NationStates Jolt Archive

There's been a lot of talk about which nations shouldn't have nukes (iran, Iraq, etc.), but what about nations who are mature and trustworthy enough to be allowed to have nuclear weapons?

Right now, a couple spring to mind:

Germany (definitely not going to do any atrocities or anything again)
Japan (pretty much just an Asian version of the States)
Italy (everybody loves Italy)
Canada (too docile/nice to be dangerous with nukes)

*looks at list*

I find the irony of the top three delicious.

No countries should have Nukes.

No countries should have Nukes.

In an ideal world. But they exist. Which means someone will always have them, unless there's a major catastrophe that wipes out all the tech we acquired in the last 100 years. And even then, someone would soon reinvent them.

No countries should have Nukes.

I totally agree, and I'm ashame that my country has some...

Japan (pretty much just an Asian version of the States)


Japanese are still suffering, today, of the horrible consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They don't want nukes, and strongly support nuclear disarmement.

In hindsight, "Nations that should be exempt from the Non-Proliferation Treaty" would have been a better title.

Sweden? :p

Hmm:

Georgia
Greece [ If they dont have any ]
Latvia, maybe...
Slovakia
Czech
Honduras

Main reason for picking the ones I did centers around there locations. Nukes, owned by smaller countries, spread over Europe and Central America possibly nuetralizes a few nuclear powers.

Sweden? :p

Unless "neutral" tries to take over the world, they won't need them.

Unless "neutral" tries to take over the world, they won't need them.

Haven't you seen Futurama? The neutrals are evil.

We just try to seem like nice people. Soon the first step for word domination will begin. Our first try didn't work, but we have improved our methods since then.

When we were building our nuclear power plants we actually did some research about building nuclear weapons, but nowdays its forbidden to do that kind of research in Sweden.

In an ideal world. But they exist. Which means someone will always have them, unless there's a major catastrophe that wipes out all the tech we acquired in the last 100 years. And even then, someone would soon reinvent them.
isn't that the same reasoning they used during the cold war? and that proved to be a succes :rolleyes:

Nuclear war is boring. Where's the fun in pressing a button and wiping out mankind?

Killing in general is dull and rather uncreative. But if it's gonna be done, it should at least be done upclose and personal. That's a lot more fun. *nod*

Luxembourg and Andorra, the world will tremble.

Luxembourg and Andorra, the world will tremble.

Andorra sort of does. The French President is always co-prince of Andorra.

Nuclear war is boring. Where's the fun in pressing a button and wiping out mankind?

Killing in general is dull and rather uncreative. But if it's gonna be done, it should at least be done upclose and personal. That's a lot more fun. *nod*

Holy Bloody Hell, I agree
*nod* It's always been my primary reasoning against guns in war, swords/spears is much much more personal.

Luxembourg and Andorra, the world will tremble.You forgot Lichtenstein and Monaco and... that other tiny country in Italy (not the Vatican)... oh, it's San Marino.

Holy Bloody Hell, I agree
*nod* It's always been my primary reasoning against guns in war, swords/spears is much much more personal.

And fun. :)

Nuclear war is boring. Where's the fun in pressing a button and wiping out mankind?

Killing in general is dull and rather uncreative. But if it's gonna be done, it should at least be done upclose and personal. That's a lot more fun. *nod*Meh, don't agree with your logic there. I agree that killing is rather uncreative, so instead, why not participate in actually being creative?

Meh, don't agree with your logic there. I agree that killing is rather uncreative, so instead, why not participate in actually being creative?

Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying that IF killing has to be done, you should at least take an active role in it.

But personally, I would prefer not to kill. You can only kill someone once, but if you're good, you can torment him or her for decades. *nod*

Oh, absolutely. I'm just saying that IF killing has to be done, you should at least take an active role in it.

