Do you believe that Nuclear Warfare should be used in war?

«1
Victor-_-TheStar
309 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
I do believed that we should use nukes as a last resort even if it will have bad effects on our planet. Can be useful during a invasion and defensive against the enemy if you use nuclear technology. But tell me why you hate nuclear technology or support it? Don't say you hate it because it will destroy the earth i want a real reason why.
russia-nuclear-mis_1817822b.jpg

Comments

  • OrangeNinja24
    133 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    I think they should never be used.
    -Never should that many innocent civilians die.
    --Now, if it was this huge army base that was like 10 miles wide, that'd be fine since it's the enemies military, but I'm pretty sure if there ever was another nuke dropped (God forbid) it'd kill thousands of other innocent lives. Just a hunch.
  • meowpewpewmeow
    303 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited July 2016
    they shouldn't be invented in 1st place.
    but practically-spkng: what point in them, otherwise ? eg, unused.
    legally-speaking - their use was forbidden by UN and affilates for all members.
    thats include USA and WWII experience. among other war crimes they did.
  • SatanicMutant
    507 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield Member
    It is inevitable.
  • DrVanNostrand1
    869 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited July 2016
    dear comrade,you ain't got better things to do?
  • DurablCapitalism
    40 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE Member
    Of course they should be used, we as humans always use the best of technology we have. And for all the people who think dropping nukes on Japan is "humane". Just open up a history book and see what they did to the Chinese.
  • jasta6
    472 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited July 2016
    Why should the fire be shared with so few?
    Let bombs explode, 'cause that's what they do
    Nuke Mecca, New York, the Vatican too
    Give me a bomb, I'll drop it on you
    Why stop at only two?
    We'll show the world just what they can do
    What a waste not to destroy
    Come play at war, man, and bring your best toy
  • Crispy_Pinguin
    1599 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    Never but humans are destructive by nature. Its needs just one human to destroy all for everyone!
  • DrVanNostrand1
    869 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    what is your problem panda ?
  • HonestSoul333
    1402 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Why is destroying the Earth not a good enough reason?
  • cleankiller9
    27 postsMember, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    Ever heard of a nukkake?
  • Professor_Memes
    1139 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
  • Ameeba37
    1753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    If a nuclear weapon was used in a war there would be nukes flying everywhere after the first one. That war would have no winners.
  • Thumper2671
    463 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, CTE, Battlefield V Member
    1.Mutually assured destruction
    2. Without them, the Japanese would have never surrendered (most likely)
  • HonestSoul333
    1402 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    edited July 2016
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
    They should never be used on this planet.
    this planet.
    Nuke the moon!
    Nuke the Sun!
  • Professor_Memes
    1139 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
    They should never be used on this planet.
    this planet.
    Nuke the moon!

    I more so meant that if we needed to use them in space, like in the event we had the opportunity to deflect an asteroid of a course with earth.


    Or you know.....


    to kill Aliens
  • Sky_collapsed
    267 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Member
    edited July 2016
    Nuclear war should never be used unless it is used as a last and final resort when your country faces been invaded and over taken by said forces, than, and ONLY than can it be justified, but in any other circumstances, it cannot be justified.

    However,,, Nuclear weapons per se should be purged from this world as in the case of a war, especially world war, they, along with chemical weapons, are too tempting to use.

    However,, nuclear energy should be widely supported and encouraged, especially fusion power (Once we get that up and running) as nuclear energy is a much cleaner source of energy over coal and wind, however, Solar power, wave technology and gravitational energy generation and etc are fine.
  • Ameeba37
    1753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
    They should never be used on this planet.
    this planet.
    Nuke the moon!

    I more so meant that if we needed to use them in space, like in the event we had the opportunity to deflect an asteroid of a course with earth.


    Or you know.....


    to kill Aliens

    What if you use them to create EMPs?
  • Professor_Memes
    1139 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Ameeba37 wrote: »
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
    They should never be used on this planet.
    this planet.
    Nuke the moon!

    I more so meant that if we needed to use them in space, like in the event we had the opportunity to deflect an asteroid of a course with earth.


    Or you know.....


    to kill Aliens

    What if you use them to create EMPs?

    What, like detonate it high up in the atmosphere over the country you were trying to launch the EMP against? It would still launch radioactive particles into the jetstream and screw over basically the entire planet.
  • Ameeba37
    1753 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield, Battlefield 1, Battlefield V Member
    Ameeba37 wrote: »
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
    They should never be used on this planet.
    this planet.
    Nuke the moon!

    I more so meant that if we needed to use them in space, like in the event we had the opportunity to deflect an asteroid of a course with earth.


    Or you know.....


    to kill Aliens

    What if you use them to create EMPs?

    What, like detonate it high up in the atmosphere over the country you were trying to launch the EMP against? It would still launch radioactive particles into the jetstream and screw over basically the entire planet.

    I'm not a pro at how EMPs work, but if nuclear weapon is detonated hundreds of kilometers above the surface of earth, isn't it basically space at that point. Jetsreams are a lot lower too. If/when the particles fall down however, then yes, it'll be bad for us on the ground.

    Can't seem to find anywhere how it would affect earth, excluding the EMP of course...
  • Professor_Memes
    1139 postsMember, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefield, Battlefield 1 Member
    Ameeba37 wrote: »
    Ameeba37 wrote: »
    They should never be used on this planet. I do not agree with mass civilian casualties being a pawn used in a war. Nevermind the horrific after affects of the weapons.
    They should never be used on this planet.
    this planet.
    Nuke the moon!

    I more so meant that if we needed to use them in space, like in the event we had the opportunity to deflect an asteroid of a course with earth.


    Or you know.....


    to kill Aliens

    What if you use them to create EMPs?

    What, like detonate it high up in the atmosphere over the country you were trying to launch the EMP against? It would still launch radioactive particles into the jetstream and screw over basically the entire planet.

    I'm not a pro at how EMPs work, but if nuclear weapon is detonated hundreds of kilometers above the surface of earth, isn't it basically space at that point. Jetsreams are a lot lower too. If/when the particles fall down however, then yes, it'll be bad for us on the ground.

    Can't seem to find anywhere how it would affect earth, excluding the EMP of course...

    I'm no expert either so I'm just guessing, but I can't imagine nuclear detonation in the stratosphere would have a good impact on the ozone layer. Using it an an EMP would probably the least harmful way it could be used though.
Sign In or Register to comment.