Five of World's Most Powerful Nations Pledge To Avoid Nuclear War

| Five of the world's most powerful nations have agreed that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought" in a rare joint pledge to reduce the risk of such a conflict ever starting. The pledge was signed by the US, Russia, China, the UK and France, the five nuclear weapons states recognized by the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) who are also the five permanent members of the UN security council.

| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/01/03/p5-statement-on-preventing-nuclear-war-and-avoiding-arms-races/


| 总结就一句话,我们有了核武器,你们就别弄了,你敢弄我就敢弄你

| Huh, again? Neat.

| I mean, everyone knows this isn't worth the paper it's printed on, right?

Promises between governments never are.

| >>820887
Considering the consequences of starting a nuclear war I believe said governments this time. These aren't doomsday-cults.

| >>820889
I mean, the consequences have never changed. It's always been a MAD situation. That's why we've never seen tactical use of nukes.

Doing this is just meaningless handwriting to distract from all the problems they could be working on, but require more resources.

| >>821031
>Doing this is just meaningless handwriting to distract from all the problems they could be working on

source me on this

| >>821037. No.

| >>821037
The biggest issue is global warming.

As detailed in this analysis published in 2018, the Paris environmental goals would do the job, if they'd been instituted in 1985. In order to avoid a severe global temperature increase, it would currently require CO2 capture on an industrial scale. And since there's no money in it, the only way that would happen is government drive.


| >>821219
Thought so

| >>821264
I did. See >>821220

I just felt like being a smart ass.

| >>821289
You're not a smart ass, just a smartass.

| just sum up:
we have got nuclear weapons.
The rest of u can't have nuclear weapons.
If u dare to do it, u will die

| theatre

| Nuclear weapons are overrated. Unless your city is built on wood like Hiroshima, you will be fine. Nuclear winter is also a myth.

| >>822056
What???? Dude read a history book. It was saturation firebombing that destoryed the wooden city of Kyoto. The atomic bombs were detonated midair which caused altogether WORSE damage due to the ensuing fallout. If you live in a leaden bunker and have a frewh supply of food and water for 2 years you're fine, not just by dint of having some concrete walls. Also nuclear winter is less the issue than...entire major cities and political bodies being scrubbed

| >>822104 concrete walls offer enough protection from a shock wave after a relatively short distance. The blast itself is devastating (can vaporize human tissue, for example), but its radius is short.

So, a modern city can withstand dozens of nukes before a complete destruction.

| Keep in mind that nukes are expensive. If you want to destroy a city there is a number of cheaper and more effective ways to do that.

| >>822274
once again the death toll was highest due to the fallout and not the initial blast. You are absoluteky correct inthat if you want to cause immediate crater level, citywiping damage stuff like Thor's Hammer or saturation bombs would be better but there is a distinct reason that nukes are considered so much worse in yknow radioactivity. And to date there are no yields greater than those produced by atomic weaponry in military armaments save the hydrogen bomb

| >>822278
and there really isnt much cheaper way to do that save having a small strike force smuggle massive payloads into the infrastructural centre. Nukes may be expensive but a single payload delivered or a near detonation is as worth if not more the cost to send up a fleet of jets, stock them with pricey missiles, and hope they don't get shot down/all hit their marks

Total number of posts: 21, last modified on: Sun Jan 1 00:00:00 1641802699

This thread is closed.