MOCpages : Share your LEGO® creations
LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther
Welcome to the world's greatest LEGO fan community!
Explore cool creations, share your own, and have lots of fun together.  ~  It's all free!
Conversation »
Nuclear Weapons
Join to comment
 Group admin 
Okay. So we know that several international powers have been trying/or have succeeded in making Nukes. For countries like the USA, its been something that was accomplished almost 70 years ago. Also, the US can be trusted with these weapons. But do you think all countries should invest and make nuclear weapons? What about WMDs?
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 11:38 am
The only instance in history, and the only way to actually use a nuclear weapon, is if you're the only one to have them. So, the more the merrier.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 12:15 pm
Well, yes and no...I feel the US should have these things.
However, other countries that don't promote freedom to all, should never see these things! It's good that the US has such tech, because we are a country that has freedom! Unlike Cuba (which I have nothing against) doesn't promote freedom, so having such weapons could lead to a lot of danger! So overall: America should have these weapons, as well as any other country that promotes freedom and equality, but such places that are against ideas of the nature, should not....
-Brick Boy
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 12:33 pm
On my homepage where I describe myself some, I said, "Political views: Nuke 'em." And that's meant ONLY as a joke. Nukes are something that I hope never have to be used again. So, can we please do something about certain people who are obviously anxious to use them? North Korea, anyone?
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:11 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Nate Andrews
On my homepage where I describe myself some, I said, "Political views: Nuke 'em." And that's meant ONLY as a joke. Nukes are something that I hope never have to be used again. So, can we please do something about certain people who are obviously anxious to use them? North Korea, anyone?

Well, NK is something that we can discuss in the North Korea thread. But just to add a little to that, any engagement with them has a likelihood of nuclear weapons being yielded.
Permalink
| May 31, 2013, 2:22 pm
 Group admin 
Anyone else want to add anything about nukes?
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 1:22 pm
 Group admin 
all we can really say is the genie is out of the bottle.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 2:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
all we can really say is the genie is out of the bottle.

Maybe that nuclear genie rocket that the US used.

Eh, nuking everything out of existence, probably won't work.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 2:45 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Anyone else want to add anything about nukes?

Personally, I think all but a handful of nuclear weapons should be dismantled. That one remaining handful should be put into the care of a nation that is not the US, Russia, NK, or anywhere else like that, but that can be trusted. Those Nukes would be used only to defend ourselves from meteor strikes, or possible alien invasion (Don't laugh, it might happen.).
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 3:32 pm
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Personally, I think all but a handful of nuclear weapons should be dismantled. That one remaining handful should be put into the care of a nation that is not the US, Russia, NK, or anywhere else like that, but that can be trusted. Those Nukes would be used only to defend ourselves from meteor strikes, or possible alien invasion (Don't laugh, it might happen.).

I think that is a great idea.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 3:40 pm
Quoting Sir Seamus Morrison
I think that is a great idea.

Thank you. It means that no powerful and/or arrogant country has any nuclear devices that it could launch in a moment of anger, and certainly not enough to destroy the world.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 3:45 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Thank you. It means that no powerful and/or arrogant country has any nuclear devices that it could launch in a moment of anger, and certainly not enough to destroy the world.

I agree, to an extent. The US is the only country to have used Nuclear Weapons; it is the only country that truly knows how to handle them. The US made the first nukes, and should be the only country with them.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 4:00 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
I agree, to an extent. The US is the only country to have used Nuclear Weapons; it is the only country that truly knows how to handle them. The US made the first nukes, and should be the only country with them.

Well, I wasn't really saying for the US to have the Nukes, but I suppose that's a valid argument. The problem with my solution is that we'd go to war to get the last nukes. My UDGOE (United Democratic Government Of Earth) idea, I think, would solve most problems like this. But it wouldn't work either.
Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 4:03 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Well, I wasn't really saying for the US to have the Nukes, but I suppose that's a valid argument. The problem with my solution is that we'd go to war to get the last nukes. My UDGOE (United Democratic Government Of Earth) idea, I think, would solve most problems like this. But it wouldn't work either.

You mean a new world order? No, that wouldn't work yet. As much as I love the USA, its people need to get over its ignorance (trust me, there is a lot) before such an idea could be brought up. Besides, we kinda already have one; the United Nations. That organization would be third in my list of countries/organizations that should have nukes. It kinda goes like this:
USA
NATO
UN
Canada
Britain

Permalink
| June 6, 2013, 4:06 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
You mean a new world order? No, that wouldn't work yet. As much as I love the USA, its people need to get over its ignorance (trust me, there is a lot) before such an idea could be brought up. Besides, we kinda already have one; the United Nations. That organization would be third in my list of countries/organizations that should have nukes. It kinda goes like this:
USA
NATO
UN
Canada
Britain

Yes, a new world order. No, the world isn't ready.

