Nuclear weapons

[coolcoinz]

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.

[1713304110]

1713304110

[1713304110]

1713304110

[1713304110]

1713304110

[1713304110]

1713304110

[1713304110]

1713304110

[1713304110]

1713304110

[SimmonenY]

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

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.

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.

[Master_dandosha]

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

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.

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. 

[SimmonenY]

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

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.

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?

[Okurkabinladin]

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?

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.

[Forester618]

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

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.

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?

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.

[Armstand]

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?

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.

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.

[Master_dandosha]

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

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.

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?

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

[killgald]

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.

[merchantofzeny]

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

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?

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.

[killgald]

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

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?

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

[Lieldoryn]

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

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?

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.

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.

[wolfracer]

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

[merchantofzeny]

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

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?

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

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

[kodes88]

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?

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.

[camelson]

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?

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.

[Sithara007]

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.

[Eternu]

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?

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.

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.

[darkangel11]

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.

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.