Nuclear War must become obsolete OP/ED

[Brian37]

We cannot turn back the clock on that invention. But no matter the nation, friend or foe, no matter what part of the world you live in. It cannot be stated enough. No matter who fires first, on any side, once that starts, there will be no winners on any side.  I don't care if you live in Russia, China, Iran or America. If a global nuclear war happens, you won't just be worrying about another army, you will be witness to genocide on a global scale. You will be witness to a nuclear winter as to which radiation poisoning will kill even more that might survive. It won't be just buildings and homes destroyed, it will pollute your food sources and water sources too. In every nation, if you survive, you'd end up even fighting and or killing your neighbors for tainted resources. At that point, your wealth, power nor class will matter one bit. 

We do not have to like each other's politics, or ideologies, but all 7 billion of us should value the survival of our species. One politician should not have the power to destroy the entire planet. America, Russia, China, Iran and the rest of the world too. The term is "mutual destruction".

[rskovride]

Recently looked at how modern nukes have been scaled up with new tech and the results are amazing.

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/ - is an interactive map that you can drag to your location, put in a yield, and see if it will wipe out your boss' house when it goes off.

[henryp]

To clarify, because this seems important, you think we should be for or against a nuclear apocalypse?

[vorlon13]

Saudi Arabia is strongly considering joining the club. If North Korea starts selling devices, we will have nukes in the hands of entities that are not countries and will be difficult or immune from nuclear retaliation.

In hindsight, assuming North Korea is not stopped, it will be nearly universally agreed they should have been after something 'bad' happens.

As for the Sauds, having them nuking Iran will spare Israel the sanctions and outrage from their feeling they needed to do it . . . .

[rskovride]

I'm against nuclear apocalypse and I hope everyone else is to.

Fishing today?

[CapnAwesome]

To clarify, because this seems important, you think we should be for or against a nuclear apocalypse?

Lol

[Brian37]

To clarify, because this seems important, you think we should be for or against a nuclear apocalypse?

What kind of stupid question is that? Powerful people worldwide, friend and foe, have the power to burn the entire planet. Since I am one of the 7 billion yes, I give a fuck about that not happening. I am not sure why that was not obvious. If it was meant as sarcasm, it wasn't funny. I would hope any sane human with an ounce of compassion would give a shit about preventing global destruction. 

If you are not taking our global politics happening now seriously, you should. If you don't want to, I can't force you to. But I damned sure do take what is going on very seriously.

[Edwardo Piet]

Nuclear disarmament for the win.

[popeyespappy]

Nuclear war will become obsolete just as soon as someone comes up with antimatter bombs.

[Anomalocaris]

Nuclear war will never become obsolete unless a new and even more effective weapon technology supersedes it before it could by itself halt the progress of human technology.

Instead it will become ever more likely as the technology to manufacture nuclear weapons, now 75 years old, comes within the reach of more and more nations simply as part of general progress in overall level of technology, and more and more nations will acquire nuclear weapons, making control of nuclear weapon use through effective command and control and international regimes ever more complex and difficult.

Perhaps the most likely future Unclear war would not be a all out exchange of tens of thousands of warheads as per the Cold War scenario.  So nuclear war becomes more likely to be survivable.  But in place of a single throw of dice, I think nuclear war, while smaller, will likely become more frequent.

The only question is whether, over the long term, humanity will expand its range faster than the rate at which nuclear war can consume the population and infrastructure.

I think it is highly likely there will be nuclear weapon use in anger during our lifetimes.    I think it will be a limited exchange.   I think rather than showcase the horror of the nuclear weapon, the first nuclear weapon use since Nagasaki will likely instead to show case that not having a nuclear weapon will not make one immune to being nuked, and it is vitally important to have a nuclear arsenal in order to not getting pushed around in a nuclear world.  Thus each nuclear war will promote faster and more widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons.