Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
okay, so I would like to know what people would give up to have the nuke never invented. I think that I would have just had to let WW2 keep going. Thoughts on this. Nothing is worth a nuke, in my opinion they are useless as they can't solve anything. War is terrible, but can solve things but nukes will just kill everything. Nukes shouldn't exist and we should be worried about global warming and our enviroment, not blowing each other up.
ON that note if WW3 started tommorow would you enlist? (assuming nukes suddenly didn't work and we had to fight honourable)
Last edited by Librarian Augustine; February 11th, 2006 at 03:08. Reason: to subscribe
Nuclear weaponry was an inevitability, so regardless of what I would have rathered, it definitely would have been invented by someone, some time. Also, I do believe very strongly in a future with a wider use of nuclear energy. Nuclear technology is such that the bomb was the easier part of the equation, so in order to have nuclear power, a bomb -- while not necessary -- would definitely have come first.
Regarding a WW3, I would not enlist. I'm not a pacifist, but in any case that would be irrelevant. I do not think that the vision of what WW3 would be like is much different than was imagined back during the Cold War. Wars that came after the bomb was invented were all very contained or between nations that didn't have nuclear technology at their disposal. At this point, something that could be considered a World War would have to be between nations capable of nuclear attacks. Such wars don't starve for more troops.
Why do the survivors remain anonymous -- as if cursed -- while the dead are revered? Why do we cling to what we lose while we ignore what we still hold?
Name none of the fallen, for they stood in our place, and stand there still in each moment of our lives.
--Duiker, "Deadhouse Gates"
Well, not directly related, I'm doing aporject in art and scocial statements or something, I'm doing a Razor back with the words "Wars won't stop themselves"
So basically, I think no matter the weapons used, wars don't help, as even if you win, chances are you have a new enemy or two.
All in my humble opinion.
Yeah, the red army rolling through and conquering Europe would have been no big deal. What a waste those nukes through which MAD stopped WW III are.
As for using Nukes on Japan, well they didnt surrender after the first. If Hitler had got his bloody little hands on a nuke and used it on London it would have knocked us out of the war.
Plus the Japanese were working towards thier own nuclear bomb. They would have used it had they got it. They thoroughly proved how evil they were, Singapore, The Burma railway, it couldn't have happened to nicer people (though the citizens werent responsible thier inacction allowed the war to continue).
Finaly, whats the differance between using a nuke to kill 170,000 at Hiroshima and using incendiaries to kill 250,000 in Dresden? dead is dead be it gassed or stabbed.
Every time you read this sig: a fairie dies!
If the world didn't develop nuclear weapons we would have just developed more advanced chemical or biological weapons.
About WW3 I would enlist as long as it wasn't for a stupid reason. I wouldn't carry a rifle though, I am just not cut out for that.
Well I think the Nazis were also working on making a nuke, so if the USA didn't get it first, they probably would.
I'm really just fine with how the nukes were used int he past, but I don't think they should ever have to be used again, unless five billion people turn into zombies and the only way to stop them was to hide underground and nuke the surface...
Despite the fact that Hitler was defeated entirely independently of the nuke. The point about the Japanese almost developing a nuke may be valid, but surely that makes it a case of whether we want them to blow up the world or whether we want us to blow up the world. And it almost wipes out any kind of moral high ground that the Allies may have had (not that they had much after the British bombed Dresden to char and the Russians are responsible for the worst case of mass war-rape in history).Originally Posted by Silver WingsResidual radiation and the consequent radiation sickness, deformed births, blighting of the landscape and possible nuclear winter, if you're asking what difference nukes themselves make. On pure "casualty" figures, that one incident doesn't seem as bad, but nukes as a concept have far-reaching consequences.Originally Posted by Silver Wings
hitler may have been defeated without use of the nuke, but he was still largely attempting to develope a nuke of his own when that happened; so i don't think that would make him independent of the whole nuke issue.
and all in all, the point stated in Lord of War is right with nukes not being the real weapons of mass destruction... generations of mass genocide in continued use around the world compared to a weapon that as of yet has mainly been used as an intimidation factor.
To be honest I think that the larger destroy a city nuclear weapons are more of a terror weapon, they're more meant to show an enemy that we can destroy a city and we might do it if you attack us, so more of a passive defence weapon than a attack weapon. Why I think so is A) that it destroys too much, really, what's the point to make a town rubble when you're invading it? none, you need the town, the infrastructure etc to wage your war in that country so it's not that good to completely destroy it. the laws of war forbids unnecessary casualties of civilians and destruction of buildings etc, and the rest of the world won't accept such an act.
But the smaller so called tactical nuclear weapons will be more useful, instead of destroying more than you need, for example a single submarine with one torpedo can destroy a whole carrier group or one artillery shell can destroy a rally point etc, all of these especially the destruction of a whole carrier group is a heavy blow to any military power and you avoid destroying more than you want.
And enlist, pft, if such a big war as a World War did break out I'd be forced in to duty (or well, I wouldn't be forced in as I'd take pride in defending my country, but some of the soldiers would be) as it says in our glorious conscription laws....
But then again with our pussy goverment we'd change the flag to a Russian one before we even had a chance to defend ourselves...