NationStates Jolt Archive

shouls nuclear weapons be allowed in this world. if so, who will have them and how many should we have

shouls nuclear weapons be allowed in this world.

Yes, most definitely.

if so, who will have them

Me.

and how many should we have

I should have enough to destroy the world at least 1,000 times over.

Thanks for asking.

Let me have some and I'll see what I can do about setting them up in orbitting launch sites for that surprise attack.

I say we destroy them all and ban them.

I say we destroy them all and ban them.
And I say that your nation will be glass before that happens.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

shouls nuclear weapons be allowed in this world. if so, who will have them and how many should we have

You bet your sweet bippy. I need to have a large enough stockpile to keep the fluffies in a permanate P.O.ed state.

And I say that your nation will be glass before that happens.

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

Do so and all of Square One will annihilate you.

Do so and all of Square One will annihilate you.
No my metal penis is bigger!!!!!11!!1




What?

No my metal penis is bigger!!!!!11!!1




What?


The Benevolent Dictatorship of Pythogria

"We rise to the top!"
UN Category: Corrupt Dictatorship
Civil Rights:
Average Economy:
Fair Political Freedoms:
Few
Location: Square One

Considering I've never heard of the bloody place......I'm somehow a bit curious about whether there was an idle threat or not there.

Do so and all of Square One will annihilate you.
Do you really want to mess with a member of UNDEFCON?

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

And by the way, what my brother neglected to mention in all his macho posturing, is that the UN can not ban it's members from having nuclear weapons until resolution #109 is repealed.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Congratulations Pythogria, you will soon become a protectorate of hirota.

shouls nuclear weapons be allowed in this world. if so, who will have them and how many should we have

In reply to the first question: No

In reply to the second question: No-one ideally, yet U.N. law has enshrined the right to possess nuclear weapons, therefore legally speaking everyone has the right.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Do you really want to mess with a member of UNDEFCON?

Brandon Flibble
Grand Poobah of the Rogue Nation of Flibbleites

I should hope not. That would be a very daft move indeed.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
Peace Through Superior Firepower

I say we destroy them all and ban them.


Good luck with that.

Follow up. Where the Hell is Square One? How will you be mounting any kind of offensive after you've been blasted to glass?

Also, just wanted to add my Flag to the banner of DEFCON. Really, we are the ones making a point of International Security and Warfare. I'm not saying that you wouldn't be good at it. Simply that if you're looking to trade warfare threats, maybe the Nuke enthusiasts aren't the best choice.

Oskar Feldstein
http://pic2.picturetrail.com/VOL1007/4432451/9373381/132287310.jpg

PEACE THROUGH SUPERIOR FIREPOWER

Do so and all of Square One will annihilate you.

Square One doesn't have foul-mouthed dolphins, exploding penguins, stripper commandos and um...servicewomen. Oh, and nukes. Can't forget the nukes. :cool:

Congratulations Pythogria, you will soon become a protectorate of hirota.

I didn't know you took radioactive wastelands as protectorates.

stripper commandos

You too?

Without any nukes, how can I have power over the entire globe!?!

Note to self: Keep innermost thoughts to self


In all seriousness though, ideally, it would be great if nuclear missles were gone. Sadly, countries won't ever give up any military advantage that they have over a region, or another country, or even the world. It may sound a bit Neo-Machiavellian, but the leader of a country will do whats best for his/her country, not necessarily whats best for the entire world. And if having nuclear protection from other countries is whats best for the country, then nuclear proliferation will continue throughout the world. So the real question is, would anyone attempt the prohibition of nuclear weapons?

Hey, I'm not trying to spark war here.

But yes... I say we issue a proposal to END all nuclear weapons! (Keep nuclear reactors though.)

Hey, I'm not trying to spark war here.

But yes... I say we issue a proposal to END all nuclear weapons! (Keep nuclear reactors though.)

Hey I agree with you 100%. Problem is, alot of other people wont agree.

Now we could issue a proposal to limit nuclear proliferation. It won't be the same as complete prohibition, but it is a start. Just another step to looking out for the well being of all. So who's game? I make one. And Pythogria can be two.

Actually, I agree as well. Limiting the scope of nuclear proliferation is a good idea.

Actually, I agree as well. Limiting the scope of nuclear proliferation is a good idea.

Well then that makes three. Now if we could just find someone who knew how to make proposals. Sadly I am quite new at this.

Well then that makes three. Now if we could just find someone who knew how to make proposals. Sadly I am quite new at this.

Rest assured, a good Nuclear Proliferation proposal is in the works.

Nukes are useful, why destroy them?

Think of the mining that we could accomplish with these expolsives!

Rest assured, a good Nuclear Proliferation proposal is in the works.

Well then you have all of our votes. And if you require any assisstance, im sure I can try and help.

Hey, I'm not trying to spark war here.

But yes... I say we issue a proposal to END all nuclear weapons! (Keep nuclear reactors though.)

Alright - the UN is not allowed to force any of its resolutions on any non-UN member. Tell me, how are you going to stop them from using Nukes to threaten us?

Alright - the UN is not allowed to force any of its resolutions on any non-UN member. Tell me, how are you going to stop them from using Nukes to threaten us?

You propose a very good arguement. It would be naive to say that we can set an example to other countries, because the reality is, we won't. This is why limiting is a better choice than prohibition. At least we can defend ourselves if necessary.

I have other suggestions as well, but most of which deal with ursurping power from these non UN contries and forcing them under UN rule (just kidding guys) and that is obviously not the way of the UN. Thats what I get for being a corrupt militaristic dictatorship...ironic...Im a corrupt militaristic dictatorship yet I am anti nuclear proliferation.

Well then you have all of our votes. And if you require any assisstance, im sure I can try and help.

Oh, I am not the author. But I will support it when the time comes.

Thats what I get for being a corrupt militaristic dictatorship...ironic...Im a corrupt militaristic dictatorship yet I am anti nuclear proliferation.

Not really. The argument goes like this:

I have all the nukes I can afford.
I want to be a major military power.
Therefore,
I want all the other nations to be disarmed and helpless.

Yey for non-proliferation! :)

Not really. The argument goes like this:

I have all the nukes I can afford.
I want to be a major military power.
Therefore,
I want all the other nations to be disarmed and helpless.

Yey for non-proliferation! :)

I like that! Hhahaha wow I didnt even think about it that way. I am no longer a failure to countries like myself

shouls nuclear weapons be allowed in this world. if so, who will have them and how many should we have
I will have nukes ready in 24 hours. Please let me launch them.

Well, yes, but make sure we have VERY few warheads. If anything, only 500 warheads, at MOST.

Well, yes, but make sure we have VERY few warheads. If anything, only 500 warheads, at MOST.


We've already got that and then some.

Nuclear weapons are pointless! Nothing can stop the truth of the Flame!
~ Acolyte Gaeblyn

Err... what my... colleague... means to say is, well, nuclear weapons shouldn't need to exist, and that the truth of this will eventually be revealed to one and all.
~ Johannes

Nonsense! I said nothing of the sort!
~Acolyte Gaeblyn

Gaeb, really, can we just let this rest, for once?
~ Johannes

What what? Nukes? Nukes? Bah! Cobdenia has no need for nuclear weapons, my dear chaps? Why, I here you ask? Well, I feel that nuclear bombs are far too good for any country we want to invade! Why waste millions of pounds on something that can only be used once? We just drop stoves full of shit on the enemy! Far cheaper, and all they bloody deserve. Combine this with the policy we've arranged with the Cobdenian firm Sofa Cigarattes, in which we put smoke subliminal smoking adverts smoke on the enemies smoke wirelesses, and not only do all the bad guys die, but we make a profit!

~Field Marshal Sir Brian "Pointy" Blatherstock


Sofa Cigarettes
9/10 Doctors Smoke Sofas!
Specially Designed to Cure Cancer (by giving the Cancer Cancer)
Remember, Smoking Makes You Look Big and Clever!

Nuclear weapons are important to deter nations away from the small nation of Torreal. If anything, we would need them to enact our scorched-earth policy in the event Torreal was conquered. We love peace and the best way to ensure peace is to have strong defenses in place, so the cost of conquest outweighs the spoils.

