NationStates Jolt Archive

The point of this treaty to unite countries that want to use nuclear weapons to defend their country. As a re-enforcement, the countries that agree to this treaty can protect their attack ally from any other damage. To counter attack, you can use your nuclear weapons (missiles, warheads, etc.) to help.

Currently my country and I are building weapons and jets to defend my and my allie countries. I also have 30 nuclear missiles in operational order and ready to launch. However, the missiles are scatter throughout Cena465 so it want be easy to attack one spot and destroy the country.

So even though my country is military ready, my country was once a small country and I want to help the small country from any attack.

1) What the hell does this have to do with Blackjack?
2) WTF?

Somehow, I don't thinking encouraging a larger nuclear conflict is a good idea. And I know for a fact that our Prime Minister won't be entering an arrangement that opens us to nuclear retaliation during wars that are not our own.

We should be creating treaties for universal disarmament, not using this international body to promote wars that can have no winners.

We should be creating treaties for universal disarmament, not using this international body to promote wars that can have no winners.
I wouldn't push too hard for that if I were you, you wouldn't like some nations' method of "disarmament."

Bob Flibble
UN Representive

I wouldn't push too hard for that if I were you, you wouldn't like some nations' method of "disarmament."

Bob Flibble
UN Representive

Precisely. For example...this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=446431).

A resolution to encourage nations to use nuclear weapons? Ye gods, are you insane? Nuclear weapons aren't designed to be used, they're designed as a deterrent.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Whaddaya say we all nuke Cena465?

A resolution to encourage nations to use nuclear weapons? Ye gods, are you insane? Nuclear weapons aren't designed to be used, they're designed as a deterrent.


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

They ARE designed to be used; if it wasn't for them you and I could well be having this argument on highly government regulated internet in German or Japanese.

They ARE designed to be used; if it wasn't for them you and I could well be having this argument on highly government regulated internet in German or Japanese.


-ish....

Japan blew their real chance by aborting the Pearl Harbour attack since it was initiated a few minutes before war was actually declared. They are an honourable people and stopped bombing when the error was realized.

The war in Europe had already ended (more or less) by the time Nagasaki and Hiroshima were reduced to shadows.

Still, the point is valid.

Right, because if I've got a weapon that you know I can't or won't use, that weapon loses its deterrent factor.

They ARE designed to be used; if it wasn't for them you and I could well be having this argument on highly government regulated internet in German or Japanese.

Historical accuracy is a wonderful tool. Might want to use it.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were blown to shreads in August, 1945. By the time this happened, the European Campaign had been over for 3 months (with the surrender of the German army) and the Japenese had been unquestionably losing the war for a good 3 years - with the territory they had slowly captured now being lost. (On an interesting note, they're still finding Japanese soldiers who are STILL maintaining their post and have been for 60 years). The conclusion of the war in victory for the allies was seen as an inevitability. Economically, Japan was starved. There was a food crisis (which was resolved only by the US after the war when they overhauled the entire agriculture system), something like half their army was stuck in Manchuria and their fleet was in disarray to the point that you could pretty much call it sunk. Production wise, they had next-to-no capacity. If you consider that the US could've had near 50 Aircraft carriers alone within (I think) a year (might've been by 1948, but regardless, total of deployed and in-production was just under 50), the European divisions freed up, and China and Soviets sitting on top of this stranded Japanese army (the latter also having considerable forces that it could move from the west AND both having extensive populations that they could tap into), Japan was all but defeated before either bomb had been dropped. To this day, there is much debate about the logic of dropping this weapon and many believe it was more to warn the Soviets than anything.

The first real concern came in the fact that an estimated 1million lives would be sacrificed to take the Japanese mainland. With that being spent mainly by American and Soviet forces (read: we would've had a second Korea). The Japanese army in Manchuria also would've given the Soviets another area to expand - taking land away from the still-American-supported Chinese government. Many forget or ignore this fact when they discuss the war, but considering the psyche of the Japanese people, it is a true consideration.

The other real concern that came up was the Japanese themselves would've probably fought to the last man. 50 million more would've died - doubling the casualties for the war up until then. It should be remarked that on the day the Japanese government surrendered, hundreds (if not thousands) of Japanese citizens committed suicide.

You could, possibly, argue that we would be talking Russian instead, but I seriously doubt that.

EDIT: I'm not disputing that they aren't made to be used, but your claim about changes to history.

Whaddaya say we all nuke Cena465?We believe we have an anti missisle system that would stop their missiles even before they get outside 100 miles from their launch site. Then secondary missile system will be launched to prevent second firings from those sites and strike other suspected sites. So with this we have already programed our defensive missile system to this.


Also we would like to know more about what they do between nations in regards to terms of any treaties they may enter. As they may be in violation of this:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #151

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.In regards to possibly exchanging nukes between nations or even how to make one.

Nuclear weapons? Wow, that's old school. Those things would have a hard time penetrating the shielda on most of our ships (They could probably take out a shuttle if it hit dead on).

Heck we use anti-matter torpedoes and phased energy beams and the shields can still take several shots.


Number 2 - "Hit me."
Dealer - "Sir you have 17."
Number 2 - "I like to live dangerously."
Dealer - "21"
Powers - "I'll stand."
Dealer - "Sir, you have 4."
Powers - "I also like to live... dangerously"

Card play is SO 2005.