My list of countries that should have Nukes? No one asked, but I'll tell you:

Australia
Australia
Australia
New Zealand
Antarctica
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 2:43 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
Yes, a new world order. No, the world isn't ready.

My list of countries that should have Nukes? No one asked, but I'll tell you:

Australia
Australia
Australia
New Zealand
Antarctica

Problems. Antarctica is a continent (no one to control it). And considering that the Aussies have NO experience with nukes, I would be HIGHLY apposed to let them be the only power. New Zealand requires military protection from the Aussies, so the same applies.
Permalink
| June 7, 2013, 9:30 am
 Group admin 
This video, that I am linking to, is kinda my position on nuclear weapons; you have to think to actually get it. I would recommend everyone to see it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mnfce6XCLKM
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 1:58 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Problems. Antarctica is a continent (no one to control it). And considering that the Aussies have NO experience with nukes, I would be HIGHLY apposed to let them be the only power. New Zealand requires military protection from the Aussies, so the same applies.

The Antarctica bit was a joke, unless we use it as a storage place for the Nukes. Australia does have experience with Nuclear Weapons, and New Zealand is small, so it could only hold a few nukes, thus reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in the world.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 6:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
The Antarctica bit was a joke, unless we use it as a storage place for the Nukes. Australia does have experience with Nuclear Weapons, and New Zealand is small, so it could only hold a few nukes, thus reducing the amount of nuclear weapons in the world.

Uhm. How do the Aussies have experience with nuclear weapons? And in the event of a "global crisis", do you want to find yourself with MORE or LESS nukes than necessary?
The US has wide open spaces in its deserts, or it can also keep missiles in silos well hidden out in the wilderness of Alaska, or Montana and Wyoming, were missiles are actually kept. The US made the first nuke, its the only country to deploy such a weapon; its the only country with the credentials.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 6:19 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Uhm. How do the Aussies have experience with nuclear weapons? And in the event of a "global crisis", do you want to find yourself with MORE or LESS nukes than necessary?
The US has wide open spaces in its deserts, or it can also keep missiles in silos well hidden out in the wilderness of Alaska, or Montana and Wyoming, were missiles are actually kept. The US made the first nuke, its the only country to deploy such a weapon; its the only country with the credentials.

The US was the only country to ever deploy a nuclear weapon in war, but Russia, Britain, and Australia (on Britain's behalf) all did extensive nuclear testing. There have been two wartime deployments of armed nuclear devices, both in the final days of WWII. They killed thousands of innocent civilians and ruined their genetics for generations. Each nuclear test had similar results to those who were not told to wear protective gear. The nuclear testing in Aus killed innocent Aborigines. Name me a situation where nuclear weapons should be used.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 6:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
The US was the only country to ever deploy a nuclear weapon in war, but Russia, Britain, and Australia (on Britain's behalf) all did extensive nuclear testing. There have been two wartime deployments of armed nuclear devices, both in the final days of WWII. They killed thousands of innocent civilians and ruined their genetics for generations. Each nuclear test had similar results to those who were not told to wear protective gear. The nuclear testing in Aus killed innocent Aborigines. Name me a situation where nuclear weapons should be used.

First of all, did you watch the video that I posted? Guess not. Now, I don't support nukes for warfare, at the very least, against humans. Most likely, I think we should extend the range of ICBMs, and have them intercept meteors. Sounds sci-fi, but we are vulnerable to a hit. Nukes, if they intercept a meteor at enough distance, could stop a human extinction. And the ONLY country that has the required experience, that has the deep space knowledge, is, whether you like it or not, the U-S-A.

As for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, let me ask you this. Would you have rather had the invasion as planned? And have the one million US servicemen die? What about civilian and Japanese casualties? Honestly, I wished neither event should have had a possibility of happening; but I less death toll is better.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 6:37 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
First of all, did you watch the video that I posted? Guess not. Now, I don't support nukes for warfare, at the very least, against humans. Most likely, I think we should extend the range of ICBMs, and have them intercept meteors. Sounds sci-fi, but we are vulnerable to a hit. Nukes, if they intercept a meteor at enough distance, could stop a human extinction. And the ONLY country that has the required experience, that has the deep space knowledge, is, whether you like it or not, the U-S-A.

As for the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks, let me ask you this. Would you have rather had the invasion as planned? And have the one million US servicemen die? What about civilian and Japanese casualties? Honestly, I wished neither event should have had a possibility of happening; but I less death toll is better.

