{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
12/19/2013 11:32:16 PM
3
Here come some made-up numbers for me to prove a point:
Let's say country X and country Y are at war, and country X has nuclear weapons. Country X uses the nuclear weapons, and kills, say 137 000 people.
That is better than a massive land invasion killing 600 000+ people.
English
-
If the war is necassary and of a righteous cause... say stopping a power-mad dictator for example, and all peaceful negotiations are exhausted, i agree that nukes are a better alternative than a full on military attack yes.
-
What if country Y started the war and country X wants to end it as soon as possible?
-
There is alot of factors to consider, it depends on things like why the war was started, country X's intentions, country Y's intentions yadda yadda i dont want to ramble, you get my point. But if these said nuclear weapons are used on civilians who want no part in the war, that is when the use of them becomes unjustified and unnecassary. I tend to be more against the use of these weapons though, because what happens when some crazy dude comes along, somehow obtains a shit ton of nukes and launches them for whatever motive? Someone stole his sweetroll or whatever it doesnt matter, but i'd rather that kind of thing be avoided altogether. So possibly the world powers disarm down to maybe 20-50 nuclear weapons? Maybe use the money to invest in an extremely sophisticated nuclear detection/defence system and focus on stripping any countries or rogue organisations who cannot be trusted with them.
