What's the difference between killing everybody on Earth with nukes or with regular weapon?

Anyway, as Albert Einstein said "I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I can tell you what they will use in the Fourth - rocks!"

Dont know if they will put a virus or something that can mutate them
I hate nukes just causes extinction XD

Israel is in a perpetual state of threat, surrounded by hostile countries that could, and have previously, invaded suddenly and devastatingly.

Israel's nukes have brought relative stability to the region.

The dismatling of Israel's nukes would be a horrible idea. No longer would any of it's neighbours have any kind of threat against them if they invaded, war would once again rule in the region.



Plus USA is being hypocritical again. Don't they remember they are the only people to ever fire a nuclear weapon with intent to kill? Not to mention against civilian targets.
The USA's disgusting past records, hypocrisy, and lack of forsight once again overshadow any kind of good intention.

Except it's a completely empty threat. Israel can't and won't nuke its neighbours because of the fallout radiation spread. Israel has shown that it doesn't give a shit about illegal weaponry and many other things. It's just got US backing. No country in the middle east will declare open war on Israel due to it being allied with the US and Israel can't nuke terror cells. The nukes are totally pointless.

Israel would be willing to take the risk if they thought they would be destroyed/taken over.

The threat is ever present, and you can plainly see the decrease in conflict coinciding with the nuclear armaments.

Ok, so having the world's biggest oil export area covered in radiation isn't a bad thing?

That'd be interesting to see; I wonder what the implications would be in the sectors of clean energy development, if we had such a pressing issue to address. Hmm...

At any rate, the use of nuclear weapons by anyone but the most foolhardy and downright ignorant of their scale of destruction seems amazingly low, simply because of the fact that there has been enough speculation and research done in the field of nuclear warfare that no country would really want to see it occur. Nuclear weapons, therefore, seem to be stockpiled to prevent those foolish enough to actually consider using them from making direct attacks with nuclear weaponry: fighting fire with fire, in this case, but a strong enough fire that it provides enough of a disincentive towards the active and overt use of nuclear technology.

Hell, even N. Korea probably isn't foolish enough to launch nukes at countries, simply because of the threat of nuclear retaliation or conventional retaliation, both of which would devastate the country terribly. Then again, maybe I underestimate human intelligence on a grand scale.

Although I would say no, it would be great to be forced to use green tech.

This is completely moot, read about countries that are hostile to Israel, etc.

Still, you forget that irradiating that much land means migration/immigration. Personally, I think the Palestinians and Israelis are fine where they are. Keep that shit in their little corner of the world. Hell, the whole thing is because the Jews migrated from Europe and they needed somewhere to go. The same thing would happen again, but where would they actually move to?

It would be interesting if you survived a nuclear apocalypse and saw the devolution of human culture and technology.

I propose that we bomb the crap out of every country on Earth, including our own, for scientific purposes.



On a more serious note, I think nukes are here to stay. No countries would be willing to completely dismantle all of their nuclear warheads if other countries still had some in their arsenal. Honestly, I believe that political leaders feel safer with M.A.D. than they would if nobody had nuclear weapons.