But personally, I would prefer not to kill. You can only kill someone once, but if you're good, you can torment him or her for decades. *nod*This whole physical death and torment still doesn't amuse me. Now if I'm allowed to verbally torment them... well... YAY! :D

This whole physical death and torment still doesn't amuse me. Now if I'm allowed to verbally torment them... well... YAY! :D

Some of the best(or worst depending on your point of view) tortures are psychological tortures. *nod*

Tahiti should be the only country allowed to have nuclear weapons.

Then they can threaten other nations into adopting their laid-back attitudes and focus on more important things like fishing, kava, roast pig BBQs and sexy women dancing in bikinis and skirts.

the thing being overlooked is that nations also have to protect their nuclear assets. tiny third-world countries are not going to threaten people with nukes, but other, morepowerful nations or organizations that are a threat, like Iran or al-Qaida, could take those weapons and use them before the rest of the world could react

"Jamaica. They would never make an atomic bomb. They might make an atomic bong. But I'd rather fight a war with an atomic bong. When an atomic bomb goes off, there's devastation and radiation! When an atomic bong goes off there's just Celebration!" -Robin Williams.

Some of the best(or worst depending on your point of view) tortures are psychological tortures. *nod*The best ones are were you feign a weakness in your insult, so they think they can attempt to insult you because of it, and then you take their insult and crush it along with their ego and watch them nosedive into oblivion. You get to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel, only for them to find out it's a flamethrower. :D

After all that I tend to elbow them in the ribs and grin, and then we get up from finish our pint and turn an otherwise useless seminar into a rather interesting one.

The best ones are were you feign a weakness in your insult, so they think they can attempt to insult you because of it, and then you take their insult and crush it along with their ego and watch them nosedive into oblivion. You get to think that there is light at the end of the tunnel, only for them to find out it's a flamethrower. :D

After all that I tend to elbow them in the ribs and grin, and then we get up from finish our pint and turn an otherwise useless seminar into a rather interesting one.

Yay! :D

Some propose that no countries should have nukes.
I propose that all should have them. And Bio- and Chemical-.

When all are armed, none are.

Some propose that no countries should have nukes.
I propose that all should have them. And Bio- and Chemical-.

When all are armed, none are.

that only works when everyone wants to live. :mp5: 9/11 anyone?:mp5:

the thing being overlooked is that nations also have to protect their nuclear assets. tiny third-world countries are not going to threaten people with nukes, but other, morepowerful nations or organizations that are a threat, like Iran or al-Qaida, could take those weapons and use them before the rest of the world could reactDamn, I didn't read the word 'nations' and was imagining this scene in the UN

*Iran tries to sit down at their table*
US: Hey, Iran, you can't sit there.
Iran: Why not?
US: We decided you're not a state any more, go sit with the NGOs already.
St Helena: Yeah, you're in my place now.
UK: Yup, we granted her independence especially.
Iran: You'll be sorry! :mad:
US: What you gonna go, lauch a nuke at us? Ha!
Iran: Ye... I mean, no... Our civil nuclear energy programme is just that, a civil nuclear energy programme.
US: That's what I thought. Now shut up and sit down.
*Iran grumbles and goes and sits down next to Greenpeace*
Iran: What you lookin' at hippy?
UK: Oi! Quiet over there! You're an NGO, and will only speak when you're spoken to.
US: We all ready? Good, let's make a start. First on the agenda: Invasion of Iran for uranium and oil resources...
Iran: The fuck?! What's this...
US: Shut up already. You're an NGO. All those in favor raise your hand.
UK: *looks around* And the ayes have it unaminously.
Iran: ..... :headbang:
Greenpeace: Don't worry, you'll get used to them walking all over you as if you didn't exist.

No countries should have Nukes.

I agree this is correct

Greenpeace: Don't worry, you'll get used to them walking all over you as if you didn't exist.

Israel has every right to exist without fear of Iran

Israel has every right to exist without fear of Iran

And Vice-versa.

