What do you think?
I think no one should have them, we have a big enough army to support ourselves ( That goes for Britain and most of our allies as well ), no matter what you do nukes wont solve your problems, only make them 10000x worse.

Nobody should. And why would the UN have WMDs?

Screw them, leave it be. :ph43r: :ph43r:

No one. So everyone would be calm and not fucking paranoid as to which country they should not have bad dealings with. And they cant use the excuse of WMD to envade a country for their oil.

Gotta admit, anyone who votes anything other than no one is going to get a argument.

I have a feeling that Purge would want to agrue. :ph43r: :ph43r:

Purge doesnt win arguments, he just uses words that chances are you dont know what they mean ^_^ .
Which is winning <_< .

Exactly. Someday, I'll use bigger words than him. :ph43r: :ph43r:

:funny:



I voted no one.

Its called an education. ;)

I think he would probably agree with everyone else on this poll, but would probably make some observation, like I'm about to:

In the current human world, its impossible to have no WMDs because as soon as everyone gets rid of them, some extremists would probably develop them and then have one up on the rest of the world.

Well, I wasn't going to comment (voted no-one btw) but if you insist...

WMDs are not intended for use. I doubt any country who constructs them has any real intent to ever use them. Their purpose is, instead, to insure that MAD applies. That there has not be a world-wide 'total war' in a period of 60 years - which include 40 years of what proved to be one of the most hostile periods in human history - is in part ascribable to the fact that MAD meant that 'total war' would result in total destruction.

But, for MAD to apply, there has to be two sides with a sizable nuclear arsenal. And neither side may have people insane enough to actually want to use them. But the Bush administration - which is stated that it would use Nuclear strikes in 'ore-emptive' strikes - has rocked the entire idea of MAD, perverselly, prevent total destruction. Hence, the world is so precariously balanced at this stage - we have nutters with there finger on the button for the first time, probably since WMDs were invented.

In theory, no WMDs is the ideal. Similarly, in an ideal world that is what I would like to see. Even in this world I would love to see a situation of no WMDs. But such a situation is, in the longest term, unsustainable. The power to destroy a nation is one so great that to wield it, and not face similar repercusions, would mean that in the long-term any group wishing to hold power beyond what is attainable by other means would simply resurect the technologies for there own gain.

What is needed, however, is for research into further advancements in this field to be halted. Such research is pointless - relics from a world that disappered in 1989 (although seems poised to resurface once more, although this time probably with the reserve effect). The best possible option we can have now is for some form of equilibrium - no further development or construction with MAD ensuring that no-one ever actually attacks anyone.

We are currently in a unique situation. A situation the world has not experienced in over 500 years. We have a single dominant world power. For the first time, power has not been wielded by an number of great powers, but a single 'hyper-power'. It is this situation which leads to the current WMD problem. Being the single 'hyper-power' grants the USA certain powers - most notably, certain exemptions from the MAD theory. It means that for the first time since the conclusion of WWII we face a situation where the use of WMDs is not cancelled out by MAD.

Power was never meant to be held by one man/one nation/one nationality. Power is so powerful that for a single entity to hold it means that the world faces crises of proportions unknown to any previous generations, an effect that has only been amplified by the development of the WMDs.

But now that we have WMDs the idea of a 'balance of powers' or an uneasy peace between rival super-powers becomes problematic. In a constant search to find leverage over the rival, each super-power becomes consumed in an arms race - and with WMDs that means developing more powerful/more effective/different types of said weapons. It means that, whatever happens from here on out, we face either a nation with the ability to use WMDs at will, or WMDs being developed to even further, even more destructive levels.

A solution? There is no solution. The worlds' problems will not be solved simply by some 'fix'. The single most important thing that history teaches us, is that no matter how much power an entity holds, it will always want more. Whether it is imperial, military, economic the desire will always be there and will always grow exponetially. Basically, man is not fit to hold power. There is only one way to try and prevent this terrible cycle from taking hold. The U.N.

