NationStates Jolt Archive

I realise this is probably a pretty controversial issue here, but I'm wondering if anyone sees any merit in restricting nuclear weapons. We already ban biological and chemical weapons, don't we?

Now, don't think for a moment that I'm on the "global disarmament" bandwagon all of a sudden. I don't care if you like to fight each other, I just don't want my citizens dying of radiation poisoning as a result. I think that if you want to fight a war, there are better ways to cripple a nation than nuking the everloving shit out of it. If you want to wipe them out, go in and do it the old fashioned way with bullets and bayonets. Don't put neighboring countries at risk.

I wouldn't support a ban on all nuclear weapons, as they can be useful, and in may even be necessary (especially in a future tech, outer space type situation) in certain circumstances.

I think that we should impose a ban on strategic nuclear weapons and restrict any nuclear bombs to about 10 kilotons, maybe less. Strategic weapons are designed to cause widespread devastation, and can level huge areas at a time (hence the "strategic" handle). Since the UN seems to condemn genocide and mass slaughter of civilians, I think this is logical.

Now, there also have to be rules for disposing of existing weapons. Now, I don't think that it's a good idea to say "each nation must destroy their entire nuclear arsenal within X months", since some nations have thousands of weapons stockpiled. Maybe it'd be better to have each nation destroy a certain percentage of their arsenal every year.
Maybe imposing limits on the number of nuclear weapons each nation can possess at a time would be a good idea.

I don't know if I'm ever going to do anything about this. Mostly just musing, right now.

Remember, the UN can only influence nations in the UN. And there are lots outside the UN who would love for the UN to disarm all its nukes unilaterally. At which time, many nations would be reduced to glass.

I'm not saying anything about getting rid of all nukes. You can still do a lot of damage with a 10 kiloton warhead. Hell, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 12-15 kilotons. Drop one of those into a nation's capital and see if they still want to mess around.

I realise this is probably a pretty controversial issue here, but I'm wondering if anyone sees any merit in restricting nuclear weapons. We already ban biological and chemical weapons, don't we?

Now, don't think for a moment that I'm on the "global disarmament" bandwagon all of a sudden. I don't care if you like to fight each other, I just don't want my citizens dying of radiation poisoning as a result. I think that if you want to fight a war, there are better ways to cripple a nation than nuking the everloving shit out of it. If you want to wipe them out, go in and do it the old fashioned way with bullets and bayonets. Don't put neighboring countries at risk.

I wouldn't support a ban on all nuclear weapons, as they can be useful, and in may even be necessary (especially in a future tech, outer space type situation) in certain circumstances.

I think that we should impose a ban on strategic nuclear weapons and restrict any nuclear bombs to about 10 kilotons, maybe less. Strategic weapons are designed to cause widespread devastation, and can level huge areas at a time (hence the "strategic" handle). Since the UN seems to condemn genocide and mass slaughter of civilians, I think this is logical.

Now, there also have to be rules for disposing of existing weapons. Now, I don't think that it's a good idea to say "each nation must destroy their entire nuclear arsenal within X months", since some nations have thousands of weapons stockpiled. Maybe it'd be better to have each nation destroy a certain percentage of their arsenal every year.
Maybe imposing limits on the number of nuclear weapons each nation can possess at a time would be a good idea.

I don't know if I'm ever going to do anything about this. Mostly just musing, right now.

We would also note this page (http://www.nukefix.org/weapon.html) which shows that the bombs you are suggesting could be far more destructive then "one big bomb", so your attempt would not achieve its stated goals - the net result would be more radioactive material being spread because of the more numerous amounts of weapons used.

I'm not saying anything about getting rid of all nukes. You can still do a lot of damage with a 10 kiloton warhead. Hell, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only 12-15 kilotons. Drop one of those into a nation's capital and see if they still want to mess around.

I'd rather "drop" 20,000 1 kt cruise missiles all over the place (our submarine forces carry more then that amount easily). Read the article, you'll see why.

Not sure what the DSH would be able to use all it's Uranium on, if not big nukes.

Restricting nukes but not antimatter weapons? Ok. If I wanted to decimate a nation, I'd do it with massed laser bombardment anyway. It's cheaper and cleaner.

Well, antimatter weapons don't exist in all nations/parallel realities/whatever. You might as well try to outlaw those holographic wristbands from the library resolution. Although the difference there is that antimatter weapons are actually possible.