I agree this[no one having nukes] is correct

but nations do

And Vice-versa.

other than a surgical strike to protect itself Israel did nothing to Iraq-who under Hussein was equally committed to the destruction of Israel

other than a surgical strike to protect itself Israel did nothing to Iraq-who under Hussein was equally committed to the destruction of IsraelIsrael is one of the few countries able to get away with calling an act of war a 'surgical strike' and then go back to normal as if nothing happened.

Israel is one of the few countries able to get away with calling an act of war a 'surgical strike' and then go back to normal as if nothing happened.

so you have a problem with Israel committing an act of war against a nation(Iraq) that declared war against them already?

Israel then returned to the status quo-a cold war with the Arab world.
it was less of a change from the normal than either Korea or Vietnam, yet the West returned to its lifestyle when these conflicts ended.

so you have a problem with Israel committing an act of war against a nation(Iraq) that declared war against them already?

Israel then returned to the status quo-a cold war with the Arab world.
it was less of a change from the normal than either Korea or Vietnam, yet the West returned to its lifestyle when these conflicts ended.What would you say if I said I did have a problem with that?

But anyway, the Middle East is like trying to piece together a jigsaw when you have two puzzles mixed intogether.

What would you say if I said I did have a problem with that?

But anyway, the Middle East is like trying to piece together a jigsaw when you have two puzzles mixed intogether.

I'd say your bias was interrupting your reasoning

And you're right, though I'd liken it to Frankenstein's Monster-no matter which way you stitch them together, there will be problems

that only works when everyone wants to live. :mp5: 9/11 anyone?:mp5:

Name one nation that doesn't want to live!

Or are you blurring the lines between a handful of terrorists and actual recognised states?

Name one nation that doesn't want to live!

Or are you blurring the lines between a handful of terrorists and actual recognised states?

So bin Laden recieved NO support from the Taliban at all right?
Also, tell me that there is no one in the world that wouldn't die for their nation

Name one nation that doesn't want to live!

Or are you blurring the lines between a handful of terrorists and actual recognised states?

He is blurring the lines it seems.

Japan (pretty much just an Asian version of the States)

First justify why the USA should have nuclear weapons.

He is blurring the lines it seems.

Or are the lines already blurred? :mp5: Hamas?:mp5:

First justify why the USA should have nuclear weapons.

because we invented them

You do realise that all Nations are afraid to use Nuclear Weapons...

All Nukes should be given to the United Nations...

The US and Russia should both have their nuclear weapons confiscated, they are always have stupid little arguments, I say that as a nuetral.

By the way, Bin Laden is probably dead, he was on a dialysis machine when he went into hiding I've been told, although that is probavly just a stupid conspiracy... shudder...

You do realise that all Nations are afraid to use Nuclear Weapons...

All Nukes should be given to the United Nations..

allow me to translate what I just heard

you do realize that I wish all nations were afraid to use nukes

all nuke should be given to a failed, possibly corrupt organization so that no one can protect themselves from it

so long as there are Irans, Chinas, and N Koreas willing to use nukes, America will not be afraid to reciprocate

Stupid argument like the existence or extinction of peoples, cultures and nations? There are still thousands of refugees from S Vietnam living in America

Also, it was the USSR not Russia

so long as there are Irans, Chinas, and N Koreas willing to use nukes, America will not be afraid to reciprocate

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

And the only country in history to ever use them outside of tests, has been the United States.

Sometimes I wish one goes off every generation or so, to remind people of the damage and horror it causes.... because people seem to have forgotten and think they are uber awesome thumbs up rock and roll lets go!

Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons.

And the only country in history to ever use them outside of tests, has been the United States.

Sometimes I wish one goes off every generation or so, to remind people of the damage and horror it causes.... because people seem to have forgotten and think they are uber awesome thumbs up rock and roll lets go!

they're trying

it was that or 1,000,000+ US casualties AND the practical extinction of the Japanese people. Also those were atomic, not nuclear, bombs. nations still use them in threats.

no one needs to demonstrate the horror of nuclear war. America's been to the edge enough to realize that they destroy-period. the effects of their use have been seared into our national memory

Also those were atomic, not nuclear, bombs.

