Tank Slap - Motorcycle Forum

We don't need them.

Discuss.

We need them. They are deterrent that stops armageddon.

Spending billions worldwide on something that would most likely end humanity for good were anyone stupid enough to actually use them.

It’s the classic example of how ridiculous we have allowed the rulers of the world to disappear up their own egos.

Just imagine what good could be done with that money.

I have no doubt my name and details are kept in some mysterious folder at GCHQ due to my membership of CND. In fact I am quite proud of it.

Like guns in America, once you have them you can't go back. For that reason 1 country from every group of allies needs them.

Personally I hate that they exist. I like Nuclear as I do believe it's clean energy but not for weapons.

The fact they exist means that one day, one leader or one terrorist somewhere will eventually decide he is going to try one out.

They will be the cause of Armageddon.

Only a few countries have nukes. Yet few countries have had peace since the last nukes used since 1945.

Nukes offer nothing but pointless retaliation.

They have forced superpowers into small scale proxy wars instead of all out global conflict as their deterrent works.

They will never stop all war, but imo their deterrent prevents their suicidal use and the armageddon of a 3rd global war. As the history off the last 75 years testifys.

Interesting fact.. The USA has only not been involved in a war for 1 year since it's formation.

Perhaps, but "involved in a war" vs. "being in a state of war" are two very different animals. And it's been more than 1 year....something like 220 years out of 238, or sommit like that, so 18 years without a war...not exactly something to write home about either, but very different from a mere 12 months.
Historians will typically tout things like 'The Cold War' too, which was not an armed conflict in any conventional sense.

Ah.. maybe it was since the first world war then. Balls, can't remember the fact now so I guess that makes it a maybe.

That might make more sense, as the US pretty much kept to itself...or at least had a markedly smaller sphere of influence until it entered WW1. Fairly isolated nation until then, in fact....at least in that aspect.

There are two stats.

It's a few days not involved in an overseas conflict, not "at war" since independence.

USA has had 17 years of peace, IE not at war, since independence.

I’m sure good old Kanye will stop it.


Imagine being Trump’s stooge. Muppet.

the very fact that they have been invented means we must have them as a deterrent , even if we destroyed every current nuke the plans , materials and expertise exists which means that somebody somewhere will build another one . It would however be a massive bonus for the nuclear power industry ( if we destroyed every current nuke ) as all that enriched uranium and plutonium currently sat doing nothing in warheads would become available fuel , and it wouldn't need enriching which makes it cheaper and cleaner than mining and enriching new fuel sources.

Jack wrote:the very fact that they have been invented means we must have them as a deterrent , even if we destroyed every current nuke the plans , materials and expertise exists which means that somebody somewhere will build another one . It would however be a massive bonus for the nuclear power industry ( if we destroyed every current nuke ) as all that enriched uranium and plutonium currently sat doing nothing in warheads would become available fuel , and it wouldn't need enriching which makes it cheaper and cleaner than mining and enriching new fuel sources.

This ^

Weapons that have the capability of destroying all life on our planet should never have been created, and their existence/potential utterly terrifies me.
Nonetheless they do exist, and you can't undo what has been done.

Perhaps the Thread's question should really be "Nuclear Weapons, should the UK have them".?

You only have to read how many times nuclear warheads have nearly been used in cases of false alarm to know that eventually it will happen.

It’s always a last resort but at some point some idiot will want to go down in history as the leader who defended his Nation to the death or got his retribution in first. Had Hitler had the capability, would he would have used it from his Berlin bunker in his final days?

Apparently since 1987, uranium that has been declared as surplus to US military needs, and surplus to the needs of Russia, along with other former countries/member states of the USSR, has been diverted specifically for civilian use....the vast majority of which goes into the power generation business. The original agreement was updated in 1991, and then once more in 1999.

duke63 wrote:You only have to read how many times nuclear warheads have nearly been used in cases of false alarm to know that eventually it will happen.

It’s always a last resort but at some point some idiot will want to go down in history as the leader who defended his Nation to the death or got his retribution in first. Had Hitler had the capability, would he would have used it from his Berlin bunker in his final days?

Chicken before the egg. The fact we have a nuclear deterrent will stop a global war from starting. No dictator will ever sweep across the globe again, conquering multiple countries by force, the nuclear deterrent stops this, thats the point.

duke63 wrote: Had Hitler had the capability, would he would have used it from his Berlin bunker in his final days?

It's a purely hypothetical question though, isn't it? The German "nuclear program" (for wont of a better term) was very much in it's infancy at the start of WW2, and Hitler, in his infinite wisdom, had the younger scientists conscripted into the Wehrmacht, or they fled the country, or were imprisoned for being Jewish, or made political prisoners of the Reich, etc.

I don't know if he would have used it or not, but realistically it was never even a remote possibility.

Hitler would have used it. He was a nut job.