NationStates Jolt Archive

:headbang:

Should nations be able to build and use nuclear materials like nuclear bombs and power plants?

Yes. :p

:headbang:

Should nations be able to build and use nuclear materials like nuclear bombs and power plants?

Power plants: Yes, an excellent form of power generation.

Bombs: No, but the U.N. already protects the right to do so and has a non-proliferation treaty, so It's a dead issue.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

No but as it has already been mentioned the issue of nuclear weapons and proliferation has been dealt with before. You could introduce a proposal for nuclear power on the basis that it nuclear contamination/trafficing is a borderless issue.

Nuclear, at this point, should only be considered for power, and not wars

The nation shoud make reaseach in fusion power insted fision

Nuclear, at this point, should only be considered for power, and not wars

If UN nations are not allowed to own any nuclear weapons, what are they to do if they are attacked by a non-UN nation that does have nuclear capability? That has always been my problem with most global disarment proposals. They don't really disarm on a global scale since they only affect UN nations.

Possessing nuclear weapons won't stop the effects of a nuclear bomb. They might act as a deterrent but the result of an atomic blast is always the same. Moral of the story is - nuclear bombs suck, don't use them.

Indeed. That's why we use orbital lasers.

Of course, on the other hand, sitting around picking daisies and showing how enlightened you are because you don't have nukes is a good way to be on the receiving end of several.

Unless you have the aforementioned oribital lasers, I guess...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/Random/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

sure...maybe...I dunno, depends on what we'd use it for. Like if some nation tried to bomb others I think that would be an exception but, I wouldn't want nations to just attack each other without notice. Seems a little unnecessary to me if that's what you wanted to do. :sniper: :mp5:

I'd prefer regular grenades, snipers, etc for power or something because nuclear materials just cause too much damage and are hurtful. If a nation wanted to attack another nation so badly why couldn't they just attack themselves and not let a nuclear bomb or missile do it for them?

I'd prefer regular grenades, snipers, etc for power
That's why I do. I line up 2 million snipers and 2 million infintary men with gernades, and they generate all my nation's power. We call them, 'the power bitches.'

Nuclear power is very important. Fuels like oil and coal will eventually run out, especially if they're being used by nations with over a billion population. Fusion isn't yet practical for most nations, since it's beyond "normal" technology. That leaves fission. It has its own problems, but we can't afford to rule it out.

As for bombs, they serve two useful purposes.

1. They're a deterrent. No sane country will attack a nation that can blow them up too.

2. They come in handy against people who use this smiley: :headbang:

:D

The Nuclear Missile Act?

& for Act two the semi elected imbecile with the red button act........

Possessing nuclear weapons won't stop the effects of a nuclear bomb. They might act as a deterrent but the result of an atomic blast is always the same. Moral of the story is - nuclear bombs suck, don't use them.

If you were a nation (without nuclear capability) under attack and each day one of your major cities was destroyed by a nuclear weapon of a nation that did have nuclear capability, what would you do?

Well, my nation is deforesting large parts of my country to get uranium... And to nuclear bombs, and any nation who decides to use them.... :upyours:

I say yes to both for a nation needs to defend herself from any enemies and nuclear weapons help hasten an enemy's demise.