Nuclear Weapons

[DeletedUser]

So we don't take up the British Empire thread, thought I'd make a seperate one.

Whats everyones thoughts on nuclear wepons?

I think the UK should merge its nuclear deterrent with Europe. It would save money spent on Trident. Also, we're unlikely to war within Europe again so a shared defence would be beneficial to all

 

[DeletedUser]

We should use all the nuclear weapons for energy. Think about the amount of energy locked up in those warheads, if theres enough to destroy the world 300 times over, then there should be enough energy to power the world's energy consumption for a while surely? And with new technology and stuff, nuclear fallout would not be an option.

 

[DeletedUser]

Whats everyones thoughts on nuclear wepons?

They are a waste of money and it is probably more dangerous to possess them than not.

I think the UK should merge its nuclear deterrent with Europe. It would save money spent on Trident. Also, we're unlikely to war within Europe again so a shared defence would be beneficial to all

This idea wouldn't work for so many reasons. Firstly, many of our european allies are anti-nuclear weapons. Secondly, we don't have a single foreign policy. Thirdly, there is no european head-of-state or other figure to decide when to push the button. The fact that the nations would all never agree to a strike (or, at least, not quickly) would make them completely ineffective as a deterrent. We would need to be much more united politically.

We should use all the nuclear weapons for energy. Think about the amount of energy locked up in those warheads, if theres enough to destroy the world 300 times over, then there should be enough energy to power the world's energy consumption for a while surely?

I've never heard this suggested before, nice idea! I doubt it's possible to convert the energy of a warhead in a controlled and efficient way. Also, I don't think they actually contain that much energy (enough to destroy a city, sure, but not to power one for very long).

And with new technology and stuff, nuclear fallout would not be an option.

I don't understand this. Are you sure you mean fallout?

 

[DeletedUser8010]

I agree but i think we should kick Germany out of Europe, something about them makes me not trust them.... Oh wait i remember, its the fact they started WW1&WW2

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree but i think we should kick Germany out of Europe

you would have to kick damn hard to clear the urals. i doubt i could manage it.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree but i think we should kick Germany out of Europe, something about them makes me not trust them.... Oh wait i remember, its the fact they started WW1&WW2

So in theory, we (britain) should also be kicked out of europe for the wars we have started?
People who have an attitude towards people and thier country like that i.e stigmastising a nation because of its past, are what is wrong with the world these days. No wonder the majority of the world hates us.





Edit to keep thread related: Nuclear power harnessed into a weapon is the worst invention ever created by man kind, and I feel tbh that any person willing to use one to end/start a war should have it shoved up there hiene and sent into space.

 

[DeletedUser8010]

It was meant as a light-hearted joke, i didnt mean it.

 

[DeletedUser]

This idea wouldn't work for so many reasons. Firstly, many of our european allies are anti-nuclear weapons. Secondly, we don't have a single foreign policy. Thirdly, there is no european head-of-state or other figure to decide when to push the button. The fact that the nations would all never agree to a strike (or, at least, not quickly) would make them completely ineffective as a deterrent. We would need to be much more united politically.

I think you'ver made a good point there, guess the ida wouldn't be that successful. I'm sure a small group, maybe Uk and France could merge nuclear deterrent though. Beleive it was suggested in the papers a while back. Would certainly need a more united Europe for an overall defence so maybe in the future...


Don't think harbnessing war heads as power would work. Although it would be nice if we could all disarm nuclear wepons, its not going to happen. The technologies out there now, it won't just go away.

Then again, it could be argued that nuclear wepons have helped with peace. If there wasn't the threat the enemy could pres a button and blow you to pieces, then there would be a lot more war. We'd be more like the warring kingdoms in medieveal times and the situation beofore WW1. People would have arms races and would invade if they thought they could get away with it.

Its weighing up the risks of not having nukes and having them, its farly evenly weighted.

 

[DeletedUser]

I agree but i think we should kick Germany out of Europe, something about them makes me not trust them.... Oh wait i remember, its the fact they started WW1&WW2

The same Germany that is one of the major industrialized powers? The country that produces high quality cars and is one of the main funders of the European Union?

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh wait i remember, its the fact they started WW1&WW2

I don't remember that. :icon_redface:

WW1 - It wasn't Germany's fault although they were made to say it was there fault in 'Article 231'(?) in the Treaty of Versailles.

WW2 - One of Hitler's reason for going to war was because of the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles.

 

[DeletedUser]

I don't remember that. :icon_redface:

WW1 - It wasn't Germany's fault although they were made to say it was there fault in 'Article 231'(?) in the Treaty of Versailles. Germany jumped in to help it's allies, the same as everyone else. Except everyone would have prompted diplomacy.. but not war mongering Germany.

WW2 - One of Hitler's reason for going to war was because of the harshness of the Treaty of Versailles. The Treaty of Versailles was perfectly fair, and the system was working. They got their Dawns Plan (think that names right).

In red. My netbook is playing up so less typying for me.

