Which non-nuclear nations SHOULD acquire nuclear weapons?

Comsat Angel said:
Lancashire! The North will rise again!

Holland, Finland and Poland. The first because if they nuke someone then they must have really, really deserved it. The second because of their large hostile neighbour to the east and the last because of their large hostile neighbour to the west. Plus they all end in "-land".
Click to expand...
polish nukes? theres a joke in there somewhere but its too early for me think it up
 
Comsat Angel said:
Lancashire! The North will rise again!

Holland, Finland and Poland. The first because if they nuke someone then they must have really, really deserved it. The second because of their large hostile neighbour to the east and the last because of their large hostile neighbour to the west. Plus they all end in "-land".
Click to expand...

Good point there. I can't see The Netherlands declaring war without a very, very good reason.
 
Screw it. Let them all have nukes. Scrap the non-proliferation treaty, and let's just get on with a big ol nuclear arms race of global proportions. Hey, it's a great game. Losers end up collapsing like houses of cards, their resources squandered on weapons they cannot afford and can never use without committing suicide.

Uh...you do know who will win, don't you?

No. Newbies can't win. They're just fish. Grist for lthe mill.
 
Last edited:
defaultdotxbe said:
polish nukes? theres a joke in there somewhere but its too early for me think it up
Click to expand...

I'll get the ball rolling:

Q: How do you sink a Polish ballistic missile submarine?
A: Put it in the water.

Q: How many Poles does it take to verify a launch code?
A: Launch code? What launch code?

Q: Where does the president of Poland keep the nuclear football?
A: In his son's toy box. No one will ever find it there.

Q: Would Poland ever resort to nuclear blackmail?
A: Uh...not on purpose. But one cannot predict what unfortunate series of events might occur while changing a light bulb in a missile silo. Especially if the (3) technicians are despondent about the unfair treatment their country has received at the hands of _________ (fill in the blank)

Q: Does Poland have a first-strike policy?
A: Uh...not on purpose. But things happen, you know. No fail-safe system is perfect.
 
Not specifically about nuclear weapons, but I've got another Polish joke, though not quite of the stereotypical nature.

A polish farmer is plowing his field one day when the plow hits something hard. He didgs it up, expecting a rock, but instead finds a lamp. The farmer rubs it and a genie pops out, and declares that he will grant the farmer three wishes.

The farmer says, "I want Mongol hordes to invade Poland and then go home." The genie is perplexed, but grants the wish. Mongol hordes stream into Poland, loot his farmhouse, and go home.

The genie asks the farmer for his second wish. The farmer again says, "I want Mongol hordes to invade Poland and then go home." The genie again grants his wish: Mongol hordes invade Poland, steal his livestock, and go home.

The genie asks the farmer for his third wish. The farmer yet again says, "I want Mongol hordes to invade Poland and then go home." The genie again grants his wish: Mongol hordes invade Poland, burn down his house, and go home.

Having granted his three wishes, the genie is released. But before he leaves, his curiosity gets the better of him. He says to the farmer, "I have granted your wishes. But why did you wish for something so terrible as Mongol hordes invading Poland? And why did you wish for it all three times?"

The farmer replies, "Well, if Mongol hordes invade Poland and go home three times, they have to go through Russia six times."
 
Why stop at nations?

I think , as a worldwide quasi-military organisation, The Boy Scouts should have nukes.
And the London Symphony Orchestra.
 
Last edited:
Astrodude said:
And we should just assume all countries will comply. If they don't comply, what would you do; ask them nicely to stop? If they ignore you, would you ask them sternly to stop?
Click to expand...
Look at what the world is doing with Iran. There is the answer to this question. Total isolation of your banking system, travel bans to your leaders, trade boycotts, etc.
 
