Would a large nuclear war be good for the world?

It's not just the size. If you have a ground level or underground detonation, the radiation will stay for a VERY long time. Hence the whole Bikini Islands deal. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were re-inhabited soon after their destruction. The radiation doesn't stay very long if it's indeed an air detonation.
Either way, the world getting obliterated by nukes is bad news for everyone.
 
Guys, okay, all valid points. But since our purpose is population control and not ecological destruction, we'd employ the appropriate yield/method of detonation that has the least adverse effects on the environment.

And this is not a question of good versus evil, as good and evil are merely points of view. Is uncontrolled population increase good? When you really think about it at its philosophical essence, blowing up nuclear bombs is only as bad as forcing the world to use condoms. They both keep the next human from happenning. Now, if you have the power to protect yourself from its effects, a nuclear method serves your purpose better as it'll also eliminate the ones that are already in existence. Big fish eat small fish.

...

You know what, nevermind. This is pretty freaking twisted. I guess we'll just let the nature itself take care of it. :)
 
Terminator Salvation starring Christian Bale takes place in a post-nuclear war world. Humans fighting Robots.

But in real life, a nuclear war would scare the day lights out of me.
 
Population control..... What a ridiculous idea. Even the biggest of wars don't really reduce the population. Disease kills....

Spanish influenza (1918-1919) - killed 100 million people in 6 months
The Black Death (1300/1400's) - killed a third of Europe's population
Malaria - 2.7 million people a year
AIDS - 25 million dead since 1981
Plague of Justinian (541 AD) - 10,000 people a day in Constantinople
1st Cholera Pandemic (1817 to 1823) - 100,000 British troops dead and staggering numbers of locals in India
Typhus (1939 to 1945) - 9 Million

Now look a nuclear deaths;
Estimated total deaths from Hiroshima are 200,000 by 1950
Estimated total deaths from Nagasaki are 80,000 by the end of 1945

Nuclear war is weak as a kitten when it comes to killing people, but it'll destroy civilisation itself.
 
I don't think birth control is a good idea if you're the only ones using it... that's basically race suicide. Let disease do its job, it'll happen sooner or later regardless of how advanced our medical science is. Nature will find a way.
 
These are not our Fathers' nukes. The large portion are not as dirty as WWII, but they are infinitely more destructive. There will be no end to retaliatory strikes until most life forms are destroyed or damaged. The boxer mentality of Humans is to keep pounding, then start kicking until no threat remains.
 
Lunatik said:
What if all nuclear countries attack all non-nuclear ones? :shoothea:
Click to expand...

Yes, because politically, all of the nuclear countries are allied with each other against all of the non-nuclear countries. We're best friends with China and Russia, right? :rolleyes:
 
No but we all remember the WW2 stories where Germans and the French and the Brits were at each others neck, now politically they're considered the same country; EU. Likewise, America and Japan. Once super-enemies, now super-friends... Interests and alliances change in time. And I believe the planet's exploding population and depleting resources will soon enough force a lot of changes around the neighborhood.
 
Lunatik said:
No but we all remember the WW2 stories where Germans and the French and the Brits were at each others neck, now politically they're considered the same country; EU. Likewise, America and Japan. Once super-enemies, now super-friends... Interests and alliances change in time. And I believe the planet's exploding population and depleting resources will soon enough force a lot of changes around the neighborhood.
Click to expand...

UK & France were allies, not at each others throats as your post suggests.... Also, they are not super-friends. All these nations are civil western colleagues at best. There are very few nations in the world who are "super-friends" with each other.
 
Japan is a good ally but I think on the scale of who our best allies are, I would say Japan is at least, behind the UK, Canada and Australia. Deep down, I would assume they are not too pleased with still not being allowed to develop a more powerful military as they used to have.
 
Actually Japan has liked that arrangement until now.
They know that the policy saved them trillions and they were able to use those funds to better their economy.
Recently, however, there has been more of a nationalistic movement going on in Japan which is one of the reasons why they've been trying to claim Dokdo as their own. They call it Takeshima, but it is also called Liancourt Rocks by sources who wish to remain "neutral."
Japan's increased militarism will become a greater issue in the coming decades.
 
If you must use war as a means for population control, I think a conventional conflict on the scale of WWII would work just fine. But I don't think the incredible suffering and loss of life is worth it.
 
I find it sadly funny when people talk about such things: "It would be great if something killed off a chunk of our world population so rescources wouldn't be as rare." Yes, saying that is one thing, realising that you are going to be part of the chunk who dies isn't too great, realising it's your intire country isn't too great either.

I bet many of us in the west are talking about how great it would be if countries like China and India would be wiped off so we would have more rescources to ourselves. Yah uhmmm, they're probably thinking the same thing.

All in all, I find this idea sick.
 
major liability said:
If you must use war as a means for population control, I think a conventional conflict on the scale of WWII would work just fine. But I don't think the incredible suffering and loss of life is worth it.
Click to expand...

61 million people died in WW2..... 100 million died in 6 months from Spanish Influenza

War is a wasted effort in terms of the achievement desired.
 
Missileer said:
These are not our Fathers' nukes. The large portion are not as dirty as WWII, but they are infinitely more destructive. There will be no end to retaliatory strikes until most life forms are destroyed or damaged. The boxer mentality of Humans is to keep pounding, then start kicking until no threat remains.
Click to expand...

Lunatik + others

This is one of the rare moments where I agree with Missileer but he's absolutely right on this. The bombs dropped on Japan were bottle rockets compared to what we got today. The WMDs the USAF are plutonium based which is extremely radioactive (what they use is nuclear reactors). And given the fact that ICBMs can have up to 3 independent warheads (Minuteman III), that means that you easily irratiate an entire country with only a few missiles.

Its one of those inventions humanity could use to uninvent.
 
Last edited:
Too bad they're so damned inventable.
Ironically helps keep the peace, but if someone screws up, that truly is the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top