I haven't yet watched the video, but look. You and I have a very similar view on this. No, I wouldn't have wanted the invasion. Yes, we need Nukes to destroy incoming meteorites, and the unlikely but possible threat of aliens. I just don't believe any one nation can be trusted with Nukes, and I don't trust other nations not to get jealous and build their own. I don't think the world was ready for nuclear weapons at the time we invented them.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 6:49 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I haven't yet watched the video, but look. You and I have a very similar view on this. No, I wouldn't have wanted the invasion. Yes, we need Nukes to destroy incoming meteorites, and the unlikely but possible threat of aliens. I just don't believe any one nation can be trusted with Nukes, and I don't trust other nations not to get jealous and build their own. I don't think the world was ready for nuclear weapons at the time we invented them.

Yeah, nukes did come early; it came with a major power being communist, for starters. But let me ask you this: how likely will a new world order be in this day and age? We can't get countries to cooperate together; a new world order is beyond our capabilities. The US should be the only power with nukes, if that is the answer to everything. Jealousy would be found in Russia, Iran, China, and NK. Everyone else would be "cool" with that, as many countries don't even HAVE nukes. Those after mentioned countries are unstable, or otherwise handicapped to such an extent that NO ONE trusts them.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 6:54 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Yeah, nukes did come early; it came with a major power being communist, for starters. But let me ask you this: how likely will a new world order be in this day and age? We can't get countries to cooperate together; a new world order is beyond our capabilities. The US should be the only power with nukes, if that is the answer to everything. Jealousy would be found in Russia, Iran, China, and NK. Everyone else would be "cool" with that, as many countries don't even HAVE nukes. Those after mentioned countries are unstable, or otherwise handicapped to such an extent that NO ONE trusts them.

I know. For now, maybe the US should have the only nukes. But they should be under rigorous safeguards, and require four people to cooperate in order to launch. I know it's not a perfect solution, but for now, it's all we can manage. A new world order isn't possible now, but maybe in a few decades...
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 7:18 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
I know. For now, maybe the US should have the only nukes. But they should be under rigorous safeguards, and require four people to cooperate in order to launch. I know it's not a perfect solution, but for now, it's all we can manage. A new world order isn't possible now, but maybe in a few decades...

Not a few decades. I am sorry to say this, but we won't be seeing a world order in our lifetime. The differences between people are so large that cooperation is not possible.

What I think is that there should be a US Missile Committee, one that is held by high-rnanking officials world wide, and THEY are the ones with the button.
Permalink
| June 8, 2013, 8:45 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Not a few decades. I am sorry to say this, but we won't be seeing a world order in our lifetime. The differences between people are so large that cooperation is not possible.

What I think is that there should be a US Missile Committee, one that is held by high-ranking officials world wide, and THEY are the ones with the button.

That could work. There would need to be more "Cancel" buttons than "Fire" buttons. Yes, you can cancel Nukes. I don't know what the technical term is.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 4:43 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Not a few decades. I am sorry to say this, but we won't be seeing a world order in our lifetime. The differences between people are so large that cooperation is not possible.

What I think is that there should be a US Missile Committee, one that is held by high-rnanking officials world wide, and THEY are the ones with the button.

The better solution is to bann all Nukes from this world. Theres no really usage of nukes except u want to to destroy all live on earth. We also dont need any nukes against meteors becuse in spaces vacuum nukes dont work that awesome like in an atmosphere.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 6:04 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
The better solution is to bann all Nukes from this world. Theres no really usage of nukes except u want to to destroy all live on earth. We also dont need any nukes against meteors becuse in spaces vacuum nukes dont work that awesome like in an atmosphere.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Nukes don't function like your normal JDAM. They literally mess around with atoms. The amount of energy created is not changed whether you are on Earth or in space. You might be thinking of the shockwave; which yes won't happen in space. But the actual explosive yield still stands.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 6:13 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
That could work. There would need to be more "Cancel" buttons than "Fire" buttons. Yes, you can cancel Nukes. I don't know what the technical term is.

Cool off? Abort? I dunno. Something like that. I am not sure if it works when a missile has launched, but I think that during the launch phase there might be a "cool off" process, or something. Of course, if we are taking about bombers, you can stop them (whether by shooting them down (good luck with that if the bomber is a B-2) or just by calling up the pilots (possibly).

There should be one button per missile; each button has a USB port that can be accessed via a key, and you have to plug in one of maybe a three-four USB drive into that port, then push down for a launch.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 6:16 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Cool off? Abort? I dunno. Something like that. I am not sure if it works when a missile has launched, but I think that during the launch phase there might be a "cool off" process, or something. Of course, if we are taking about bombers, you can stop them (whether by shooting them down (good luck with that if the bomber is a B-2) or just by calling up the pilots (possibly).