By removing the rivalry of nations and governments, this cycle can be prevented. Hence, gubernatorial power of all nations should be handed to the U.N. Democracy can still prevail - a federal system on a grand scale can serve to ensure that no regions are neglected - but military and economic matters cannot be dealt with by man in a productive manner in the current political environment.

Thats basically what I said.

I have 2 words to say to the post above.


HOLY FUCK. :ph43r: :ph43r:

Me and soldierJAW.

I assume you mean my post and not pumpkin head's (unless you mean that in reference to pumpkin head actually being able to read/comprehend/understand/paraphrase to effectively my post)

I've always been able to write like that. At high school I regularly was able to write 8+ page essays for various stuff. I'm a master of repeating myself without sounding like I am, saying something but not saying anything and using sophisticated language to make my point seem stronger.

I'm considering a career in politics...

Yea so umm... Purge pretty much owned this topic. Next!

Could you skip the long explanation, and stick it in like a sentance, no offense but most of us probably dont have that much time on our hands.

Try sticking it into a sentence then...

Despite the fact that there isn't actually that much being said, it is quite difficult to actually shorten it dramatically.

As for time, well I work part-time and study fulltime. It doesn't actually take that long, once you're started it just flows.

I voted no one should be able to have Nuks

how many times have they been used anyway? wasn't it like twice in WW2 and once used in the vietnam war when Viet cong beat the USA and they had to use it.

Twice in WW2....

I think if anybody has to have nukes it should be,since i like rule,if i had them i prob jsut bribe drug lords into giving me more drugs....

Anyway Purge i did notice you repeat yourself quite alot,i do the same thing sometimes but i do not have the same patience for typing out an essay that you do this is why my typing often has speeling errors and grammar/punctuation errors...

P.S i meant offence by what i said above^

P.P.S Iven never heard the word "gubernatorial" explanation?

no one....lets just all have a treaty and bury them in antarctica :lol:

literally it means "pertaining to the office of the governer" but contextually, power to govern.

i see

All they do is cause more problems :angry:

Well, that might be a bad idea.
Because what if say an Asteroid or comet comes, and the only possible thing you can do to stop it is to send up nuclear weapons?

Can you have explosions like you have on Earth in Space? There's no atmosphere. Fire needs oxygen to burn, remember.

What does fire have to do with explosive? I'd say yes, it'd work fine.

But I seriously doubt that such a situation would really be all that helpful - the size that a metoerite would have to be to actually do any serious damage after it had passed through the atmosphere would mean that it would be virtually impossible to destroy with conventional or nuclear weapons.

Or even a giant vacuum cleaner.

People generally associate fire with explosions. Granted, a nuclear reaction is hardly a 'vanilla' explosion, but I would still have thought it would need some gas to react with.

It should all be pretty much self contained. Some modifications may be required, but other than that I can't really invisage a reason why it wouldn't.

Although, the more I think about it, the more I wonder. Trying to think back to Year 13 Chemistry when my Teacher explained how a Nuclear Warhead functions, but it's all a little fuzzy.

(And, just for the record, a Nuclear Bomb works just like any other bomb, just on a much larger scale. It uses a Nuclear Reaction to provide power, but the actually method by which it destroys stuff (fallout apart) is pretty much identical to that of a conventional warhead.

Well I didn't mean to make you doubt yourself ;) I'm probably wrong, it just struck me as weird that it could function with no air and little (if any) heat (externally).

Heat and air I don't think are necesary. But I seem to recall that expansion is involved, which is not enormously effective in a vacuum (as it keeps on expanding and isn't really contained).

I'll have to look into it further. But I don't think that there would be too much of a problem.

I chose select countries, as in JUST the USA :).

I personally think that if some country says they have it, I call the bluff. :ph43r: :ph43r:

select countries like the US and UK since someone could build them

I think that everyone should have them, then we should all take the piss out of each other and all set them off at the same time. Wiping out humans would be the best thing thats happened to Earth in the last 1,000,000 years.

I can just see myself looking up at the sky, and missiles would just be rocketing everywhere. :ninja: :ninja: