Why aren't nuclear weapons banned in war but chemical

>>134561019
Chemical weapons are more painful.

>>134561019
if they proliferate they are much easier to make/acquire than nukes and can easily do great damage in the hands of non military users

>>134561019
Chemical weapons are more painful, but also less efficient. No one wants to give up nukes because they're too useful as opposed to chemical weapons.

Because nukes are more humane than chemical weapons. A nuke will kill you right away, but chemical weapons will leave you in antagonizing pain for a very long time. Also, really only two countries have nukes: the USA and Russia.

>>134561019
Nukes are fear propaganda invented at the start of the cold war

File: never-before-seen-videos-show-nuclear-weapons-being-secretly-detonated-in-the-nevada-desert.png (1MB, 987x741px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 987x741px

>>134561416
9 countries have nukes, m8y

>>134561189
>>134561310
Death by radiation poisoning is even slower and more painful.

>>134561706
While that is true, Nukes are more useful, if you had read the post. Nuclear weapons are far, far more powerful, so can be used as a deterrent. There is no chance in hell that the US, Russia, or any other nuclear powers would give up on Nukes because of this reason.

>>134561291
>>134561416
>>134561570
Nukes not only kill right away hundreds of thousands of people in the main target zone, but those around will slowly and painfully die of radiation poisoning.
In the end they are more inhumane, painful and deadly than chemical weapons.
Of course they are totally okay and legal because the countries who have nukes are also the countries with permanent seats in the UN security council.

>>134561897
How can El Salvador get nukes too?

>>134561951
You've answered your own question, then.

>>134561019
The nukes that were around in WWII could take out cities.

they have nukes 1000s of times stronger now
they aren't gonna get used, and the threat of their use is what has kept any real big wars from happening since WWII - it's all """cold""" wars and proxies

>>134562018
Start mining that uranium, friendo.
Good luck though, the superpowers of this world are keen on no one having nukes that isn't either a non-threat or allies. Personally i'd like every nation to have nukes, but that's just me.

They don't exist.

because kikes write the rules for war, and Israel's biggest weapon is the Sampson option.

>>134561019
Nobody can tell a nuclear armed nation what to do.

>>134561019
>Why aren't nuclear weapons banned in war but chemical weapons are?

chemical weapons wont cause a nucleair winter or a complete destruction of a country for decades deu the lasting radiation.

when youre talking about chemical weapons am assuming things like musterd gas ans sarin gas right?

>>134562090
you want djibouti, zimbabwe and the congo to have nuclear weapons?

>>134562453
Why not? nobody would fuck with them. And if the countries next to it had them as well? the reverse would be the same.

>>134561019
>Banning things in war
What are you gonna do? Declare war?

>>134561019
Chemical weapons are obsolete in nuclear powers, so they are OK for noone having them and everyone else is a little bitch.
They are also 2spooky and produce lasting effects.

File: laos-MMAP-md.png (120KB, 1036x733px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1036x733px

>>134561019
How do your really ban any weapon from use in war? "Honorable" nations in WWI gradually threw rules aside and started gassing each other.

Even with conventional weapons, unexploded bombs and forgotten land mines kill & maim people way after the war is over.

>>134562513
they would use them you fucking idiot. they would constantly threaten war upon the west and make us gib gib gib to keep them happy. and we wouldnt be able to invade. it would only make things worse.

>>134563049
If they used them on us, they'd be fucking annihilated. Have you seen the US arsenal lately? not to mention the drastically overpowered navy/army/air force we have

File: kissinger i don't even know her.jpg (283KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 2000x1000px

P R O L I F E R A T I O N

>>134563213
yeah, but they would already be used on us. do you not get it? you are advocating for putting civilization-enders in the hands of people without a kindergarten education.

File: kimjongun.jpg (15KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 300x300px

>>134561951
>more inhumane, painful and deadly than chemical weapons
What about the way chemical weapons affect the NEXT generation? Agent Orange wasn't even designed as a chemical weapon, still condemned the children of those exposed to miserable lives.

>>134562090
>Personally i'd like every nation to have nukes, but that's just me.
Hi, Kim.