There should be one button per missile; each button has a USB port that can be accessed via a key, and you have to plug in one of maybe a three-four USB drive into that port, then push down for a launch.

That would be a good system.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 6:26 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Reaper the Ultimate .
That would be a good system.

.....But its not the one that is in service.
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:26 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
.....But its not the one that is in service.

Indeed
Permalink
| June 9, 2013, 8:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
What? That doesn't make any sense. Nukes don't function like your normal JDAM. They literally mess around with atoms. The amount of energy created is not changed whether you are on Earth or in space. You might be thinking of the shockwave; which yes won't happen in space. But the actual explosive yield still stands.

Correct. But the explosive part doesnt harm the meteor. You need to land on it, make a hole in and put the nuke in there - like in the movie armageddon. Using missiles will not have the effect u expect.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 1:55 am
Quoting Locutus 666
Correct. But the explosive part doesnt harm the meteor. You need to land on it, make a hole in and put the nuke in there - like in the movie armageddon. Using missiles will not have the effect u expect.

Nukes emit radiation in space, meaning they can heat the meteor to immense temperatures.

Now, space is really, really, really cold, right? I think we all know what happens to a bottle of beer when taken out of the freezer after a long time in there.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 6:20 am
Also, it has probably been told many many times, but nuclear weapons are wapons of peace. The only bad thing that they do is taht countries who have them can bully those who do not.

Think about it - how many world wars have we had since the second?

And that bullying thing - how many underpowered countries have superpowered ones attacked in that time?
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 6:54 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The US should be the only power with nukes

Hmm... U.S.A. has not shown any (read: any at all) responsibility with power, ever (read: ever in history of its existance).

The only thing that would happen if only that country had nuclear weapons, it would take over the world with thread and impose its corrupt system on everybody else.

But then again, at least people would rebel against it, unlike now when everybody is seamlessly being assimilated via "culture".
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 7:00 am
 Group admin 
Blame the Nazis and Japanese, we made nukes because we thought the Nazis would get them, and Japan asked for it.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 7:10 am
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Nukes emit radiation in space, meaning they can heat the meteor to immense temperatures.

Now, space is really, really, really cold, right? I think we all know what happens to a bottle of beer when taken out of the freezer after a long time in there.

The NASA and a couple of physic-experts have a different opinion.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 7:13 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Quoting Achintya Prasad
The US should be the only power with nukes

Hmm... U.S.A. has not shown any (read: any at all) responsibility with power, ever (read: ever in history of its existance).

The only thing that would happen if only that country had nuclear weapons, it would take over the world with thread and impose its corrupt system on everybody else.

But then again, at least people would rebel against it, unlike now when everybody is seamlessly being assimilated via "culture".

Oh great. We have an Anti-American person here. Okay. Well. Its my job to defend the "mother country" so. Lets take a look at the "alternatives"
Russia- Putin is holding a job in that country
Britain-Broke
France-Broke
India-Rising, yes, but its people need help; many live in poverty
China- constantly hacks other countries, and has a communist background
South Africa- took apart its own nuclear arsenal; does not have a large economy in consideration with the previous mentions
Iran- doesn't have nukes
North Korea- are you kidding me?

That fact is this: the USA is the only country that KNOWS how to use a nuke (we only used in combat once) and that one use has kept a nuclear war at bay for SEVENTY YEARS. The USA has the most powerful military, in terms of technology (China has 1,000,000 more soldier). The US Minuteman III and Trident missiles are some of the best ICBMs in the world. The USA is the only country with "extensive" knowledge of deep space flight, that is, Voyager.

You are simply regurgitating propaganda initiated to control the actions of the American government.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 9:58 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
The NASA and a couple of physic-experts have a different opinion.

Well, I didn't know what you meant originally. But yes, it would be better if the nuke was burrowed into the meteor (a bit like a guided penetration bomb). What fragments are left need to also be hit.

Its not the best tactic, but its the best one. For me, I say put these nukes on the moon (the launch sites). Of course, US control cause its the only country that has sent man there.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:01 am
 Group admin 
Quoting michael k.
Blame the Nazis and Japanese, we made nukes because we thought the Nazis would get them, and Japan asked for it.

Thats true, yes, nukes were made in response to the Nazis. Eventually, those weapons weren't needed in the European Theater of Operations; hows left? Japan.

Also, I hope its clear that France and Britain got their nukes because they are allies with the USA. Russia actually had spies buried in the Manhattan project, for those of you who think that Russia singlehandedly built nukes. I think that China might have received help from Russia; India did it alone. Of course, the last two, NK and possibly Iran, are debatable.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:04 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Nukes emit radiation in space, meaning they can heat the meteor to immense temperatures.

Now, space is really, really, really cold, right? I think we all know what happens to a bottle of beer when taken out of the freezer after a long time in there.