 

[DeletedUser]

Germany jumped in to help it's allies, the same as everyone else. Except everyone would have prompted diplomacy.. but not war mongering Germany. War mongering Germany? It was caused through Alliances etc. and Germany were allied to Austria-Hungary who's Archduke was shot by Serbians but Russians were allied to them etc. etc. etc. :lol:

The Treaty of Versailles was perfectly fair, and the system was working. They got their Dawns Plan (think that names right). The Dawes Plan failed. Dramatically. If it was so fair why was it called 'The Diktat' (?) by the Germans?

 

[DeletedUser]

Germany jumped in to help it's allies, the same as everyone else. Except everyone would have prompted diplomacy.. but not war mongering Germany. War mongering Germany? It was caused through Alliances etc. and Germany were allied to Austria-Hungary who's Archduke was shot by Serbians but Russians were allied to them etc. etc. etc. :lol:

The Treaty of Versailles was perfectly fair, and the system was working. They got their Dawns Plan (think that names right). The Dawes Plan failed. Dramatically. If it was so fair why was it called 'The Diktat' (?) by the Germans?

Ja. Austria linked these Serbians to the Serbian government and used this to declare war. Serbia being a much smaller power asked the Russian Empire for assistance, the Russian Empire declared war on Austria-Hungary and the shit storm started.

 

[DeletedUser]

Germany jumped in to help it's allies, the same as everyone else. Except everyone would have prompted diplomacy.. but not war mongering Germany. War mongering Germany? It was caused through Alliances etc. and Germany were allied to Austria-Hungary who's Archduke was shot by Serbians but Russians were allied to them etc. etc. etc. :lol: The Serbians were accused..

The Treaty of Versailles was perfectly fair, and the system was working. They got their Dawns Plan (think that names right). The Dawes Plan failed. Dramatically. If it was so fair why was it called 'The Diktat' (?) by the Germans? They didn't like it. They were given a choice, sign or the allies would invade. It was the only option.

Ja. Austria linked these Serbians to the Serbian government and used this to declare war. Serbia being a much smaller power asked the Russian Empire for assistance, the Russian Empire declared war on Austria-Hungary and the shit storm started. Yep.

& For your point Germany were forced to take the blame, yes they were. And they agreed, they have offically caused WWI. Get over it.

 

[DeletedUser]

They may have been forced to take the blame... it doesn't mean they were. Stop being ignorant.

To your other points: And I guess you think 9/11 was a conspiracy aswell? :icon_rolleyes:

 

[DeletedUser]

They may have been forced to take the blame... it doesn't mean they were. Stop being ignorant. Oh I am being ignorant? You're the one arguing with the past when it has already happened. You points are in defense of German, who sincerely were the real causes of the wars and have caused millons of deaths to further their "empire".

To your other points: And I guess you think 9/11 was a conspiracy aswell? :icon_rolleyes: Err, yes. From the points the insurance was renewed just before the incident, experts who spoke and says it wasn't caused by planes had retracted their statements just hours later, the steel could not have been destroyed/melted as it's melting point would have been to high for the incident to have caused, and there are several videos showing explosions not connected to the plane crash.

Don't defend the offending parties as history has already documented they were wrong.

 

[DeletedUser]

Oh I am being ignorant? You're the one arguing with the past when it has already happened. You points are in defense of German, who sincerely were the real causes of the wars and have caused millons of deaths to further their "empire".

Yes, yes you are. You believe just because someone was forced to sign something that it is fact? I am not justifying what Germany did during the war, just that it wasn't there fault. Simple.

Oh dear? You really do. There are always going to be people who will say stuff, avoid the media sometimes.

 

[DeletedUser]

I think that the Germans were not really to blame in the first world war as it was mainly down to alliances. Germany wanted to expand its empire just as the British, French etc had years before. If they'd won then the war mongering Britsh/French/Russians would have been to blame.


WW2 was a different matter. That one was Germanies fault even though the Treaty of Versailles had been pretty unfair and they didn't have a choice in the matter.

And although this is very interesting, the threads supposed to be on nuclear wepaons

 

[DeletedUser282]

@The stupid opinion.

Germany was not at fault for the start of WW1. Yes, they have admitted to being at fault, however in most civilised countries, statements made under Duress aren't really valid. I would say that threat of invasion counts as duress. In my opinion the fault was more Austria-Hungary's and the fault of the alliance system in general.

WW2 was Germany's fault that is true, but people turned to extremism in desperation due to the harshness of the treaty of versailles and the great depression.

WW2 was Germany's fault, does that mean we shouldn't trust them?

How many countries did Britain invade and conquer for no good reason? How many wars were started because of our greed?

We were involved in the slave trade a lot.

To me that seems there is plenty of reasons that Britain should not be trusted and kicked out of Europe according to your ideas.

Now, on nuclear weapons. I strongly disagree with the idea that we should give them all to Europe, as I strongly dislike the European Union as a whole, but that is a separate issue.

I think we should keep our independent nuclear deterrent, or at least pretend to have one.

 

[DeletedUser]

If the EU does not form together into a single country then Europe will be left behind in the dust of developing countries.