{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edytowany przez użytkownika Guardian9199:
11/26/2013 6:55:00 PM
24
Do you support nukes?
P.S. the answer is yes.
-
nukes made godzilla without nukes godzilla wouldn't be here right meow! :O
-
We need them to take out asteroids and save them for an alien invasion.
-
Yes because humanity is cancer.
-
2 OdpowiedziNo nuke is good, they literally wipe people off the planet including innocent women, men and children old sport.
-
7 OdpowiedziLook at the trend of the 19th and 20th Century. Ever larger wars, involving more and more nations, and with technology improving at killing both the men fighting the wars and the civilians of any/all sides in ever increasing numbers. That trend of warfare and large scale genocide stopped after 1945. Because of atomics and later development of thermonuclears. Not because people and and nations decided to "give peace a chance". The pattern of routinely killing off entire segments of your own population and trying to kill everyone else on the other side of a particular border stopped because suddenly there was a weapon that scared both you and your enemy. A REAL terror weapon. A weapon that made people afraid to go to war, because it meant that no one would win. Nations without nukes would continue to bicker and those with would sometimes cheer on or support one side or another, but everyone knew that no one was crazy or suicidal enough to risk killing everyone. That was the last half of the 20th Century. Instead of real war where entire generations died, we had wars of paper cuts. But now there are players who may not be afraid of the genie, who aren't afraid of seeing the world burn, especially if they get to light the match. It's not the fault of the weapon. They are just a thing, a result of technology. They don't fear, they don't feel, they don't have an agenda, the people who develop or have them do. Just like guns don't create shootouts, their presence in the hands of a peaceful person discourages aggression from others, but will lead to bloodshed in the hands of someone who is eager or willing to spill blood for their own gain, nukes can be used to prevent wars, or to wage them. It all depends on who has their finger on the button.
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika BaconShelf: 11/26/2013 11:01:30 PMYes- In a way. Nuclear threat has been a reason as to why there haven't been many [i]major[/i] conflicts since the end of WWII between the more powerful countries- MAD means that more powerful nations are (in a way) scared to use them. Anyway, this is my opinion on the matter, before someone starts coming in demanding sauce. Oh, and also the theories about how they could be used to deflect asteroids and meteorites and other large space debris that could wipe out the planet.
-
I really wish there was a way to ensure [i]no one[/i] could obtain nuclear weaponry because of its immense danger, but because there is no such way, I support my nation owning WMDs for the sake of dissuading opponents from initiating thermonuclear warfare.
-
-
Yes but they aren't awesome.
-
Its odd that people try to make rules with people intent on killing them. Its downright retarded. Also yes.
-
2 OdpowiedziEdytowany przez użytkownika NaLo: 11/26/2013 3:52:18 PM[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Appeal]The Stockholm Appeal[/url] should be reintroduced and the possession of nuclear bombs should be seen as a crime against humanity.
-
5 OdpowiedziEdytowany przez użytkownika MR DEATHBOT: 11/26/2013 5:53:47 PM>Explosions are awesome >Nukes make very big explosions >Nukes are good.
-
Awesome. I mean they damaged Japan. They can't possibly be bad. Those slanty eyed bastards
-
Try to only use em for aliens
-
3 OdpowiedziThey are unnecessary now, with other missiles we have. But I'm not saying ban them. But only for extreme circumstances
-
-
Edytowany przez użytkownika ZUON: 11/26/2013 5:13:06 PMI couldn't imagine the amount of destruction just [b][i]one[/i][/b] of these could do... It sure as hell gives a country power, but a person willing to push the button means game over. It's a scary thing. You hideous nipple.
-
Yes, because no one wants to attack a nation with a large stockpile of nukes.
-
3 OdpowiedziWould you still support them after one is dropped on yo house? :)
-
well, as a country, you kind of have to have them. Otherwise you lose your superpower status. and in a WW, you would have to rollover.
-
Why not?
-
-
To think nuclear arsenals are acceptable is to wager that they will not be used in warfare. It is taking a bet that we're crazy enough to threaten the use of them but to never actually use them. History shows that we have been on the verge of nuclear annihilation time and time again during the cold war. There were multiple times where it came down to one man on whether or not they were to be used. Nuclear weapons are no longer needed to deter war, now there are missiles that can hit a fly on a doorknob from 500 miles away. The possession of nuclear weapons should be considered a crime against humanity.
-
They are awesome and I do find myself reaserching them randomly because it kinda fascinates me but I don't really support them being dropped on countries. On a side note this video is somewhat related and I found it cool.