Thats.... not how it works. The radiation emitted includes Gamma rays, which mess with the placement of atoms. The only "radiation" that I know that would make something melt is infrared, also known as heat. I could be wrong, as I don't know the inner workings of a nuclear weapon, but if you have some proof that tells me otherwise, I will be happy to look at it.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:07 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Thats true, yes, nukes were made in response to the Nazis. Eventually, those weapons weren't needed in the European Theater of Operations; hows left? Japan.

Also, I hope its clear that France and Britain got their nukes because they are allies with the USA. Russia actually had spies buried in the Manhattan project, for those of you who think that Russia singlehandedly built nukes. I think that China might have received help from Russia; India did it alone. Of course, the last two, NK and possibly Iran, are debatable.

Why does everybody think making a nuke is hard? I might not know how to enrich uranium, but I can make you a nuke in a week if you give me unstable substance, everything else I have in my basement.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:11 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Why does everybody think making a nuke is hard? I might not know how to enrich uranium, but I can make you a nuke in a week if you give me unstable substance, everything else I have in my basement.

We think its hard because it is. You have control a reaction, and then let it go ballistic. Its not easy to get the right amount of Uranium, enriching Uranium is not easy, packing it is not easy; you have to do A LOT of calculating to get the right proportions, its not something you, or anyone, can do without government backing.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:13 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, I didn't know what you meant originally. But yes, it would be better if the nuke was burrowed into the meteor (a bit like a guided penetration bomb). What fragments are left need to also be hit.

Its not the best tactic, but its the best one. For me, I say put these nukes on the moon (the launch sites). Of course, US control cause its the only country that has sent man there.
Best tactic is a gravitational satelite.

And USA has last sent a man there fifty years ago. Why would you be the only ones to be allowed there? If that is so, accept UK's rule or take back your statement.

Wht is with this ameriland arrogance? What makes you so special? Genocides? Ethnocides? Threats? Corruption?

Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:16 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, I didn't know what you meant originally. But yes, it would be better if the nuke was burrowed into the meteor (a bit like a guided penetration bomb). What fragments are left need to also be hit.

Its not the best tactic, but its the best one. For me, I say put these nukes on the moon (the launch sites). Of course, US control cause its the only country that has sent man there.
Best tactic is a gravitational satelite.

And USA has last sent a man there fifty years ago. Why would you be the only ones to be allowed there? If that is so, accept UK's rule or take back your statement.

Wht is with this ameriland arrogance? What makes you so special? Genocides? Ethnocides? Threats? Corruption?

Gravitational Satellite? What?
The UK rule thing shows that you don't the US origin story (you aren't qualified to make a judgement) we FOUGHT our "captors" the UK. We won a war against them, and threw them away (I admit, with help from France).
"Amerilands" Okay. Right. Firstly, everything after that word is stereotypical. Next, the fact is that A) how are we genocidal? B) I don't know what the word means, and my dictionary is drawing a blank C) threats. Hmm. Right. Who do we make threats to again? Stand there and answer that. Then get back here. D)Corruption. Well, we had Bush. But. Hmm. I don't think I see the amount of corruption that say, EUROPE has.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:22 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh great. We have an Anti-American person here. Okay. Well. Its my job to defend the "mother country" so. Lets take a look at the "alternatives"
Russia- Putin is holding a job in that country
Britain-Broke
France-Broke
India-Rising, yes, but its people need help; many live in poverty
China- constantly hacks other countries, and has a communist background
South Africa- took apart its own nuclear arsenal; does not have a large economy in consideration with the previous mentions
Iran- doesn't have nukes
North Korea- are you kidding me?

That fact is this: the USA is the only country that KNOWS how to use a nuke (we only used in combat once) and that one use has kept a nuclear war at bay for SEVENTY YEARS. The USA has the most powerful military, in terms of technology (China has 1,000,000 more soldier). The US Minuteman III and Trident missiles are some of the best ICBMs in the world. The USA is the only country with "extensive" knowledge of deep space flight, that is, Voyager.

You are simply regurgitating propaganda initiated to control the actions of the American government.

Voyager = deep space flight experience?? You mean sending something out of orbi? Because that is all your scientists did. Spaceflight is simple, the only problem is that it is expensive.

And tell me a single thing that is wrong with communism. I dare you.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:22 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Voyager = deep space flight experience?? You mean sending something out of orbi? Because that is all your scientists did. Spaceflight is simple, the only problem is that it is expensive.

And tell me a single thing that is wrong with communism. I dare you.

We are starting to get off topic. Lets move this to the USA thread.

