Nuclear missles ready to launch around the world

[Deleted]

What do you think? (notice these are only the ones we know of)

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...e-world-2012-6

Alas the picture is too big to upload, but it's at that link.

[Deleted]

Pretty impressive and frightening at the same time.

[Tinykong]

I don't have a problem with this. It's very similar to gun control laws: if law abiding citizens (or in this case, countries) agree to turn in their weapons (or nukes) for destruction, the only thing that will happen is a higher proportion of criminals (extremist groups/countries) will have their still illegal weapons.

[Simulacrum]

I don't have a problem with this. It's very similar to gun control laws: if law abiding citizens (or in this case, countries) agree to turn in their weapons (or nukes) for destruction, the only thing that will happen is a higher proportion of criminals (extremist groups/countries) will have their still illegal weapons.

Cleraly this analogy is flawless.

[Xarkan]

I don't have a problem with this. It's very similar to gun control laws: if law abiding citizens (or in this case, countries) agree to turn in their weapons (or nukes) for destruction, the only thing that will happen is a higher proportion of criminals (extremist groups/countries) will have their still illegal weapons.

But if all law abiding citizens had nukes there would soon be no crime.. you cannot say the same about guns.. so abolish guns and give everyone a nuke?

[Kaj392]

It seems the USA should keep quiet about other country's having nuclear missile's...

What happened to that 'oh let's build a anti-Russia rocket defensive system near their border' shit? Seems more likely to build something against the USA...

[Deleted]

Jeezus.... with that amount of Nukes, I don't see why USA, tried to take teh Weapons of Mass destruction from Pakistan... I mean they could of leveled it within the second. Secondly USA seems pretty hypocritical looking at this picture :|.

[Deleted]

It seems the USA should keep quiet about other country's having nuclear missile's...

What happened to that 'oh let's build a anti-Russia rocket defensive system near their border' shit? Seems more likely to build something against the USA...

They're like.. 100 launchers apart which, in the great scheme of things, is not really a big diffrence. (I mean, lets say your country is being nuked. Do you REALLY care if you're being targeted by 1.2k or 1.3k nukes? xD)

Edit: I also think both the Russian and U.S missile defense systems and such should remain. Why give them reason to question weither firing the nukes is possible to get away with or not? Goes both ways, though. The Russians should not remove their defense system but neither should the U.S. Although "Defense system" is really not an accurate word, rather than calling them "You fire at us, we fire back fast" systems.. xD

2x Edit: Oh! But in the case of downforcing nuclear weapons, I think everyone would do well in taking a good, long disarming status. I mean, does'nt have to mean scrap them entirely, but if they could agree to downgrade just 50% from each nation (Including you, North Korea) that'd be awesome. Would it make the world safer? Well, yeah. Would it make the nations disarming themselves safer? Yes and no.

But overall, it would benefit everyone if there were'nt such a nuclear scare all the time. We've got to get out of the "Bigger stick" system that the world has been following since.. forever. I'm not talking world pacifism, but we've come to the point where the sticks are so big they can effectively destroy the planet. That's NOT a good sollution to... anything! xD

[Cairm]

Damn, where is Canada?

[Deleted]

Jeezus.... with that amount of Nukes, I don't see why USA, tried to take teh Weapons of Mass destruction from Pakistan... I mean they could of leveled it within the second. Secondly USA seems pretty hypocritical looking at this picture :|.

Because they know that it doesn't matter if you have 100 or 10k nukes, if one hits, millions die. And it also depends where it hits, if it hits a major center of the country, it might lead to huge problems over time.

[Tinykong]

Cleraly this analogy is flawless.

Do you have anything relevant to add other than a snide quip? I don't see how there is any flaw to this; the only people who will willfully hand over a deadly weapon are those who would most likely never use it for a nefarious purpose. Outlawing guns (or nukes in this case) means that criminals/bad guys/whatever will just have a larger proportion of them in comparison to everyone else.

Thinking that a rogue nation or a terrorist cell will simply hand over their weapons and say "lol here you go, peace sounds like a great idea" is completely ridiculous.

But if all law abiding citizens had nukes there would soon be no crime.. you cannot say the same about guns.. so abolish guns and give everyone a nuke?

