Should we Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
YES! Nuclear weapons are Just disgusting. And a threat to Humankind and to nature!

Well, world War "3" could happen. And If one nuclear weapon was launched, it would lead to many other countries launching their own "freaky nuclear weapons" for protection. Hmm enough nuclear detonations and you can wave goodbye to "Earth as radiation slowly kills all citizens" Well, that doesn't sound good! Does it? So, So why in the world would.. anyone want a power to have a weapon that could potentially end the world. eh?
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
First of all, nuclear weapons are deadly to mankind, but neither to earth nor to nature.
Radiation is a natural thing and present all around the world.
The material they use to make nuclear weapons from are natural materials they harvest from earth. They dont make them radioactive, those materials are already radioactive. They only try to increase and focus the power.

Second:
Studies show that many animals can quickly adapt to high radiation and continue life after a few generations of struggle. There is vast plant and wildlife inn the area around chernobyl. The radioactive explosion there was good for nature as it has driven away the humans, the natural predator of basically everything.

Third:
The only thing that has kept ww3 from happening was nuclear weapons. If only one of the sides of the cold war, either the west or the soviets, would have had nuclear weapons and the other didnt, ww3 would have happened and the nuclear superpower would have won.
Just because both sides had weapons powerful enough to completely destroy the opposition with a single strike ww3 did not happen.
That is because of fear. Your enemy will not attack if they know that their home would be destroyed immediately by the retaliation attack.

Imagine what would happen if the west suddenly destroys all its nuclear weapons (by the way, how would you destroy them? Dump them into the sea?).
North korea and/or terrorism controlled countries will start ww3 instantly. They do not have to fear anything then.
 

KaerfNomekop

Swim, fishies. Swim through the veil of steel.
Reaction score
612
Imagine what would happen if the west suddenly destroys all its nuclear weapons (by the way, how would you destroy them? Dump them into the sea?).
North korea and/or terrorism controlled countries will start ww3 instantly. They do not have to fear anything then.
This applies to everything, actually. Neither side will want to lose their hand before the other, so they'll just hold on stubbornly.

So, So why in the world would.. anyone want a power to have a weapon that could potentially end the world. eh?
Because the possibility still remains that we're not the only world out there with intent and ability to end a world, or be ended.
 

s3rius

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
Reaction score
130
On nuclear weapons and their effect on nature:

There are more things to consider than just the pure explosive power and the radiation fallout.
A (small) nuclear war would completely destroy the world's economic system. Temperatures and seasons would go crazy, the ozone layer would be destroyed, the sky would be black of dust.
That wouldn't only be quite unformfortable for us, but also for fauna and flora.
(Read: nuclear winter)

If you want to drive humans away then napalm bombs would be much more environmentally friendly.

Also, weapon-grade nuclear material doesn't exist in nature. We're using industrially enriched materials for bombs.
And while radiation truly does exist everywhere in the world, it's in faaaaar smaller quantity. It's like comparing air to pure oxygen. The first is needed to survive, the second would kill you.

Of course the raw material exists, but that's like saying guns are a natural product because they're entirely made of materials that can be found in nature.

And honestly, I don't believe that abandoning all nuclear weapons could make "evil" countries like North Korea start a WW3 (provided they also don't have nukes anymore).

* The U.S. has been starting a ton of wars and demonstrated that they can defeat another country's military without use of nuclear power.
* International organisations such as the United Nations will intervene if any nation declares war on a member.

The only real way to initiate WW3 is if one of the leading military forces (U.S., Russia, China) would gather allies, break international contracts and attack each other.
And I doubt even China would want to do that. These countries depend on each other a lot economically.

Nuclear weapons have to be re-armed every now and then because the core loses it's strength (I don't remember the exact reasons, I've seen a documentary a long time ago).
So nukes could be disarmed by simply not caring about them. In maybe 20 years there wouldn't be a single working nuke out there - still plenty of radioactive material, though.
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
There are more things to consider than just the pure explosive power and the radiation fallout.
A (small) nuclear war would completely destroy the world's economic system. Temperatures and seasons would go crazy, the ozone layer would be destroyed, the sky would be black of dust.
That wouldn't only be quite unformfortable for us, but also for fauna and flora.
(Read: nuclear winter)
I didnt mean to say that animal and plant life is not affected by the effects of a nuclear war.
I say that its nature itself which will not take a real blow by that.
Sure, after a nuclear apocalypse there might be 20, 30, maybe even 40 years of death and decay. But after that nature will go rogue and there will be lavish plant and animal life growing from the ashes of prior generations.
We humans can go extinct, nature can not. Evolution will continue and plants will grow on this planet until its end. They can adapt to almost everything.

Also, weapon-grade nuclear material doesn't exist in nature. We're using industrially enriched materials for bombs.
And while radiation truly does exist everywhere in the world, it's in faaaaar smaller quantity. It's like comparing air to pure oxygen. The first is needed to survive, the second would kill you.
A gun compared to iron and weapon-grade uranium compared to normal uranium isnt quite the same.
I know that the uranium present in nature (which isnt that little by the way, its the 51st most available element on earth) is not as powerful in terms of radiation and does not cause an explosion.
But its still the same element as weapon-grade uranium. Its power is just focused. I dont know the exact process of refining it; it involves shooting tiny particles at uranium atoms at very high speeds as far as i know (but that might be incorrect), but i know that it isnt crazy complex.
Its difficult maybe, but its not hard to understand.