But just to quickly answer you.
Space flight not hard? Ask Werner Van Braun, or your favorite Russian scientist. DARE YOU. Reaching 17,500mph to just leave orbit is not easy. Its kinda sad you think that is easy.
Wrong with communism? You dare me? Okay. The government is a military dictatorship. Simple.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:25 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Gravitational Satellite? What?
The UK rule thing shows that you don't the US origin story (you aren't qualified to make a judgement) we FOUGHT our "captors" the UK. We won a war against them, and threw them away (I admit, with help from France).
"Amerilands" Okay. Right. Firstly, everything after that word is stereotypical. Next, the fact is that A) how are we genocidal? B) I don't know what the word means, and my dictionary is drawing a blank C) threats. Hmm. Right. Who do we make threats to again? Stand there and answer that. Then get back here. D)Corruption. Well, we had Bush. But. Hmm. I don't think I see the amount of corruption that say, EUROPE has.

Genocide - Indians.
Ethnocide - Indians.
Threats - increasing military strength.
Corruption - cultural, political, economical - in the same order: "music", terrorism, financial crisises.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:29 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
Genocide - Indians.
Ethnocide - Indians.
Threats - increasing military strength.
Corruption - cultural, political, economical - in the same order: "music", terrorism, financial crisises.

I am taking this in the USA thread.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:29 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
We are starting to get off topic. Lets move this to the USA thread.

But just to quickly answer you.
Space flight not hard? Ask Werner Van Braun, or your favorite Russian scientist. DARE YOU. Reaching 17,500mph to just leave orbit is not easy. Its kinda sad you think that is easy.
Wrong with communism? You dare me? Okay. The government is a military dictatorship. Simple.

I will leave rocket science on the side for now, but to cocnlude our short discussion on communism:
Did I say socialism? I meant comunism. Look it up, it seems you have never heard of it.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:31 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Deus "Big D." Otiosus
I will leave rocket science on the side for now, but to cocnlude our short discussion on communism:
Did I say socialism? I meant comunism. Look it up, it seems you have never heard of it.

Oh aren't you good at insults. Please, hang on. My, knowledge, of communism will surprise you.
Permalink
| June 10, 2013, 10:32 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Oh great. We have an Anti-American person here. Okay. Well. Its my job to defend the "mother country" so. Lets take a look at the "alternatives"
Russia- Putin is holding a job in that country
Britain-Broke
France-Broke
India-Rising, yes, but its people need help; many live in poverty
China- constantly hacks other countries, and has a communist background
South Africa- took apart its own nuclear arsenal; does not have a large economy in consideration with the previous mentions
Iran- doesn't have nukes
North Korea- are you kidding me?

That fact is this: the USA is the only country that KNOWS how to use a nuke (we only used in combat once) and that one use has kept a nuclear war at bay for SEVENTY YEARS. The USA has the most powerful military, in terms of technology (China has 1,000,000 more soldier). The US Minuteman III and Trident missiles are some of the best ICBMs in the world. The USA is the only country with "extensive" knowledge of deep space flight, that is, Voyager.

You are simply regurgitating propaganda initiated to control the actions of the American government.

Actually, it is countries like Iran, and other non-westernized countries in the Middle East that scare me the most. Many of those countries have made repeated threats to annihilate Israel and the US.

Also, Technically the US isn't the only country that knows how to "operate" nukes. Each country that has more than one, knows how to detonate them and therefor knows how to use them. Now, they might not know how to transport them, but that's a different story.

Now, I'll admit that the US isn't exactly the best, but it's better than some countries.
Permalink
| June 15, 2013, 2:19 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Randy R
Actually, it is countries like Iran, and other non-westernized countries in the Middle East that scare me the most. Many of those countries have made repeated threats to annihilate Israel and the US.

Also, Technically the US isn't the only country that knows how to "operate" nukes. Each country that has more than one, knows how to detonate them and therefor knows how to use them. Now, they might not know how to transport them, but that's a different story.

Now, I'll admit that the US isn't exactly the best, but it's better than some countries.

The US made the first nuclear weapon. Russia had spies implemented in the Manhattan Project, and from that knowledge, made a nuke. Britain and France were helped by the USA.
Yes, they have test detonated a nuke, but have they, used it in combat? There is a BIG difference.
Permalink
| June 15, 2013, 10:25 am
Alright, just to clarify, only larger nations have actually extensively tested nukes. Namely US and Russia.
Only the US has ever used nukes in combat.
Iran and all them smaller nations havent done much testing and are liable to blow themselves up sooner or later.
Though the fact that we can put a bomb in a pickle barrel through 6 inches of concrete means a little helping hand wouldnt hurt.
Permalink
| June 15, 2013, 12:03 pm
All Nukes are is a giant game of bluff. I don't believe that any country has the guts to attack another country with Nuclear Weapons. Because, what happens is they do? Instant end of the World. That's very uneconomic.
Permalink
| June 15, 2013, 4:30 pm
Quoting Thatch Gears
All Nukes are is a giant game of bluff. I don't believe that any country has the guts to attack another country with Nuclear Weapons. Because, what happens is they do? Instant end of the World. That's very uneconomic.