Exactly the same thing.

they're trying
Ok. Prove it...



it was that or 1,000,000+ US casualties AND the practical extinction of the Japanese people. Also those were atomic, not nuclear, bombs. nations still use them in threats.
*sigh* A common mistake based on no actual evidence. The million fugure was plucked out of the air by Trumans Sec of War, Henry Stimpson AFTER they used the A bomb- to justify the use of it... not before the dropping.

All military predictions pointed at round about 75,000 casulties on the American side and given the bulk of the remaining Japanese army was trapped fighting the Russians in Manchuria and Manchokuo and the ordinary Japanses population was living on a diet that consisted of grass... they would sure have put up some fight alright :rolleyes:


no one needs to demonstrate the horror of nuclear war. America's been to the edge enough to realize that they destroy-period. the effects of their use have been seared into our national memory

Evidently not.

every nation in the world.

because we invented them

So any country which can build a nuclear bomb without outside help has a right to one?

In an ideal world. But they exist. Which means someone will always have them, unless there's a major catastrophe that wipes out all the tech we acquired in the last 100 years. And even then, someone would soon reinvent them.
I guess you are right.
Nations that currently possses Nuclear Weapons and thse ho wish to seek these weapons should get them.... get them dropped on their countries!
MWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They can also keep the fallout to themselves.

No nations should have nukes. To get rid of all the ones we already have, we obviously have to enact a pre-emptive strike on Jupiter to prevent any Alien invasions.

Or we could give all the nukes to Switzeland.

Japanese are still suffering, today, of the horrible consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They don't want nukes, and strongly support nuclear disarmement.

Well you know what...those bastards should never have sneak attacked us, nor should they have sided with Nazi Germany.

No countries deserve nukes. Way too much collateral damage (especially as wind spreads the fall out over the world).

Japanese are still suffering, today, of the horrible consequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They don't want nukes, and strongly support nuclear disarmement.
Really? I thought that radiation levels there had dropped to near normal levels.

No nation deserves nuclear weapons anymore then another. Its simply can your nation exist safely while another nation has nuclear weapons? If it cannot then it your nation must remove the opposing nations arsenal. A nations actions are neither completely selfless or selfish.

Giving the worlds nuclear arsenal to the UN would be like handing nukes over to al the nations we would not want to have them, because the GA is controlled by unstable third world nations.

The compilation of such a list is quite pointless - whoever can would like to and can manage it, will develop them.

Brazil definitely can but they see no reason to do it.

America's been to the edge enough to realize that they destroy-period. the effects of their use have been seared into our national memory
That has to be a joke. An offensive one at that.

AFAIK, in the US, the Cold War is remembered as a great victory for freedom against evil Soviets, is it not? Is Reagan not heralded a great hero for building heaps of guns?
Are there not about 300 million appologists in the US for dropping two nuclear bombs (and a lot more non-nuclear ones) on civilians?
Has there ever been an actual modern war to hit the US? Do people remember it as a tale of heroes, or a tale of the actual disgusting, pointless horror that it was?

Forget it. The US knows nothing of war. You should consider yourselves lucky, if it wasn't for the fact that you people don't seem to get it.
Or to quote an American who actually did see war (albeit in its early, sanitised form)...
It is good that war is so horrible, or we might grow to like it.

You should consider yourselves lucky, if it wasn't for the fact that you people don't seem to get it.

So says a man from the most historically warlike region of the planet...how quickly you forget.

I usually respect your posts for their common sense.

This one, not so much.

So says a man from the most historically warlike region of the planet...how quickly you forget.

I usually respect your posts for their common sense.

This one, not so much.

Yes, his point can be ignored because some people in his country nearly a century ago started some wars, how very logical...