Nuclear weapons are important to deter nations away from the small nation of Torreal. If anything, we would need them to enact our scorched-earth policy in the event Torreal was conquered. We love peace and the best way to ensure peace is to have strong defenses in place, so the cost of conquest outweighs the spoils.

Granted, having a good defense to protect your country is quite understandable, but having nuclear protection will only spur more countries to have more missiles to defend from your attacks. This would lead to countries arming themselves more and more in sheer paranoia of nuclear attacks from other countries. What we are proposing is a limitation and slow disarmorment of some of countries' tactical nuclear missles, not all, because in reality, very few if any would completely give up their nuclear program. This would help lower paranoia between countries and raise a bit of trust between us.

Granted, having a good defense to protect your country is quite understandable, but having nuclear protection will only spur more countries to have more missiles to defend from your attacks. This would lead to countries arming themselves more and more in sheer paranoia of nuclear attacks from other countries. What we are proposing is a limitation and slow disarmorment of some of countries' tactical nuclear missles, not all, because in reality, very few if any would completely give up their nuclear program. This would help lower paranoia between countries and raise a bit of trust between us.

I don't think MAD applies when your policy is to nuke yourself in the case of being captured.

My country's economy depends on 3 things Soda, Cars, and Uranium. Uranium plays the biggest part in its economy. If we ban Nuclear weapons that will put thousands of people out of work in my country and bring the economy way down. I think its up to the country not the UN. Genocide is one thing to be worried about not nukes. The only good offense is a good defense.

My country's economy depends on 3 things Soda, Cars, and Uranium. Uranium plays the biggest part in its economy. If we ban Nuclear weapons that will put thousands of people out of work in my country and bring the economy way down. I think its up to the country not the UN. Genocide is one thing to be worried about not nukes. The only good offense is a good defense.

Well first, im not saying we should ban nuclear missles, just slowly disarm them to a reasonable amout. People will still have nuclear missiles. I am merely proposing that we try and lower the amount we have.

Second, people who do work with Uranium for nuclear missiles could be relocated to nuclear power plants. This will help keep jobs and prevent a "brain drain" of nuclear scientists to go to more dangerous countries.

Nuclear weapons are important to deter nations away from the small nation of Torreal. If anything, we would need them to enact our scorched-earth policy in the event Torreal was conquered. We love peace and the best way to ensure peace is to have strong defenses in place, so the cost of conquest outweighs the spoils.

My earlier point reinforced.

500 warheads is more than enough to make a "Scorched Earth" policy possible, unless you're MASSIVE.

500 warheads is more than enough to make a "Scorched Earth" policy possible, unless you're MASSIVE.

"Scorched Earth"...Bah! My government prefers a "Plate Glass earth" policy.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Square One doesn't have foul-mouthed dolphins, exploding penguins, stripper commandos and um...servicewomen. Oh, and nukes. Can't forget the nukes. :cool:

Don't forget the Gnomish Warbands dreaded bollock loving War-Ferrets.

Well first, im not saying we should ban nuclear missles, just slowly disarm them to a reasonable amout. People will still have nuclear missiles. I am merely proposing that we try and lower the amount we have.

Second, people who do work with Uranium for nuclear missiles could be relocated to nuclear power plants. This will help keep jobs and prevent a "brain drain" of nuclear scientists to go to more dangerous countries.

There will still be people out of jobs though cause you can't put everyone in power plants. While I do not see a need to use these weapons. I do want them for when everything else has failed for the defense of my country. Currently I am trying to develop a a program that can have a satillite move into the path of a missle and destroy it without launching any of our own. But I do believe that nobody will need an excessive amount. But I do think its the countries choice. If they want to be paranoid let them. As long as their paranoia doesn't involve harming another country.

You have other things (like submarines) nuclear technology can be put in, you know.

Besides, your'e saying we should have the power to ANNIHILATE each other...

In the name of money?