Now wait a sec. That was true in the cold war. now unless we nuke a country with a lot of nukes themselves, the world won't end.
Permalink
| June 15, 2013, 5:05 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Now wait a sec. That was true in the cold war. now unless we nuke a country with a lot of nukes themselves, the world won't end.

Ehm. I think it depends on what country drops the bomb. If its China or the USA, the firestorm would be pretty bad. India, France, or Britain, and things could be pretty bad in politics. Russia drops, boy will things head south. And if NK drops, people will laugh, dig up the dud bomb, and then proceed to destroy what little there is in NK.
Permalink
| June 16, 2013, 6:50 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Anyone else want to add anything about nukes?

Only one interesting point actually :-) If you ask the question "What is the optimal number of nukes in the world?" People will always answer: None!

That includes Tony Blair, Michail Gorbatjov and Pervez Musharraf :-D
Permalink
| June 17, 2013, 3:57 pm
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Now wait a sec. That was true in the cold war. now unless we nuke a country with a lot of nukes themselves, the world won't end.


What I'm talking about is that nukes are VERY convenient to use, witch is their greatest ability. Look at North Korea. Do they THREATEN to drop them? Yes. Are they? No.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 11:21 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Builder Allan
Only one interesting point actually :-) If you ask the question "What is the optimal number of nukes in the world?" People will always answer: None!

That includes Tony Blair, Michail Gorbatjov and Pervez Musharraf :-D

People answer none because they look at the worst case scenario; nuclear warfare. And, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you had the right to be scared. Now, though, its one of the things that are keeping China from attempting to attack us, and keeping the Russians down.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 11:49 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Thatch Gears

What I'm talking about is that nukes are VERY convenient to use, witch is their greatest ability. Look at North Korea. Do they THREATEN to drop them? Yes. Are they? No.

Well, like I said, its the threat (which I think is what your getting at). Though, its interesting 'cause everyone nows that the other won't fire, so, its threat can be a bit over exaggerated.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 11:51 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, like I said, its the threat (which I think is what your getting at). Though, its interesting 'cause everyone nows that the other won't fire, so, its threat can be a bit over exaggerated.


Like a great Paradox.... -_-
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 11:56 am
Quoting Achintya Prasad
People answer none because they look at the worst case scenario; nuclear warfare. And, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you had the right to be scared. Now, though, its one of the things that are keeping China from attempting to attack us, and keeping the Russians down.

Actually, people answer no to the question due to the phrasing; Optimally, the world wouldn't need such heinous weapons. But that's just me splitting hairs.. Basically, we opened the lid on one serious can of worms with nuclear weapons and energy, that's my viewpoint at least :-)
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 3:21 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
People answer none because they look at the worst case scenario; nuclear warfare. And, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, you had the right to be scared. Now, though, its one of the things that are keeping China from attempting to attack us, and keeping the Russians down.

This reminds me to the guns-debate. Do you think china would instant attack the USA if - hypothetically spoken - all nukes suddenly disappear?

Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 4:29 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Well, like I said, its the threat (which I think is what your getting at). Though, its interesting 'cause everyone nows that the other won't fire, so, its threat can be a bit over exaggerated.

Then what's the point of a threat if nobody has the b-lls to actually push the button? If people took nuclear threats seriously (which, after the cold war, that has steadily declined), then we would be in a constant state of fear. We knoe Kin Jung-Un wont hit the button and frankly, neither will we (we should though). If nobody takes a threat weapon seriously, why even have them? Use em or lose em people!
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 4:29 pm
Quoting Locutus 666
This reminds me to the guns-debate. Do you think china would instant attack the USA if - hypothetically spoken - all nukes suddenly disappear?

Thats a good question and there are a zillion conspiracies about a chinese attack on the US. some are believable and have a lot of logic to them, others are the product of people smoking something I never want a whiff of.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Zach Eli "Sierra" Sykes
Thats a good question and there are a zillion conspiracies about a chinese attack on the US. some are believable and have a lot of logic to them, others are the product of people smoking something I never want a whiff of.

Firstly, I am not saying that China would attack the USA, nukes or not. It wasn't a good example; a better one might be Russia and the USA.
China wouldn't attack because their economy would tank overnight; they need the US to survive.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 5:05 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Firstly, I am not saying that China would attack the USA, nukes or not. It wasn't a good example; a better one might be Russia and the USA.
China wouldn't attack because their economy would tank overnight; they need the US to survive.

