Nuclear weapons exist

>War is limited to third world shitholes and change in European borders seems like a distant concept.

I'm not sure about that since using nuclear weapons means that the world will turn into a wasteland, it's in the interest of no one.

>the world's economy can be crashed by a string of numbers

The biggest problem with MAD is that it assumes people behave rationally.

We have safeguards for that user.

What safeguards?

>Hong Xiuquan existed, the things he did happened and would not have happened if he merely chose not to do them

Chain of command is one thing, user. It means that one madman does not have all the authority in the say.

That maybe your country. But what if a crazy dictatorship like North Korea acquires nuclear fire?

>implying that's bad
If they get powerful enough / proliferate across the Earth enough, then we have a chance to finally break the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth for all sentient beings. Without them, you can kill yourself but you'd just be reborn as a cicada or fungus or whatever.

My country unfortunately does not have WMDs. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the concept of Chain of Command is universal concept? While North Korea is a rogue state, even she has to have some sort of safeguards, and with changing geopolitical climate she can't be backed up by China forever.

Why using nukes when you can use FOBS?

FOBS are still nukes, no?

Why did you make this thread? Also nuclear weapons don't prevent another major conflict any more than chemical weapons and biological weapons prevented WW2.
Nuclear weapons only actually deter use of WMDs. Conventional war is still possible, but to nobody's benefit. In WW2 Germany had nerve gases that were stunningly lethal compared to chlorine and sulfur mustards. At the time no effective countermeasures existed, gas masks are useless against Sarin vapour, the allies had no idea such chemicals even existed. But the Germans assumed the allies must have these gases in secret, so they never used them. Germany could have won the war in two years, but they were deterred by the threat of retaliation with gas they had no counter to. Imagine if they used it at Kursk or on Moscow, or throughout Barbarossa, or gassed Birmingham and issued a 'one city a night until you surrender' ultimatum to the Bongs. Anderson shelters are not airtight. They may as well have had nukes.
But they were deterred.
So, yes nukes exist, but there could still be a conventional war between two rational actors, if one side sees benefit in it, because opening with nukes is inviting retaliation, and when you lose a conventional war just using nukes out of spite is also pointless and stupid and a net loss. Even a regime like the Nazis could see the cold hard logic of this.
The Norks might be an exception, because there is little evidence to suggest the Nork regime cares about the outcomes for its people.
People do behave irrationally, but there are degrees of irrationality. Sometimes something is only irrational in hindsight. Sometimes something is clearly irrational from every perspective, well in advance.

My country has no safeguards and no nuclear codes. Military discipline is the only thing preventing a rogue launch. There is a safe with targeting information and a letter from the PM, but nothing to stop the captain from firing the missiles.
Yes really.

I'm pretty sure China would gun down Jong-un the moment he seriously thinks about nukes.

>you
I didn't.

Proof that "International Court of Justice", "UN" and other "legal" institutions are scams : WMDs are allowed to exist in the first place.

The military leadership of Cold War countries with WMDs (and probably the current ones too) should be on trial for attempted genocide as all of these targeted the civilian populations of potential enemy countries and wanted to cause hundreds of millions of deaths.
Instead these receive huge pensions or are still ruling the same countries.

You mean there is more than one autist with a "Morose Cat expressions" folder?
Sorry I had no idea.

> what is the right to self defence
> what is the right to self determination
> what is deterrence
> why was there no actual war
Lol take this (you) and git, foo

TLDR?

Fear is never a good torrent because fear turns us into dumb animals who do stupid shit

Anal sex exists

Ok, so all countries should have the right to make WMDs for their self-defense.

>Also nuclear weapons don't prevent another major conflict any more than chemical weapons and biological weapons prevented WW2.
You can't compare nukes to shit like anthrax and chlorine tf are you doing?

Morose cats are not hard to come by. I believe that most people who's been on Veeky Forums for more than a year have plenty of morose cat pictures.

>nuclear weapons aren't being used to reduce the overpopulation

kek

...

