint operation of Russia and USA to dismantle and dispose most of the nukes, to try not to end mankind early. But Korea is so hard-headed. >: (
    I'm always invisible. XD

    Why do people have to threaten other people with nuclear power. It's an endless cycle that's just going to repeat itself unless you disarm all nuclear weapons and focus on nuclear energy for domestic use instead.
     
    Nuclear energy and weapons do have uses if you talk about, for instance, outer space. It's been hypothesized how a nuclear weapon could be strong enough to shift the trajectory of (not destroy) an object threatening to collide with Earth.
     
    Nuclear energy and weapons do have uses if you talk about, for instance, outer space. It's been hypothesized how a nuclear weapon could be strong enough to shift the trajectory of (not destroy) an object threatening to collide with Earth.

    Currently, most nuclear weapons are not suited be aimed at an oncoming extra-terrestrial body due to the fact that most of them are for destroying other countries.

    And how would you use a nuclear weapon to shift the trajectory of said object? If you were to impact said object it would be just as good as trying to blow it up. Please elaborate.

    I don't see why you can't use a regular rocket for this instance.

    The biggest thermonuclear weapon ever was the Tsar Bomba also codenamed Vanya. This had the potential for mass destruction if it were equivalent to 100Mt. Thankfully, it was never used. Imagine it was. Shouldn't we stop it before it's too late?
     
    Last edited:
    Considering such asteroids could range from the size of a football stadium to the size of New Mexico, and are often rich in heavy metals if not made completely out of iron... Crashing a rocket into one would probably be as good as trying to bring down a tree with ping pong balls.

    I hope you remember than most nuclear weapons do not go off upon impact. I believe the Little Boy exploded about 600ft before reaching the ground above Hiroshima. The main idea is to set off an explosion in a way that it merely deviates the object from its course without having to directly hit it and worsen the problem.
     
    The only pros that I can see from the usage of Nuclear weapons would have to be that it helped end WW2.
    Japan was already keen to negotiate surrender but was ignored; America only dropped the bombs as a show to Russia.
    And the firebombing of Tokyo caused many more deaths than both warheads combined.

    So really, nuclear weapons have had no use nor aim other than to cause collateral damage and look impressive, as of yet. There is of course the use the Pichu has stated, but we don't need 30,000 warheads for that. I think nuclear weapons technology should be maintained, but a vast majority of the actual missiles and bombs not.
    Nuclear energy on the other hand is clean and efficient so as long as the waste is disposed of safely there's no reason not to use it.
     
    Last edited:
    As was said, we probably should, which is different than "we probably will."

    If we begin producing weaponry specifically for the destruction and deterrence of space debris, that would put a lot of people at ease. Although, they would be useless if not designed properly...
     

    Personally I think it's about protection and fear more than ego and out-doing the other side. :/ Nobody wants to "disarm" for fear that the other side isn't following through, and thus they'd be left defenseless if the time came to fight.

    It's a vicious cycle based on lack of trust and fear, two of the biggest problems human kind has to overcome before we can stop being this-nation and that-nation and just be human. Earth.
    That reminded me of Star Wars. I personally hold the belief that Nuclear Weapons have no use other than an ego-boost and a waste of precious metals.

    If everyone could start trusting each other or if the whole world was governed by one government(not the UN which isn't technically a government), then we could start trusting each other and disarm the weapons.
     
    Nuclear weapons are something that we would have eventually created if we hadn't created them in WWII. Without the development of nuclear weapons, humanity would have never gone to the moon when we did. A lot of good has come from the development of nuclear weapons in the form of scientific advancement, but it is a terrible thing that millions of people were killed when the two bombs were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I think it is inevitable that countries, like Iran, will want to have nuclear weapons and will try to create them. In my opinion, the development of nuclear weapons is a critical stage in the development of a nation's technology. I think the world should watch Iran and other potentially dangerous countries that are developing these weapons and we should do everything in our power to stop them from using them for evil.

    I think my point is this: with improved technology, humans will have more efficient ways of killing things. You can't stop it. Eventually we'll have more powerful weapons than nuclear weapons.
     
    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

    How about a nice game of chess?
     
    Nuclear weapons are something that we would have eventually created if we hadn't created them in WWII. Without the development of nuclear weapons, humanity would have never gone to the moon when we did. A lot of good has come from the development of nuclear weapons in the form of scientific advancement, but it is a terrible thing that millions of people were killed when the two bombs were dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    I think it is inevitable that countries, like Iran, will want to have nuclear weapons and will try to create them. In my opinion, the development of nuclear weapons is a critical stage in the development of a nation's technology. I think the world should watch Iran and other potentially dangerous countries that are developing these weapons and we should do everything in our power to stop them from using them for evil.

    I think my point is this: with improved technology, humans will have more efficient ways of killing things. You can't stop it. Eventually we'll have more powerful weapons than nuclear weapons.
    Yes, I agree that it's inevitable that we'll probably have more powerful ways of killing people. However, nuclear fallout affects the area for years afterwards. Aside from the technological boom of the atomic age that was mostly due to competitiveness in between the USSR and the US, what use do we have for nuclear weapons now. Nuclear energy is fine and all but weapons?

    Besides that, anything more powerful than the Tsar Bomba? I'd rather not think about it.

    twocows said:
    A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

    How about a nice game of chess?
    WarGames reference I presume. The same is also true for love as stated here.

    This only works if everyone mutually agree to disarm and dismantle all their nuclear weapons. And we all know that no country trusts other countries enough to dismantle their nuclear weapons.
     
    Well yeah, I thought about that too. Even if they say they disarm, there will always be a secret stash of ICBMs hidden somewhere, ready to launch. XD

    [PokeCommunity.com] I am become Death, the Destroyer of Worlds.


    Metal... Gear?

    DESTROY THE SHAGOHOD.
     
    If governments were smart they'd know that the best thing for them is stability around the world because that means trade and money and business as usual. If anyone launched a nuke at anyone else you'd see the world go crazy. Trade (such as in food) that one country expects and relies on from another country could dry up as that country shifts focus to supplying allies (or the same result if you're now an enemy through your alliances with other countries), your people get upset because there's no food, they riot, your domestic economy tanks, etc. If you're the foolish government who fired you're also going to have a lot of sanctions slapped on you in addition to having your reputation soiled for a long time.

    So, since governments generally understand this we should disarm. Only extremists and other people with their backs to the wall would use nukes and the fewer nukes there are the harder it is for the crazies to get their hands on them and the weaker the excuses crazy countries have for demanding the right to have them.
     
    Problem is, some governments are made up of extremists...

    Right now, they're serving mostly as a way to tell enemy nations to back off. As long as everyone fears that everyone else has nuclear weapons, nobody's gonna bomb anyone else out of fear of retaliation. So, in that odd sense, they're keeping the peace. Sounds weird, I know, but consider this: Let's say that the US somehow knew the Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapon-producing capabilities in the '60's-'80's. Do you think the US would have hesitated to use theirs?

    In a perfect world we wouldn't have or need nuclear weapons. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.
     
    Problem is, some governments are made up of extremists...

    Right now, they're serving mostly as a way to tell enemy nations to back off. As long as everyone fears that everyone else has nuclear weapons, nobody's gonna bomb anyone else out of fear of retaliation. So, in that odd sense, they're keeping the peace. Sounds weird, I know, but consider this: Let's say that the US somehow knew the Soviet Union didn't have nuclear weapon-producing capabilities in the '60's-'80's. Do you think the US would have hesitated to use theirs?

    In a perfect world we wouldn't have or need nuclear weapons. Sadly, this is not a perfect world.
    I have to agree. But In WWII It was Hiltler's and his-so-proclaimed mates fault.
    And I'm bored of the Periodic Table full of Nuclear materials but....what is the point if they hardly get used. If Not.....Take 'em to Afghanistan! <~ Sorry ~ My Childish mind speaking where I crossed that out.
     
    Back
    Top