So says a man from the most historically warlike region of the planet...how quickly you forget.
And if you have a look, you'll see that Germany is exactly what I'm talking about.
Did a lot of war, till it really hit home. Then learned that war is not nearly as cool as it looks on paper.

And now Germany doesn't do war anymore, or at least not without painful discussions.

That has to be a joke. An offensive one at that.

AFAIK, in the US, the Cold War is remembered as a great victory for freedom against evil Soviets, is it not? Is Reagan not heralded a great hero for building heaps of guns?
Are there not about 300 million appologists in the US for dropping two nuclear bombs (and a lot more non-nuclear ones) on civilians?
Has there ever been an actual modern war to hit the US? Do people remember it as a tale of heroes, or a tale of the actual disgusting, pointless horror that it was?

Forget it. The US knows nothing of war. You should consider yourselves lucky, if it wasn't for the fact that you people don't seem to get it.
Or to quote an American who actually did see war (albeit in its early, sanitised form)...

I agree with you here Neu, but don't use apologists to make your point against nuclear weapons, they tend to go overboard and very often are wrong (unless I misunderstood how you were using them in this instance). General Lee a great hero and he is right. The reason we don't know war so well is because wars are usually forgotten in 6 generations especially so when it is a minority of your population that see's it, even if the war is very influential, like the Pelopolesian Wars (Excuse my spelling) between Carthage and Rome, those wars have dictated the flow of history for the past 2000+ years, but they are hardly known.

So bin Laden recieved NO support from the Taliban at all right?
Also, tell me that there is no one in the world that wouldn't die for their nation

The Taliban isn't a national state. Bin Laden isn't a national leader. Al Qaida doesn't have nukes. And you're trying to manipulate the argument, and you're purposely trying to to blur the lines. Just stop, keep to the point.

People may be willing to die for their nation (not me: as a Welshman I will not die for the U.K unless the alternative is worse, and as one whose family is 75% Irish (In Ireland) I would still think twice about it even then). But no nation seeks its own destruction, and you know it.

If the USA, a country with a proven record of illegal wars, support of terrorists and calculated destabilisation of democratically elected governments can have nukes, why can't everyone else?
I'm not essentially anti-USA, whatever you may think. America has also done more than most to try and keep order in the world, albeit for it's own benefit.

If everyone is armed, nobody is.

I agree with you here Neu, but don't use apologists to make your point against nuclear weapons, they tend to go overboard and very often are wrong (unless I misunderstood how you were using them in this instance). General Lee a great hero and he is right. The reason we don't know war so well is because wars are usually forgotten in 6 generations especially so when it is a minority of your population that see's it, even if the war is very influential, like the Pelopolesian Wars (Excuse my spelling) between Carthage and Rome, those wars have dictated the flow of history for the past 2000+ years, but they are hardly known.

So we'll eventually forget WWII? Excellent.

So we'll eventually forget WWII? Excellent.

Humanity so far has forgotten the artrocities of every single war in history. It normally set in after all those who lived through the war passed on...

No countries should have Nukes.
Agreed. Good call.

Really? I thought that radiation levels there had dropped to near normal levels.

They have, however the legacy remains in the genetic predisposition to cancer that hibakusha (bomb survivors) descendents have inherited. There is extreme prejudice against the hibakusha in Japan due to the fact that descendents of the hibakusha are much more likely (can't remember the actual figures offhand, sorry, will look them up later) to have children born with severe birth defects, are much more likely to develop cancer, and are much more likely to have children with severe intellectual impairments.

Reckon they've paid the price?

I'll second Sweden. Pretty much the most peaceful nation on earth, it would be interesting to see how the rest of the world reacted...

Let canadians have nukes. We will use them properly. :)

Well, until we can completely gid rid of all nukes, at least two countries need to have them.

I nominate the Conch Republic and Switzerland.

Although the Conch Republic doesn't exist anymore... Quick, all you Conchs! Secede again! Then we can give you half of the world's nukes!