>>134563423
Yes. Either we learn as a species to stop fighting with one another, or die. Either way it's a win-win. An immature species, or part of a species, dies, while the smarter ones who proliferated so hard that their arsenals can't be contended with, wins by outlasting all the others. Do you not see the merits? Also if you dislike third worlders so much, wouldn't you rather have them nuking themselves out of the world? They can't even focus on fighting the west because they fight each others' tribes so often.

File: castro.jpg (7KB, 236x214px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 236x214px

>>134562513
Humans are suicidally insane. More so if you live in digibooty, et al.

162 nuclear warheads were on the island of Cuba during the missile crisis. Castro wanted to use them, said so to Kruschev, even though he knew his nation would be totally destroyed.

https://youtu.be/CtUfBc4qQMg

File: 1486650619482.png (29KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 741x568px

tfw humans have standards of death

>>134563842
that fucking sandnigger

File: 1374132040500.png (357KB, 479x358px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 479x358px

>>134563842
Yet..here we are posting still. Do you know what really happened on that day? Cooler heads prevailed. The russian submarine captain knew it wasn't in his best interest to nuke the blockade fleet, and JFK knew it wasn't a good idea to attack Cuba and risk war with the Soviet Union. Let the suicidally insane kill themselves, I say. We finally have the weapons and tools necessary to wipe out entire parts of our species if needed. You kill a disease by preventing its spread, friend.

>>134561019
>inb4 why bann something that doesnt exist?

>>134561570
>Nukes are fear propaganda invented at the start of the cold war
>>134564044
>why bann something that doesnt exist?

Nukes don't exist?

>>134561189
You're a big guy

File: Captain_Willard.jpg (4KB, 225x224px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 225x224px

>>134564036
Hell if I will ever trust humans to come one damn millimeter from annihilation and trust that they'll be cool.
Not saying we can do anything about nukes, they are here to stay. Just because we've survived with them for 72 years doesn't mean we will forever, though.

> Let the suicidally insane kill themselves, I say
The problem is that they tend to go kamikaze and want to take the rest of us with them. Not content with ending their own existence, they must end others' as well.

>>134563994
It's not the death that sucks, it's those that barely live through it and experience maximum suffering.

>>134564473
Fair enough. Though usually it's the average person that gets hurt from a suicidal maniac in charge of the arsenal, so people would be a bit more careful than that.
>Hell if I will ever trust humans to come one damn millimeter from annihilation and trust that they'll be cool
What does that tell you about humanity then? People can't be trusted? People are irrational?

>>134561019
Chemical weapons are cheaper to manafacture

>>134564414
at least that is one of the conspiracy theories. how much of that is serious and how much is larping who knows? but they do claim that nukes dont exist

>>134561019

1) Chemical weapons are easier to make and use
2) The end of the Cold War meant that the world powers weren't able to justify keeping around huge stocks of chemical weapons for use in a major conventional war
3) The nuclear powers were more willing to give up their chemical weapons than they would be to giving up their nuclear weapons

>>134562905

Neither side used gas in WW2 for fear of turning the battlefield into an even worse repeat of WWI

>>134565062
It's the current draft of my philosophy. Too many monkeys in this cage. Seeking to control the behavior of others is futile at best (evil at worst), but I reserve trust until I see reason to give it.

>>134561019
THERE IS NO RATIONAL REASON. ONLY ANSWER.

>>134565572
This is a fair assumption because it's pretty grounded in reality, seeing as people have been slaughtering one another for as long as they've existed. Peace through deterrence hasn't failed in 70 years, though.

>>134563583
>Also if you dislike third worlders so much, wouldn't you rather have them nuking themselves out of the world?
wtf is wrong with you, dude. id like there never to be another nuclear explosion.

File: 1451687038013.jpg (110KB, 379x596px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 379x596px

>>134566182
How noble of you. The world might be a better place though, if we were to apply the sword more liberally

>>134561019
>banning weapons in war
topcuck if you think this means shit

>>134561706
Nothing is worse than nerve gas mate.

Nukes are banned. It's just that no one can enforce said ban so it's a useless threat.

>>134561019
>Banning weapons
Good luck enforcing that without a huge shitstorm.