JJM 777 said:
Look at what the world is doing with Iran. There is the answer to this question. Total isolation of your banking system, travel bans to your leaders, trade boycotts, etc.
Click to expand...
and is it working? has iran ceased their nuclear program?


also, if everyone destroyed their nuclear stockpiles and, say, china decided they wanted them back and restarted their nuclear program, how well do you think trade boycotts would fair against china?

and would they be an effective deterrent to prevent a small, already largely isolated nation (like north korea) from becoming the only country in the world with nukes? the potential reward might outweigh the risks
 
I don´t see what the potential "reward" would be for NK to have nukes, other than a status quo where they are never used and USA never has the courage to attack NK. Which is the purpose for which countries want to have them. No country wants nuclear weapons for the purpose of actually using them, they are the ultimate defense weapon.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
and is it working? has iran ceased their nuclear program?
Click to expand...

The Iran issue could be the death knell for the NPT. If Iran cannot be stopped from proliferating, then it is better if the treaty is scrapped.

defaultdotxbe said:
also, if everyone destroyed their nuclear stockpiles and, say, china decided they wanted them back and restarted their nuclear program, how well do you think trade boycotts would fair against china?
Click to expand...

Quite well, if the entire planet were united in opposition.

defaultdotxbe said:
and would they be an effective deterrent to prevent a small, already largely isolated nation (like north korea) from becoming the only country in the world with nukes? the potential reward might outweigh the risks
Click to expand...

Obviously, a nuke-free globe could not include any North Koreas. That's axiomatic. The original idea was to work systematically toward a nuke-free world. However, the work involved, and the pragmatic nature of the necessary work, may well prove too much for a monkeyworld. I guess the framers just thought it was worth a shot.
 
Last edited:
JJM 777 said:
OK, the answer is: all atom bomb countries should immediately destroy their nuclear weapons, and _after_ they have done so, all countries should be strictly obliged not to pursue nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting attempt at a solution.

What is your plan for making that happen?

Are you familiar with the failures and successes of the Non Proliferation Treaty?

How do you intend to account that those factors in your idealized "solution" to what you see as a problem?
 
JJM 777 said:
I don´t see what the potential "reward" would be for NK to have nukes, other than a status quo where they are never used and USA never has the courage to attack NK. Which is the purpose for which countries want to have them. No country wants nuclear weapons for the purpose of actually using them, they are the ultimate defense weapon.
Click to expand...
with the possibility of a nuclear counterattack removed, im not sure that would be the case

Toontown said:
Quite well, if the entire planet were united in opposition.
Click to expand...
thats a pretty big "if" IMO

Toontown said:
Obviously, a nuke-free globe could not include any North Koreas. That's axiomatic. The original idea was to work systematically toward a nuke-free world. However, the work involved, and the pragmatic nature of the necessary work, may well prove too much for a monkeyworld. I guess the framers just thought it was worth a shot.
Click to expand...
and a crime-free nation would not include any criminals, but over here in the real world its easier said than done


for the record, i am in favor of nonproliferation, but the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and the bottle has been smashed to a million pieces, absent the development of an even greater weapon of mass destruction i dont see total disarmament coming any time soon
 
defaultdotxbe said:
for the record, i am in favor of nonproliferation, but the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and the bottle has been smashed to a million pieces, absent the development of an even greater weapon of mass destruction i dont see total disarmament coming any time soon
Click to expand...

Yeah, well. I'm in favor of homemade ice cream, but I'm opposed to cranking a handle all day to make it. Too bad we can't just buy homemade ice cream at the supermarket.
 
defaultdotxbe said:
thats a pretty big "if" IMO
Click to expand...

What choice would a monkeyworld have, in that hypthetical situation, other than the obvious but seldom-availed surrender option?

Strangely enough, total disarmament would seem to put a monkeyworld in a situation in which it would have no viable option except to enforce the NPT by all necessary means.
 
Toontown said:
What choice would a monkeyworld have, in that hypthetical situation, other than the obvious but seldom-availed surrender option?

Strangely enough, total disarmament would seem to put a monkeyworld in a situation in which it would have no viable option except to enforce the NPT by all necessary means.
Click to expand...
and the necessary means would seem to be develop your own nuclear weapons as a deterrent, since thats how it happened the first time around
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom