A small nuclear war would reduce global crop yields

2012-08-01 17:20:57

#51

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

_j5689_ wrote:
Who let either one of these retarded third world countries acquire nukes? There's a reason third world countries are third world, because the leaders are idiots, now they're free to bomb each other over whatever likely petty shit they feel like getting prideful and angry about.

If nukes are allowed to exist, they should only be for deterrent purposes, not for offensive measures

ahahahahahah

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-08-01 18:11:26

#52

Cybargs: Moderated; +2,285|6955

india is so third world they developed nukes by themselves.

https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png

2012-08-01 18:41:21

#53

Ty: Mass Media Casualty; +2,398|7014|Noizyland

So... nukes should exist for the sole reason to deter people, but this comes with a threat that nukes can be used, but if they exist only for deterring people than they can't be used, so that means that if someone with nukes threatens the use of a nuclear weapon they should be deterred by another nuclear-armed nation which means that they should be deterred by more nuclear arms and-

https://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/320/e/9/gir_head_asplode_by_captainvendetta-d330mzd.gif

Seriously that is a dumb fucking suggestion. It's like cleaning up dog crap by painting the rest of the carpet brown. There is has only ever been one use for nukes; killin' dudes. Unless you live in the Movieverse where nukes can re-start the Earth's core and/or the Sun.

[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon

2012-08-01 20:41:24

#54

A2TG2: Hazbeen; +67|4764|at your six

Ty wrote:
So... nukes should exist for the sole reason to deter people, but this comes with a threat that nukes can be used, but if they exist only for deterring people than they can't be used, so that means that if someone with nukes threatens the use of a nuclear weapon they should be deterred by another nuclear-armed nation which means that they should be deterred by more nuclear arms and-

Seriously that is a dumb fucking suggestion. It's like cleaning up dog crap by painting the rest of the carpet brown. There is has only ever been one use for nukes; killin' dudes. Unless you live in the Movieverse where nukes can re-start the Earth's core and/or the Sun.

?

What MAJOR ground wars, ala Dresden, have been fought after WW2?
Nukes have, thus far prevented major ground wars.

Don't mistake the imperialist plunder of Iraq and Afghanistan for major ground wars; they are not Sir.

https://www.facebook.com/newworldepic

2012-08-01 20:58:15

#55

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

What does dresden have to do with ground war?

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2012-08-01 20:59:13

#56

Superior Mind: (not macbeth); +1,755|6932

All we have to do is keep our fingers off the launch buttons long enough evolve into beings of peace.

x

2012-08-02 02:55:39

#57

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

i'm sure the million+ dead across vietnam, cambodia et al agree with your characterisation of it as "not a ground war"

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2012-08-02 03:01:13

#58

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Korea, Vietnam/Cambodia, Iraq I, Afghanistan, Iraq II

If Dresden counts as a ground war then I'd add Pakistan.

Fuck Israel

2012-08-02 15:42:01

#59

BVC: Member; +325|6935

Also, correlation is not causation. Just because there hasn't been a world war since WW2, that doesn't prove that nukes are the reason for this. Its also possible that people realised world wars are a really stupid idea.

2012-08-02 15:53:55

#60

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

A nuclear war between India and Pakistan, each using 50 warheads, would significantly reduce global crop yields, depending on the crop/location.

There would be 1.5 billion less mouths to feed so it might balance itself out.

2012-08-02 18:32:07

#61

BVC: Member; +325|6935

Macbeth wrote:
There would be 1.5 billion less mouths to feed so it might balance itself out.

Except India is fairly import-neutral for food, so you'd still end up with a net global loss of food for quite a few years.

2012-08-03 00:32:41

#62

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|6953|Purplicious Wisconsin

Superior Mind wrote:
All we have to do is keep our fingers off the launch buttons long enough evolve into beings of peace.

*Facepalm*

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2012-08-03 04:29:27

#63

unnamednewbie13: Moderator; +2,053|7011|PNW

Superior Mind wrote:
All we have to do is keep our fingers off the launch buttons long enough evolve into beings of peace.

Yeah, I don't think that's going to happen. I'm betting we'll evolve violence into a highly refined art form, though. Could be the envy of the galaxy. Like the Louvre for sociopaths.

2012-08-03 05:12:50

#64

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|6929|Tampa Bay Florida

Ground war in this case = total war between two industrialized nations

The only thing that will save humanity will be a major interspecies conflict with beings from outer space. All of the worlds problems would be gone in about 2 days.

Last edited by Spearhead (2012-08-03 05:13:52)

2012-08-03 06:54:16