1/2
Countries being threatened with nuclear attack by countries with nuclear weapons have a right to defend themselves appropriately. False equivalency with handing out nukes like AKs. Most countries are not in this position, and nuclear armed countries have an obligation to oppose aggression by other nuclear armed states.
Furthermore this is de facto the case anyway and was throughout the cold war. There are "American" nukes in SK and JP, and were in West Germany, Denmark, Norway, Turkey and other non nuclear states. In practice they were to be used by the country that they were based in, for self defence against perceived Soviet aggression. This creates de facto nuclear states, even if they cannot manufacture the weapons themselves. The fact that the Dutch could launch a first strike (albeit an impotent one) in practice, was not a concern. Raising the stakes creates a higher barrier to war, and nuclear coercion cannot be eliminated, only discouraged.

2/2
Of course this only works for countries that perceive they have something to lose but still.
Yes you can, very directly. Go to nukemap and play around with the bombs that would actually be used, between 10-300kt, in a shooting war. Resist the temptation to click 'tsar bomba 100mt' and drop it in time square, that's a ludicrous use case for a useless weapon, and just pearl clutching for its own sake.
Then consider that these weapons would be targeted at dispersed formations, air bursted (much reduced fallout) and you will find that the effects start to look much less than apocalyptic.
Awful for sure, but certainly comparable to other WMDs.
Also I did point out there is a huge capability gap between chlorine and sulphur mustard gases and G series nerve agents, the latter being almost exclusively fatal and easier to disperse over a wider area in lower but still lethal concentrations. And not negated by gas masks or thick clothing or any other countermeasure. Yet Germany started the war possessing such a weapon, and assumed that the British and French must also possess it, never used it.
The issue with nukes is they are nowhere near as bad as the memes surrounding them suggest, but that still leaves room for them to be the most awful thing ever. Contrary to popular belief you can fight and win nuclear war, but there are no circumstances where the reward justified the expense.
Pic related is a good place to start to actually get an understanding of nuclear and wmd strategy.

...

Fucked up if true.

Therein lies the irony of nukes. It keeps us from unleashing the devastation of a world war but only drives us to localized brutality.

>We will never participate in a great struggle again because of the threat of mass casualties

There was plenty of localized brutality prior to nukes.

>mfw all of the autists who think of war as a "great struggle" instead of a necessary evil are dying alone instead of running countries

No reason to lead a dying earth. There is no greater evil than this modern society.

>Necessary evils can't also be great struggles

> change in European borders a distant concept
Tell that to Yugoslavia.

What country?

...

Bongistan. That there's a Vanguard class SSBN with a Type 45 destroyer visible in the background.
There are some strange myths about the UK deterrent, like the missiles needing US codes because they're Trident-IIs but the British missiles have no such module. There are keys to the safe with orders in it, but the captain can, with the agreement of the crew, fire.
If the BBC isn't playing Radio 4, he can fire. It's assumed chain of command is a primary target so the sub is expected to deduce that the shit hit the fan, rather than wait for orders.
So no codes, no football.

>fails civil service exams 4 times in a row and begins to hallucinate due to the stress
>interprets "visions" as a message from God that he is Jesus's little brother tasked with stopping devil worship and slaying devils
>becomes wandering preacher with cousins, also butthurt at failing the exams, burning "idols" as he goes and annoying the locals
>cousin Feng goes off on his own and manages to convert members of the Hakka minority, harnessing their discontent
>Feng unironically believes HX is the son of Jesus and transfers all power to him, the same as later mystics and generals who will join HX on his journey
>converts begin converting more converts, movement grows exponentially, expanding into the general population and generating frictions with local officials
>Qing sends troops to capture HX but are vastly outnumbered by his followers who rise up to drive them away, HX founds the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom
>begins marching through China, looting, recruiting peasants and bandits and repelling Qing forces sent to stop the monstrosity that has emerged
>they reach productive flatlands near the Yangtze and march on Nanjing, capturing it and surrounding areas
>HX immediately secludes himself in a palace with his harem, only rarely communicating with the outside world via letters
>generals take over and years of war follow, at one point nearly taking Beijing
>HX stays secluded the whole time
>European powers decide to help the Qing put an end to the chaos and they begin to make headway
>food begins to run low in Nanjing and HX finally notices things aren't going well
>instructs his followers to eat "manna" but they can't find any so he eats random wild plants to prove it and accidentally poisons himself
>Nanjing captured
>religious fanatic followers are only finally defeated 20 years after the THK was proclaimed
>at least 20 million dead, easily topping WW1
>millions more due to disease and famine with some estimates up to 100 million

Who's idea was it to build an two arsenals of nuclear weapons capable of obliterating the entire earth?
Why weren't nuclear weapons outlawed immediately and any country that even looked like they were building nuclear weapons immediately attacked (Iraq)?