I'm saying there is nothing wrong with the current system. Laws/treaties only work when everyone playing the game are at the table signing the agreement. You won't remove the ability for criminals to have access to weapons if you enact a law they refuse to abide by.

[Deleted]

What do you think? (notice these are only the ones we know of)

http://www.businessinsider.com/this-...e-world-2012-6

Alas the picture is too big to upload, but it's at that link.

An excessive, pointless amount of nuclear weaponry that would have no other effect than our own total annihilation. The epitome of human idiocy, the very tip of the iceberg that is stupidity.

I honestly do not see the function our point they supposedly have. What purpose would it serve to launch even a fraction of them on anyone? You lose even if you win. It's stop abhorently retarded.

[La]

I don't have a problem with this. It's very similar to gun control laws: if law abiding citizens (or in this case, countries) agree to turn in their weapons (or nukes) for destruction, the only thing that will happen is a higher proportion of criminals (extremist groups/countries) will have their still illegal weapons.

Yeah, that must be why countries where having guns are for the most part illegal are so incredibly safe and crime is so low, as compared to a country that thinks if EVERYONE has a gun, that they should feel safer. i`ve always considered that an incredibly ignorant way to think.

OT: let the party begin

Damn, where is Canada?

peacekeeping nations don`t carry nukes.

[Deleted]

Do you have anything relevant to add other than a snide quip? I don't see how there is any flaw to this; the only people who will willfully hand over a deadly weapon are those who would most likely never use it for a nefarious purpose. Outlawing guns (or nukes in this case) means that criminals/bad guys/whatever will just have a larger proportion of them in comparison to everyone else.

Thinking that a rogue nation or a terrorist cell will simply hand over their weapons and say "lol here you go, peace sounds like a great idea" is completely ridiculous.


.

There is a reason teh acronrym for this kind of thinking is MAD

[Deleted]

Damn, where is Canada?

As far as it is known, Canada does not have nukes. Germany, Italy and some other countries only have them through sharing with NATO, so they're not theirs and Belarus, Kazahstan, Ukraine and South Africa no longer have nukes. There's only one country which is sure to have nukes not on the list, and that is North Korea, because it's unknown how many and if they're ready to launch at any moment, their test a few months back suggests no.

[Krony]

Jeezus.... with that amount of Nukes, I don't see why USA, tried to take teh Weapons of Mass destruction from Pakistan... I mean they could of leveled it within the second. Secondly USA seems pretty hypocritical looking at this picture :|.

the middle east has a history of radicals over throwing the governments what do you think will happen when a suicide bomber gets a nuke if they run can into a group of thier own ppl and kill them already?

[Xalzel]

Damn, where is Canada?

Canada has no nukes

[tombstoner139]

I don't have a problem with this. It's very similar to gun control laws: if law abiding citizens (or in this case, countries) agree to turn in their weapons (or nukes) for destruction, the only thing that will happen is a higher proportion of criminals (extremist groups/countries) will have their still illegal weapons.

I'm not sure where the gun control fits in. the graphic shows nuke available for use. personally i think the one county that has used nukes on people for "national interests" shouldn't be allowed to keep them. if anything is forces others to arm themselves for safety: forcing nuclear proliferation.

If your neighbor is in a fight with another neighbor and then one of them gets a gun from wallmart. then proceed to kill one or two of the neighbors. forcing a resolution. I'm inclined to get a gun myself just in case i ever have an issue with the shooter. So yea the USSR had to develop nukes for self defense.
it also means that iran must also have them to feel safe. the end result is no one is safe. The only sane solution is to voluntary disarm

[Deleted]

the middle east has a history of radicals over throwing the governments what do you think will happen when a suicide bomber gets a nuke if they run can into a group of thier own ppl and kill them already?

Nobody would care, obviously! Although if the suicide bomber turned out to be U.S, oh boy.. You'd have the world up in arms about it!

[Xalzel]

Jeezus.... with that amount of Nukes, I don't see why USA, tried to take teh Weapons of Mass destruction from Pakistan... I mean they could of leveled it within the second. Secondly USA seems pretty hypocritical looking at this picture :|.

Because America would not launch their nukes for any reason but a last resort to destroy everything. Where as a terrorist would use a nuke with no regret.

Also, America has enough nuclear power alone to destroy the world 5 times over.