But you have to keep in mind that today a war isnt fought with tanks and troops anymore.
The war against terrorism isnt the same as a world war 3.
If russia would declare war on the USA and vice versa (a hypothetical thought) the usa would most likely not try to send troops there. They would fight with long range missles and other kinds of weapons of mass destruction.

By the way, i dont think a ww3 is likely. Its not gonna happen in my opinion. But i bet that having nuclear weapons ready to destroy whoever is stupid enough to be the first agressor still has a good feeling to it.
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
Yes of course. Our weatherman is so nice to always tell us what weather is going to be tomorrow.
Haha It's too bad they're so often wrong. Well, nobody can predict anything, think about it. Anyway... Just hope there will not be any "world war 3"
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
Haha It's too bad they're so often wrong. Well, nobody can predict anything, think about it. Anyway... Just hope there will not be any "world war 3"
I find it funny that you tell me to "think" about something.
Its irony i guess.
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
I find it funny that you tell me to "think" about something.
Oh crap. Don't you have time to think,... Or, wut? Well, would you Just kinda stands there like a zombie, when enemies come at you?
 

s3rius

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
Reaction score
130
I know that the uranium present in nature (which isnt that little by the way, its the 51st most available element on earth) is not as powerful in terms of radiation and does not cause an explosion.

There are different "kinds" of uranium. Only a certain kind (so-called U-235) can be used to create a nuclear explosion.
According to the interwebs only 0.7% of all uranium is U-235. So that makes it kind of rare-ish.

The problem is that these 0.7% are intermixed with the other 99.3% "useless" uranium.
So when uranium is processed they try to seperate the 0.7% from the rest. Through repeated extraction the U-235 can be raised to 80-90%, which is the concentration you find in nukes.

I don't know about the methods of enrichment. Wikipedia says something about centrifugation of gaseous uranium being the most prevalent one - which doesn't sound as complicated as I initially thought.

So yea, I prefer my other comparison.
Natural radioactivity compares to weapon-grade radioactive materials like air compares to pure oxygen.
The first one is just fine, the latter one kills you real quick.

The problem is:
If you would be using nukes to wipe out humanity, you'll need a lot of them.
With so many nukes I think we have a good chance of turning most of Earth into a desert.
Nature would continue, but it'd be a crippled nature. At least I'd imagine so.

The again, a few thousand years of recuperation isn't much compared to Earth's history.

Well, nobody can predict anything, think about it.
Personally I believe that you can predict anything in the future, as long as you have comprehensive information about the present.

But that's a purely academic thought, because we can't gather all the information we'd need (yet?).
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
the "kinds" of Uranium are changing every moment.
The number behind the name depends on the level of (what was it, electrons or neutrons? I forgot).
However, this number changes as the radioactive decay progresses. After several years every particle of uranium has been 235 at some point in time. There isnt much at one point in time, but its coming and going.
And you can make 235 from other "kinds" of uranium with a little help of science.

By the way: Air is a gas mix from several different kinds of gas. Pure oxygen is quite commen, its part of air.
 

Slapshot136

Divide et impera
Reaction score
471
By the way: Air is a gas mix from several different kinds of gas. Pure oxygen is quite commen, its part of air.

how is something pure if it's a part of something else?

It would be too risky to eliminate nuclear weapons completely.. especially if we were to continue to use nuclear power

Personally I believe that you can predict anything in the future, as long as you have comprehensive information about the present.

But that's a purely academic thought, because we can't gather all the information we'd need (yet?).

I agree 100% with you there
 

s3rius

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
Reaction score
130
By the way: Air is a gas mix from several different kinds of gas. Pure oxygen is quite commen, its part of air.
Oxygen is usually found in compounds like air or water, not pure (O is not a noble gas so I don't know if it exists purely anywhere on Earth at all).
Just like U-235 is found in compound with other U isotopes, not pure.
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
All kinds of gases like to bind with one of their kind.
O² is not uncommon in air. As well as N².
At least thats how i remember it from chemistry classes in school.

Air is a mix of gases, but the gas-atoms in the air are not all put together to form an "air-molecule". Its more like many different kinds of gases floating around in close proximity.
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
But that's a purely academic thought, because we can't gather all the information we'd need (yet?).
Surely, because no one knows the future, and therefore you can't get any info.
"It will never happen!" But of course, you can always guess"
 

FireCat

Oh Shi.. Don't wake the tiger!
Reaction score
530
Anyway... Seriously, nuclear weapons are the ultimate waste of money, And countries have been threatening each other for millenium. So, where are the crazy scientists when you need them most? Well, they can get an idea how to destroy them pretty safe.
 

Accname

2D-Graphics enthusiast
Reaction score
1,462
Nuclear weapons are not as expensive as many other things the military does.
And government run non-military services are often times very ineffective and a waste of money as well.
But that doesnt matter since money really is of no value. And it is unlimited.
 

s3rius

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
Reaction score
130
According to some random websites the US spends 20 billion bucks each year on nuclear weapons.
Nukes are very costly to maintain, I believe.

Overall military expenditure: about 660 billion $ p.a.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.

      The Helper Discord

      Staff online

      Members online

      Affiliates

      Hive Workshop NUON Dome World Editor Tutorials

      Network Sponsors

      Apex Steel Pipe - Buys and sells Steel Pipe.
      Top