Bitcoin Forum

Hello guys :) i want to know your opinion about the tacticals nuke in all the differents countrys with this kind of weapon... do you believe is fair to have this kind of massic destruction capability that can destroy the entire world? if there are no nukes in the world then it will be create another worse kind of weapon? what do you think?

The idea of a nuclear conflict escalating into nukes wiping everything off the face of the Earth is very superficial. A nuclear conflict will pan out more subtly than that. Should a country ever use nuclear weapons against another then that country will prioritise targets that incapacitate the enemy and make them unable to retaliate properly.  

A nuclear first strike will be aimed at disabling a country's military so that it capitulates quickly.

That means that a first strike per definition won't involve cross continental nuclear missiles. Satellites watch the silos and the warning will happen so early that the country already initiates it's own strike.  
The first strike would be carried out with submarines. Hitting densely populated areas may sound terrifying but it's a really low-priority compared to airbases and military assets. Disabling the other country's bombers is the best way to lower the amount of weapons heading your way.  

And because you want the country to capitulate you specifically WON'T hit the large cities. They're your hostages. They are what a country stands to lose if they don't cooperate properly. You also won't hit the government because you need that government waving a white flag unless you want the entire nation to turn into a failed state which won't benefit you at all.

I wouldn't want to live anywhere near airbases or military ports when tensions run high. Especially not down-wind. But other than that, most people should be fine in a nuclear conflict. They won't be targeted,  nation states think differently than Hollywood script writers.


Nuclear weapons in the hand of rogue states however, that's a different thing entirely. Those weapons are wielded ideologically rather than strategically. Terrorists or megalomaniac dictators will seek to cause maximum casualties to claim their name in the history books.

That's true in a way. There's no gain in destroying a country, it's much better to force it to give up land, give resource, pay homage ;)
I said "in a way" because there are people like Kim, who would destroy a country just to prove a point. Nuclear weapons in the hands of lunatics can be very dangerous.

Nuclear weapons aren't the most powerful thing you can build. There are much worse things, biological weapons being one.

I believe fair. It is the presence of nuclear weapons allowed the world to exist without a global war 72. The world has never lived for so long a peaceful life. If there were no nuclear weapons the US and Russia would be fought during the Cuban missile crisis.

Until now, the politicians are quite using their brains, hiding their anger and using a diplomatic channels to solve the problems
Assuming that uncle Kim is having a nuke and the old guy in the white house didn't like his morning cookies...well that could escalate to a war in which the two parties could use the nukes if they feel that the end of its regimen is soon
Of course, Seoul will take all the damage, maybe Japan too?

Sooner or later it has to happen. I hope that South Korea and Japan will not be affected. Kim is too bad the rocket to represent a danger to America. With drchau side no one saw us missile defense system in action. Maybe they are really that good they did not miss a single rocket.

I never thought like that. Perhaps you are having a valid point. Just look at Iran and the DPRK. I believe that one of the reasons why they were never invaded by the NATO (unlike Iraq and Libya), was due to the fact that they are having nuclear weapons.

I think even with the presence of nuclear weapons, human greed will want to create even more advanced weapons.

The US army came up with a nuke grenade - but couldn't find anyone dumb enough to throw it - but we do have leaders who are dumb enough to throw tactical nukes. Tells you a lot.

I guess that nukes are best for mutually-assured destruction (MAD). Supposedly the possibility of a nuclear war would force would be belligerents to handle their issues diplomatically.

I think nukes are not the only reason there have been no large wars for a long time. Economic integration has caused countries to behave themselves since war is bad for business (unless you business is war). Take Europe for example, where nation-states in the past has warred with each other on a fairly regular basis. The creation of EU has pretty much prevented the member from going to war with each other.

Still, never underestimate human stupidity. Nuclear winter is still a possibility.

Yeah, I believe that if nuclear weapons had not been created then another massive weapons would have been created, people always looking for exceptional and more destructive things. They always trying to keep control on others by creating something else. So it would be happen.

Nuclear weapon, or the threat of having one, is a reason that Iran and North Korea as still not being invaded.

You are wrong. Iran does not have nuclear weapons. They only are developing and North Korea may pose a threat only to its neighbors so that America is not afraid of them, too. They are not just attacked because they give them a chance for a peaceful solution to this problem.

On one hand you wish they were never created. On the other without the MAD(Mutually Assured Destruction) policy the cold war might have turned hot at some point and who knows what kind of world we'd have today. A conventional world war some time during the 70s for example wouldn't have destroyed the planet's ecosystem, but it sure would have costed many young men's lives. Whoever won we'd still be feeling the consequences today.

For small countries like mine overshadowed by big aggressive neighbors they are the perfect deterrent against being bullied by the bigger guy. Much like the threat of Izrael's supposed nuclear arsenal is there to scare off their big and powerful Arab neighbors.

It seems to me that you are mistaken. All Arab countries are not at war with Israel only because they are afraid of US. They are the ally of Israel and will not leave him in the lurch.

I would agree with you on North Korea. The only reason why they are still not being invaded is due to the fact that they are having nuclear weapons. But I am not sure about Iran. They are saying that they abandoned their nuclear weapons program. But who knows for sure?

Who said that North Korea fear? It seems to me that the Americans just deciding how to destroy the Kim regime. The Americans can turn all of North Korea into ruins in one day. While Kim has no chance to respond adequately to the United States.

If we look in past, we can see bloody past, filled with destruction and pain. People have always fought for something, and will continue to do. In past human race has always been working on how to better destroy there enemies, so that leads us to better weapon and better things for destruction. There will always be people who will make weapon out of something that is meant for helping people. Because War, war never change us...

It's fact that their leader Kim is only decision maker in whole country.
There is no democracy of any kind of government control there.
Another fact is that Kim is crazy and mentally unstable.
So, do you understand now why all neighbors around North Korea, South Korea, Japan... fear Kim and his nuclear bombs.
They don't want to destroy North Korea but to destroy their nuclear bombs.
Seoul, capitol of South Korea, is only a half hour drive from the border with the north Korea.
If anything happen, millions of people there will be killed.
Kim is threat to all international community.
He don't listen numerous resolutions from UN and continue his nuclear program.
Other countries, with nuclear weapons, USA, Russia, UK etc, are stable and with strong government control, so they are not threat to others because of their nuclear weapons.
They will never use nuclear bombs against any other country.
Kim is different story.

Speculations on world war 3 are now comming in with the inclutions of terrorists. More and more terrorist are emerging in the middle east areas still with the same reason over and over. And probably bombing to show violence is bad is a very bad irony on the government but what can government do to at least give justice on terrorists?

The question is a bit strange. Is it fair? I think not, but life isn't fair.
I'd prefer countries used their resources to build space stations, underwater cities and do research instead of putting billions into weapons they aren't even using. It's not even nuclear weapons. Conventional weapons are also a waste of resources.

It doesn't matter who has nuclear weapon they might not even use it for their own sake. But  I think right now it's more informational war rather than nuclear. NK can't make the first move because it will be their end. USA also can't start it because then the USA will be the agressor.

USA is looking for away to destroy NK without loosing abullet and i think NK has a little less nuclear weapon capabilities to reach far there in usa . If i was UN secretly general i will push all countries with nuclear weapon to destroyed forever for the sake of human being. 

Who would agree to destroy the most powerful weapon in their armory and lose the supremacy?

Nuclear weapons serve detterent purpose. They are perhaps only thing that prevented vast eastern and western armies from engaging in World War 3 as fear of mutual destruction always brought both sides back to negation table.

If you somehow made them dissappear over night, then scientists all over the world would race to develop more potent chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. Not, to destroy I hope, but to give their respective government another tool to deter any and all invaders.

What did Kim have a choice? In itself, the possession of nuclear weapons is not a panacea for war. So Kim was afraid he should be able to deliver its nuclear cargo to any point of the earth, and this opportunity Kim no.

I agree. Since the nuclear was discovered, World War was totally settled due to fear on mass destruction. This weapon is just for peace control and at the same time, to show supremacy over other country. Kim is just a hypocrite by thinking that his country can defeat USA because they have nuclear.

unfortunately that is true no one agree to do that ...but if used again their own communities will force them to do .

Actually we are now in the surge of a second cold war and with north korea dictator able to launch a nuke in the world the situation is very delicated.

I think they are still capable of assembling a nuclear missile. This is why the past administration in Washington went into deals with them, to make sure they don't build a nuke.

i have to agreed with youmaybe they dont have a nuclear missile built but they have the resource and the machinery to built one... hope they dont use it and bring the ww3

You really think that it just took a missile? How many years already exists the Russian institutes in creation of missiles, and they have a big problem too. We constantly witness the failed launches at Baikonur.

well i dont know if iran had nuclear missiles, but they have the tecnology to assemble them? i dont think so they are just a group of religius crazy people come on... They are a third world country

Yup, but if they're pushed into a corner they might just actually hurry. History is made by the greedy, lazy and fearful.


They seem to haven't made one already but they are continuing their research. What previous administrations were doing is try to persuade them to not too. Too be fair to the last one in Washington, they managed to get Terhan to agree to allow observers to come in and check their facilities. I don't know if Trump will manage to have rapport with the Persians.

Not fair at all. Nuclear is too dangerous, even to win the war. We already know what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki decades ago. The entire city was destroyed with no residue, the impact on the environment is very dangerous, environment polluted in a long time. If one country has nuclear weapons, maybe it could make them win the war. But the worst thing is if the whole country has nuclear weapons, apocalypse.

True! But after the first nuclear attack, countries developed nuclear weapons for the sake of their own protection and deterrence. As far as winning a war is concerned no one can win it with nuke and at the end they just destroy the beautiful planet earth. Now countries are more interested in developing biological weapons which are even dangerous than nuke.

Biological weapons are having limited range, and if the recipient country is sufficiently prepared, then the impact will be limited. For example, if someone attacks the US with Anthrax, then the authorities will be able to limit the impact by vaccinating everyone against it.

I do not know about biological weapons, maybe i even do not want to know. But even if nuclear weapons was made for their own protection, people are interesting race and sometime even if we say that we are rational, sometime we are not. People out of fear will do stupid things, and even if later they regret what they have done, it will be too late.

That's like those uranium shells they are using, effectively polluting the land they're fighting on.
Still that's less dumb than what the Russians were doing. They were sending troops to areas that were just test nuked to see how they do, made a nuclear powered plane that spewed pollution everywhere it flew and irradiated and killed its whole crew. People are sometimes so dumb and careless I think we are bound to destroy ourselves at some point.