There will still be people out of jobs though cause you can't put everyone in power plants. While I do not see a need to use these weapons. I do want them for when everything else has failed for the defense of my country. Currently I am trying to develop a a program that can have a satillite move into the path of a missle and destroy it without launching any of our own. But I do believe that nobody will need an excessive amount. But I do think its the countries choice. If they want to be paranoid let them. As long as their paranoia doesn't involve harming another country.

You will have the weapons to defend yourself. As stated this isnt a ban. Just a cutdown of weapons. It is a fact that nuclear detterence is an effective method of defense. However, this doesnt change the fact that the threat of nuclear attack is defended by the threat of another nuclear attack, which in turn is threatened by another and another. It is just a viocous cycle of threats. And countries are wasting more and more money on a nuclear weapon program, creating hundreds of missles to annihalate the enemy.

What we are talking about is a way to lower the amount of missiles countries in the UN have. We want to try and build a trust between fellow allies both in and out of the UN. The missiles will still be there, because in this day and age, no one would ever give up a nuclear missle program. We just want people to gradually disarm to a reasonable amount of weapons. This would help put some of the money it takes to maintain a nuclear program into something beneficial.

You will have the weapons to defend yourself. As stated this isnt a ban. Just a cutdown of weapons. It is a fact that nuclear detterence is an effective method of defense. However, this doesnt change the fact that the threat of nuclear attack is defended by the threat of another nuclear attack, which in turn is threatened by another and another. It is just a viocous cycle of threats. And countries are wasting more and more money on a nuclear weapon program, creating hundreds of missles to annihalate the enemy.

What we are talking about is a way to lower the amount of missiles countries in the UN have. We want to try and build a trust between fellow allies both in and out of the UN. The missiles will still be there, because in this day and age, no one would ever give up a nuclear missle program. We just want people to gradually disarm to a reasonable amount of weapons. This would help put some of the money it takes to maintain a nuclear program into something beneficial. Hundreds you say....well we have 35 sum odd luanch sites....1 missle in each the in 3 storage for each....... only with the 200-300 range. And yes what you say about that non stop loop is true! perfect circle of protection! no one wants to use them because they dont want to get nuked. get it?

Hundreds you say....well we have 35 sum odd luanch sites....1 missle in each the in 3 storage for each....... only with the 200-300 range. And yes what you say about that non stop loop is true! perfect circle of protection! no one wants to use them because they dont want to get nuked. get it?

Except it isnt perfect. Money is being wasted because of lack of trust, which will grow more tension between so-called allies.

You have other things (like submarines) nuclear technology can be put in, you know.

Besides, your'e saying we should have the power to ANNIHILATE each other...

In the name of money?

No, in the name of fun. :p

No, in the name of fun. :p

But cold hard cash never hurts.:p As the Arms Dealers in my parent nation always say," In God we trust, All others must pay cash."

We wholeheartedly agree with the ban on nuclear weapons. We are just about to test a 10 megaton microwave ball lightning electromagnetic pulse warhead for defensive purposes only. Nuclear weapons are incredibly destructive and it would be to the worlds advantage to get rid of them. The world needs to be a safer place.

We wholeheartedly agree with the ban on nuclear weapons. We are just about to test a 10 megaton microwave ball lightning electromagnetic pulse warhead for defensive purposes only. Nuclear weapons are incredibly destructive and it would be to the worlds advantage to get rid of them. The world needs to be a safer place.

Thanks. Its not a ban though, just a gradual lowering of the amount nations have.

What's the point of banning nukes when there is still the ever present threat of Chuck Norris?

shouls nuclear weapons be allowed in this world. if so, who will have them and how many should we have

1. How does one "allow" the existance of a thing which already exists? Or, disallow such existance of that which exists?
2. Which world is "this world"?

What's the point of banning nukes when there is still the ever present threat of Chuck Norris?You fool! Launching nukes at Chuck Norris will simply make him mad!

You fool! Launching nukes at Chuck Norris will simply make him mad!

I think he was suggesting launching Chuck Norris at an enemy. :p

You fool! Launching nukes at Chuck Norris will simply make him mad!


"No, no, don't shoot him. you'll just make him angry."
Waco kid to Sheriff Bart, on how to stop Mongo