And actually, lasers wouldn't work too well from orbit. The atmosphere would help break up the beam. I'd rather go with conventional missiles and maybe railguns shooting large, depleted uranium projectiles at incredible speeds to take out other targets of strategic importance. Once their defenses are down and their government and military in a state of chaos, start firebombing major cities. When the firestorms have incinerated/asphyxiated most inhabitants, I'd send my troops down to mop up.


We would also note this page which shows that the bombs you are suggesting could be far more destructive then "one big bomb", so your attempt would not achieve its stated goals - the net result would be more radioactive material being spread because of the more numerous amounts of weapons used.

How about a limit of 1 kiloton, then. And you can't just limit the size of the weapons, you'd have to limit the number of weapons as well...

it should be noted that chemical and biological weapon stockpile are still very much "ready-for-use". weapon ban and limitation has been shown to be of little affect in past treaties.

nuke are kept around for a reason, as counterbalance between major powers. any counternuke system will cause an reaction in the other major powers such as russia and china demostrating nuke that can avoid the missile shield when US approve the deployment.

the issue is really preventing minor powers from getting nuke 'easily'...

I realise this is probably a pretty controversial issue here, but I'm wondering if anyone sees any merit in restricting nuclear weapons. We already ban biological and chemical weapons, don't we?

The UN bans them. I use biological weapons quite effectively when I have to. Been threatening for awhile to use that HIV/Ebola/Smallpox hybrid I have in storage just to show the ineffectiveness of banning bioweapons. Never will get around to using it, but that thing on the loose would be pretty effective at destroying a nation. And I have real life medical science to thank for the idea.

Now, don't think for a moment that I'm on the "global disarmament" bandwagon all of a sudden. I don't care if you like to fight each other, I just don't want my citizens dying of radiation poisoning as a result. I think that if you want to fight a war, there are better ways to cripple a nation than nuking the everloving shit out of it. If you want to wipe them out, go in and do it the old fashioned way with bullets and bayonets. Don't put neighboring countries at risk.

Which does not prevent other weapons that also create radiation but are not classed as nuclear weapons from being used. Such weapons include antimatter weapons, graviton weapons, plasma weapons, certain type of disruptors, and the good old-fashioned self-destruct. I am, of course, ignoring the planetary destruction weapons, such as my graviton cannon. The problem you have is all it would do is limit your ability to have a chance to respond to someone bombing you from orbit.

I wouldn't support a ban on all nuclear weapons, as they can be useful, and in may even be necessary (especially in a future tech, outer space type situation) in certain circumstances.

In FT, nukes are actually quaint, old-fashioned weapons. They're still destructive, but they don't quite get the job done anymore.

I think that we should impose a ban on strategic nuclear weapons and restrict any nuclear bombs to about 10 kilotons, maybe less. Strategic weapons are designed to cause widespread devastation, and can level huge areas at a time (hence the "strategic" handle). Since the UN seems to condemn genocide and mass slaughter of civilians, I think this is logical.

Um, all nuclear weapons are strategic nuclear weapons. Besides, the UN has voted down all forms of limitations on nuclear weapons twice. The UN requires those bombs to deal with nonmember nations who would love to take the UN out, and I don't mean on a date.

Now, there also have to be rules for disposing of existing weapons. Now, I don't think that it's a good idea to say "each nation must destroy their entire nuclear arsenal within X months", since some nations have thousands of weapons stockpiled. Maybe it'd be better to have each nation destroy a certain percentage of their arsenal every year.
Maybe imposing limits on the number of nuclear weapons each nation can possess at a time would be a good idea.

Percentage-per-year plans always have diminishing results in this case. After all, they're disposing of a percentage of their current stockpile, not of the stockpile total when they began. Part of why losing ten percent of the frog population every year won't result in them dead after ten years.

I don't know if I'm ever going to do anything about this. Mostly just musing, right now.

I would advise against it.

I'm all in favor of an anti-nuclear weapons resolution. Why? Because I'm not in the UN, and if I have them and you don't, it will be easier to take down a UN country.

I'm all in favor of an anti-nuclear weapons resolution. Why? Because I'm not in the UN, and if I have them and you don't, it will be easier to take down a UN country.

Here. Have a cup of coffee. Almonds? Yes, its the flavoring. Enjoy.