Russia wouldnt attack the USA. Why should they?
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 5:12 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Russia wouldnt attack the USA. Why should they?

Putin is, well, Putin. Just a lot of mistrust across both sides; the Cold War ended not long ago.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 5:14 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
Putin is, well, Putin. Just a lot of mistrust across both sides; the Cold War ended not long ago.

Thats paranoid. In my opinion, the situation is just the opposite. Most countrys try to get nukes to be sure not be attacked by USA. Im sure, the last thing China and Russia are about to do, is attacking the USA. Both country lack in the ability to provide enough offensive power for such a campaign.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 5:21 pm
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
Thats paranoid. In my opinion, the situation is just the opposite. Most countrys try to get nukes to be sure not be attacked by USA. Im sure, the last thing China and Russia are about to do, is attacking the USA. Both country lack in the ability to provide enough offensive power for such a campaign.

No, no, no, yeah, is my response to that. The USA wouldn't attack without reason. Even if the reason is controversial, the US doesn't just go around, plundering different countries. And also, why would Britain and France get nukes? We sure as heck aren't going to attack them.
Finally, yes, both China and Russia would stand little in chance in an all-out, conventional war.
Permalink
| June 18, 2013, 5:27 pm
Quoting Achintya Prasad
No, no, no, yeah, is my response to that. The USA wouldn't attack without reason. Even if the reason is controversial, the US doesn't just go around, plundering different countries. And also, why would Britain and France get nukes? We sure as heck aren't going to attack them.
Finally, yes, both China and Russia would stand little in chance in an all-out, conventional war.

"The USA wouldn't attack without reason. Even if the reason is controversial, the US doesn't just go around, plundering different countries."
Thats not correct. Iraq 2003 was clearly done without any proven evidence of existing WMDs and/or any relationships to al qaida.

"And also, why would Britain and France get nukes?"
cold war
"Finally, yes, both China and Russia would stand little in chance in an all-out, conventional war. "
They can, as defenders. As I said, they arent able to perform a campaign against the USA but they are able to defend themselfs.
But the USA is able to perform an attack.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 9:08 am
 Group admin 
Quoting Locutus 666
"The USA wouldn't attack without reason. Even if the reason is controversial, the US doesn't just go around, plundering different countries."
Thats not correct. Iraq 2003 was clearly done without any proven evidence of existing WMDs and/or any relationships to al qaida.

"And also, why would Britain and France get nukes?"
cold war
"Finally, yes, both China and Russia would stand little in chance in an all-out, conventional war. "
They can, as defenders. As I said, they arent able to perform a campaign against the USA but they are able to defend themselfs.
But the USA is able to perform an attack.

On defenders, it depends on how much the US is committed to the attack.
Now, Iraq can be discussed in the USA thread; nobody liked Bush, or his actions, but I can defend the second invasion.
Permalink
| June 19, 2013, 1:38 pm
Just don't use them. If I had my way, they never would have been built by anyone.
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 9:03 pm
To me, WMD's like nukes are like the Halo Array from Halo. The forerunners built them as a FINAL no turning back One final effort last resort weapon that should only be used when all options have been exhausted 5 times over. and the Master Chief proved that these could be used for evil.

the reason we used them on japan was because we battled 5 long years and we were risking a full scale invasion that would of cost the casualties of half the army. so we used it in last resort.

but the problem is, somebody could use them to start a war, not end one. and we made it better. we designed deadlier nukes. and some body could destroy us with them. so, they probably shouldn't have them, and only build one when they know this is last resort.

we dont want to be fighting rebels, see a flash of light, then start fighting terminators.(just referencing a movie)
Permalink
| September 11, 2013, 10:37 pm
Nukes are the continental-scale personal firearm.
It doesn't matter how strong they are (million soldiers? doesn't matter!) because the moment they start to walk over the border they'll be ash.

Nukes are the only way places like, say, Tibet could avoid the attentions of places like, say, China.


So yeah, I'm all for 'em.


http://i1184.photobucket.com/albums/z335/HikageMaru/Battletech/Regulus-NukeDark.png
Permalink
| September 14, 2013, 8:54 pm
Other topics
student teen kid toy play lego child video game hobby blocks construction toy legos fun games



LEGO models my own creation MOCpages toys shop The International Fan of LEGO Debate ClubOther


You Your home page | LEGO creations | Favorite builders
Activity Activity | Comments | Creations
Explore Explore | Recent | Groups
MOCpages is an unofficial, fan-created website. LEGO® and the brick configuration are property of The LEGO Group, which does not sponsor, own, or endorse this site.
©2002-2014 Sean Kenney Design Inc | Privacy policy | Terms of use