People are so gullible sometimes.

His point was that these organizations shouldn't allow anyone to have these weapons you dumbass

If mankind was able to completely destroy Earth or make life impossible on it with the use of nuclear weapons... wouldn't that invalidate religion?

In the case of abrahamics, it would mean that God isn't all powerful because he can't stop this and would render heaven and hell useless as there would be no place for human action to exist and so determine one's fate

In dharmic religions pretty much the same, the human realm where the dharma exists and liberation can be attained would disappear, making the system incomplete

And so on...

So? Whaddya think?

Its a proof that it is never a good idea to want to compete with God.

That is the Paradise fallacy used by atheism. If God can create Paradise, but doesn't, He is not all Good. If He wants to but can't, He is not all powerful.

God created everything you need to create Paradise. Including the free will to build it as you see fit. Or not. The choice is up to you. Don't look for some imaginary sky father to show you how to tie your shoes.

No it's a thermobaric.

Can't wait for the nuclear holocaust.

Because America had them first and would never give them up. How could what you suggested possibly happen?

The common man tends to think otherwise. You think they enjoyed having their lives thrown away in monarchs' games?

Came here to post this

Because almost immediately after the first nukes were developed, the Cold War happened. Neither the US nor the USSR were in a position to invade the other, and as long as the Cold War continued, each of the superpowers would allow their allies to acquire nukes, as that gave their side an advantage. In the Cold War, for either superpower to seek disarmament would be equivalent to suicide - as it would basically grant the opposing side the ability to use nuclear weapons without consequences. It's only with the end of the Cold War that we are able to see nuclear weapons as a threat to global safety, rather than a political necessity.

Not to get off-topic, but I would say that God isn't really "good" by human definitions if he allows humans to inflict such suffering on each other, like the Holocaust or so on. The only valid answer to the Paradise fallacy basically seems to be "God is both good and all powerful, but not in the way humans use those terms". Which seems basically like an admission of defeat, saying that God isn't actually offering what people want.

There have been some incredibly big wars, millions killed, but none of the combatants had nuclear weapons (Iran-Iraq, African "world war") so it's probably working

Aztecs. Say what you like about our "degeneracy", but we don't murder hundreds of people in agonizing ways for the sake of distant and hateful gods on the daily.

>Implying that any mortal can stop samsara and moksha
>Implying even the devas could stop samsara and moksha

That's the point

No Earth = six lokas aren't real or at least are not fixed categories (where would gods, pretas, animals, etc go? Ashuras and Pretas won't exist anymore because nobody with the appropiate karma to rebirth as them would exist anymore)

No Earth = no specie to teach the dharma = no liberation

And so on

From a hindu point of view there won't be avatars because there's no Earth

That's only a temporary obstacle. If necessary, I'm certain Brahma can just go to bed a bit early.

That also opens a new question

The Sun will die someday and with it all the life on Earth

But the Universe will keep existing. So what happens then?

Imo hindu metaphysics have a grasp of how the universe operates (pralaya, etc) but a lot is full on superstition

Whose idea*

2nd congo war
iran-iraq war

Hinduism already addresses this: the universe is cyclically destroyed at the end of each "Brahma-day", and is remade at the beginning of each new "Brahma-day".

But the death of the Sun and therefore of the Earth is not at the end of the day of Brahma, there are still millions of stars and solar systems

That would be a geocentric ans anthropocentric approach

>implying that HX wasn't the reincarnation of Yeshua's younger brother Thomas
>doesn't understand that manna is lerps

wow, you're a fucking idiot. filthy cat poster

big, if true

And just how would you enforce such a ban?

>obliterating the entire earth
Stop this meme
Nukes are overrated

A full release of the Russian and American capacities wouldn't obliterate the earth, but it would almost completely destroy both of those nations, trigger a global economic crash, and possibly cause some nasty ecological consequences.
But it would be interesting to see Europe, India, China, and Japan fight over global dominance.

Tbh it wouldn't even destroy those countries, they'd take a big hit, 10s of millions dead, but targets in a scenario like MAD all target Nuclear Silos and other strategic targets like airbases (Minot is a big one). Nuking cities doesn't win wars, it just makes your enemy more likely to nuke yours.