1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

nukes and safety

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by ybbor, Dec 18, 2004.

?

which would you feel safest under?

  1. scenario a

    11 vote(s)
    31.4%
  2. scenario b

    12 vote(s)
    34.3%
  3. scenario c

    12 vote(s)
    34.3%
  1. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    assume there are 3 scenarios, which would you feel safest under?:

    a) 1 country has nukes
    b) 2 countries have nukes
    c) all countries have nukes
     
  2. North King

    North King blech

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2004
    Messages:
    18,145
    Scenario C. The only way to really prevent international war in general.
     
  3. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    It depends which country. If it were Monaco, then definitely Option A. If it were North Korea or Russia, definitely not Option A.
     
  4. Immortal

    Immortal Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2002
    Messages:
    5,950
    I'm personally of the opinion of Scenario A as long as Scenario A involves a benevolent nation.
     
  5. Shadylookin

    Shadylookin master debater

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2002
    Messages:
    6,719
    Location:
    eternal damnation
    option a- if it is the united states

    option b- if the other country is not an enemy

    option c- after I have lived a long life and died.
     
  6. superisis

    superisis His Highness' dog at Kew

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Is there no Scenario 4: no nation has nukes? :(
     
  7. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    That is the obvious ideal situation, but then the poll would have 99% of people saying Option 4, and the poll would be rendered useless.
     
  8. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    sure there is, it's just not in the poll, (or in reality) also, what sims said
     
  9. Cheetah

    Cheetah Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,996
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    I'd still like an "Undecided / Not sure" option. ;)

    I'm afraid we'll have to accept that more and more nations will be getting nukes though.
     
  10. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    if you're not sure don't vote
     
  11. superisis

    superisis His Highness' dog at Kew

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,372
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    my question was rhetorical... and (if you wish) a tad apocalyptical -->
    "Dang this, a hard choice... can't you make it easy and add scenario 4?"
     
  12. Perfection

    Perfection The Great Head.

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    49,809
    Location:
    Salisbury Plain
    I'd pick scenario a unless the country in scenario a is an "enemy" and the addition of the second country for scenario b would provide an "ally".
     
  13. Fetus4188

    Fetus4188 Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,629
    Scenario A creates one nation that is infinitely more powerful than the rest of the world and can do whatever it likes with no fear what so ever at the consequences.

    Scenario C makes it too easy and likely that a rogue person will take power in a nuclear nation and bring about a nuclear apocalypse.

    Scenario B is best because it creates two powers that will balance each other out, it may not be great but it is better than the others.

    Unless A is the US in which case that would be my option.
     
  14. PantheraTigris2

    PantheraTigris2 Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,006
    I think I'll have to concur with this. :lol:
     
  15. A'AbarachAmadan

    A'AbarachAmadan Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,253
    Location:
    Omaha, NE
    Certainly that is not an ideal situation. WWIII was prevented because the US and USSR both had nukes. Europe was safer since the UK and France both had nukes in case the US opted out of Europe, which wouldn't have been likely, but the extra security was good.

    Nukes become more dangerous as more countries get them. Two major opponents and allied nations having them will prevent wars. Radical regimes that don't act logically make things more dangerous. China having them doesn't scare me. North Korea having the technologyis extremely scary.
     
  16. Sims2789

    Sims2789 Fool me once...

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2002
    Messages:
    7,874
    Location:
    California
    And look how close we came to making our species extinct. We dodged a bullet with the Cold War. I'd rather have the world lose a limb (aka a non-nuclear WW3) than have to try to dodge a bullet to the head again.
     
  17. CenturionV

    CenturionV Warrior Forever

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2001
    Messages:
    1,993
    Location:
    Canada
    A. As long as its us.
    B. As long as its us, and a buddy.

    I can't say C. is ever a good situtation, in that scenario war would impossible without nuclear weapons use, and I'm 100% we would still fight wars.

    lol

    In my opinion MAD is a foolish and non-existant strategy, its did not stop WWIII between the USSR and USA, luck (or providence whichever you prefer) did.

    I see WWIII as inevitable at some point in the future, becuase without a unified world belief system or other means of creating mass peace (if there is one, which I doubt) conflict on an international scale will most likely continue. Forever. And I can't see it taking to long for some body to fire the first shot in a nuclear WWIII. Not that that will be the end or anything, that will likely just be one war in many, the bombs will drop, lotsa people will die, the war will rage on after the first strike, the second strike, it will go on past the point where someone runs outta nukes, it won't be a pretty war, but it will be a war with a victor, and a loser just like they all have, even if it is simply the nations that comes out least blasted. People will come out, rebuild, and who knows, maybe there will be a WWIV? Or WWV? Who's to say? I'm not of the opinion that we will ever truly "learn" like some people contend we have from WWI/WWII

    We will not learn, we will simply rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat....

    We still don't have complete planetary destruction capability anyway, we could fire all our nukes off, heck we could probably fire 5 times all our nukes off, and much of the earth would still be inhabitable, its only cold war era propaganda and anti-nuke peace screamers who have spread around the idea of a "unsurvivable" all destroying nuclear war.
     
  18. Mise

    Mise isle of lucy

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    28,622
    Location:
    London, UK
    Scenario B, as long as the two countries aren't mine, and are enemies of one another.
    Or Scenario B, as long as one of them is us, and the other is an ally.
    Or Scenario A, as long as its us.
    But never Scenario C... too many lunatics.

    Scenario B wins though.
     
  19. nonconformist

    nonconformist Miserable

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    18,740
    Location:
    Canterbury
    Scenario C-it assured MAD.
     
  20. CIVPhilzilla

    CIVPhilzilla Reagan Republican

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Messages:
    4,714
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    Scenario C, MAD is the only defense.

    Though Scenario A has some merit if it is a benovolent nation in charge.
     

Share This Page