I concur. What do you think of anti-missile technology research as an alternative?garrethdsouza wrote:Apart from America, pretty much every country has done exactly that after getting nuclear weapons. Apart from tests,nothing to anyone else. It's more for deterrence of invasions etc imo.
Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
It's a free lunch.Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Would being allies with a nation with a nuclear arsenal be superior to having them yourself?
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I apologize, but could you elaborate?brimstoneSalad wrote:It's a free lunch.Cirion Spellbinder wrote:Would being allies with a nation with a nuclear arsenal be superior to having them yourself?
- Kyron
- Junior Member
- Posts: 60
- Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 7:27 pm
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
I think he means yes. It's like having a lunch (nuclear weapons) that you don't have to pay for.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I apologize, but could you elaborate?
- brimstoneSalad
- neither stone nor salad
- Posts: 10332
- Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
- Diet: Vegan
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
If true, yes. But also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain ... free_lunchKyron wrote:I think he means yes. It's like having a lunch (nuclear weapons) that you don't have to pay for.Cirion Spellbinder wrote: I don't think I understand what you mean by this? I apologize, but could you elaborate?
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
So as of now I'd say that my nation would not own nuclear weapons if I had notable allies with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, I still am having trouble seeing why having an arsenal of expensive and destructive weapons to prevent logical (of varying degrees) nations from exploiting or attacking me.
-
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2015 10:28 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Presumably somewhere
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
A third option has been added. Please revisit the question to consider it.
If you have any other suggestions for options, I'd be happy to add them.
If you have any other suggestions for options, I'd be happy to add them.
- miniboes
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1578
- Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2014 1:52 pm
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: Netherlands
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
I think I would personally put myself in the situation of trying to make the other nations get rid of their nuclear weapons. Not owning nuclear weapons would therefore be logical, as hypocrisy is never a good thing when trying to persuade people (just look at the climate change discussion between China and the US).
"I advocate infinite effort on behalf of very finite goals, for example correcting this guy's grammar."
- David Frum
- David Frum
- NonZeroSum
- Master of the Forum
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 6:30 am
- Diet: Vegan
- Location: North Wales, UK
Re: Nuclear Arms and Weapons in General
-
I think tin-pot dictators owning a few nukes like North Korea is a good defence against invasion if you can build it faster than any country can amass the public will to invade and so forces other countries to only deal with you through diplomacy.
I don't think anyone else should own nukes today, because as soon as someone actually uses a nuke they would simply be invaded by many countries to create a change of government or they would be ousted very soon after for committing such an evil act.
In the past when the world was divided into such big blocks and you couldn't be assured of your government being ousted if you used nukes to destroy the enemy, maybe in that case it was good for preventing open war with soviet and american troops.
-
I think tin-pot dictators owning a few nukes like North Korea is a good defence against invasion if you can build it faster than any country can amass the public will to invade and so forces other countries to only deal with you through diplomacy.
I don't think anyone else should own nukes today, because as soon as someone actually uses a nuke they would simply be invaded by many countries to create a change of government or they would be ousted very soon after for committing such an evil act.
In the past when the world was divided into such big blocks and you couldn't be assured of your government being ousted if you used nukes to destroy the enemy, maybe in that case it was good for preventing open war with soviet and american troops.
-
Unofficial librarian of vegan and socialist movement media.
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah
PhiloVegan Wiki: https://tinyurl.com/y7jc6kh6
Vegan Video Library: https://tinyurl.com/yb3udm8x
Ishkah YouTube: https://youtube.com/Ishkah