Print

[Pyru]

Pyru

Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Do you think there is ever a use for nuclear weapons in a peaceful world? And is it ever justifiable to use WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in warfare?

I don't think there is a use for them in a peaceful world- the mutually assured destruction theory (if everyone had nukes, no-one would use them, 'cos if they did, they'd get nuked back) relies on everyone being sane. Take one crackpot, to fire one nuke, and everyone on the planet dies.

As for justifying their use in warfare... you kill so many people, and affect so many lives for generations to come. Can you really say it was worth protecting your own people (even though they could be harmed too) to harm so much innocent life? And, yes, nukes will always harm innocent life when used in warfare.

[Limey]

Limey

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I'm studying nuclear weapons (specifically the radiation from the explosions) for my science class, and I've gotta say... I'm not really sure what my opinion is

Nuclear weapons cause much damage, and way after the detonation too;  The radiation from a nuclear weapon mutates peoples genes, and reduces bone marrow.  The mutations in your genes open you up to diseases like cancer, and the bone marrow weakening leads to yoru white blood cells being drastically killed off.  That leaves you wide open to some bad !@#$% :/

So I guess I"m against nuclear weapons... Though they are very affective

And yes pyru, you are on a roll

[TP]

TP

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Those weapons, I believe, should only be used if there ever is a supreme emergency.

[Tabby]

Tabby

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Pyru, I just agree with what you already have said
It's just too risky to have nuclear weapons =/ And it's not good for the nature...

A world without nuclear weapons wouldn't really be impossible...

[Ben]

Ben

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I know lets threaten everyone with nukes so that they get rid of theirs!!!!!
Er no.
Nuclear weapons are not good, they're an incredibly extreme force which unfortunately most of the time just simply isn't lethal, the amount of damage they can do is extreme and then they destroy lives without killing people.
First people die from the blast, then they'll die from the fallout, then they'll die from the government killing looters (seriously) and a little while after that they'll die due to skin cancer because of the lack of ozone in the air. If anyone ever launches a nuclear weapon the best place to be is right under it in all seriousness. If your not killed by the initial blast your life will become hell on earth.

Want a place to upload your sprites and games for FREE? Look no further than GameDevotion

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I've heard some theories supporting keeping nuclear weapons, but not using them. The problem is, those theories rely on the countries with nukes being prepared to use them in some circumstances. That, to me, is unacceptable; being prepared to use them is one step away from using them, and therefore causing so much destruction.

Even having them if they weren't prepared to use them... the whole thing falls apart.

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I've heard some theories supporting keeping nuclear weapons, but not using them. The problem is, those theories rely on the countries with nukes being prepared to use them in some circumstances. That, to me, is unacceptable; being prepared to use them is one step away from using them, and therefore causing so much destruction.

Even having them if they weren't prepared to use them... the whole thing falls apart.

Well, it's not like we can all just get rid of them.  I agree that they should not be used, but if this technology gets into the wrong hands, we need these to back us up in the interest of self-defense (not in terms of usage, but rather "bragging rights").

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I've heard some theories supporting keeping nuclear weapons, but not using them. The problem is, those theories rely on the countries with nukes being prepared to use them in some circumstances. That, to me, is unacceptable; being prepared to use them is one step away from using them, and therefore causing so much destruction.

Even having them if they weren't prepared to use them... the whole thing falls apart.

Well, it's not like we can all just get rid of them.  I agree that they should not be used, but if this technology gets into the wrong hands, we need these to back us up in the interest of self-defense (not in terms of usage, but rather "bragging rights").

Then you don't allow that technology into the wrong hands. Nice and simply, you DO destroy it. You destroy the plans, you destroy the weapons, and you take away the material. You keep a close eye on anyone who does know how to make the weapons, and you make sure that no-one ever gets what they need to make 'em. Nice'n'simple. No nukes anywhere.

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Then you don't allow that technology into the wrong hands. Nice and simply, you DO destroy it. You destroy the plans, you destroy the weapons, and you take away the material. You keep a close eye on anyone who does know how to make the weapons, and you make sure that no-one ever gets what they need to make 'em. Nice'n'simple. No nukes anywhere.

That wouldn't work realistically, and you know it

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Then you don't allow that technology into the wrong hands. Nice and simply, you DO destroy it. You destroy the plans, you destroy the weapons, and you take away the material. You keep a close eye on anyone who does know how to make the weapons, and you make sure that no-one ever gets what they need to make 'em. Nice'n'simple. No nukes anywhere.

That wouldn't work realistically, and you know it

Strange, 'cos that *seems* to be what the US government is doing anyway. Except... oh, wait. They're keeping their nukes. And they're letting just about everyone walk around and blab about nuke technology. Hmm.

[Revan]

Revan

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Nukes do what they are meant to do and do it well.... kill.

http://www.youtube.com/HarveyArtifex

Sic vis pacem, para bellum.

[tippz]

tippz

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Then you don't allow that technology into the wrong hands. Nice and simply, you DO destroy it. You destroy the plans, you destroy the weapons, and you take away the material. You keep a close eye on anyone who does know how to make the weapons, and you make sure that no-one ever gets what they need to make 'em. Nice'n'simple. No nukes anywhere.

That wouldn't work realistically, and you know it

Strange, 'cos that *seems* to be what the US government is doing anyway. Except... oh, wait. They're keeping their nukes. And they're letting just about everyone walk around and blab about nuke technology. Hmm.

you do realize that you just contradicted yourself right? You disagreed with 2a4a by saying the US does it, then said the US doesn't do it...
I mean, countries that are against nukes can try to kepp them out of the hands of others, but it isn't *that* hard to do it secretly enough that other countries wouldn't risk war over it...

[2awesome4apossum]

2awesome4apossum

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

you do realize that you just contradicted yourself right? You disagreed with 2a4a by saying the US does it, then said the US doesn't do it...

Yes, that confused me as well.

I mean, countries that are against nukes can try to kepp them out of the hands of others, but it isn't *that* hard to do it secretly enough that other countries wouldn't risk war over it...

Yeah, I mean, we've "banned" drugs, haven't we?   If you ask me, what Pyru's asking is not going to happen realistically anytime soon.

[LuigiBro]

LuigiBro

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I saw somewhere on TV they would be used if a dangerous sized meteor came for us, so there is another practical use I guess.

"May the innovation be with you."

www.guffa.smf4free.com

[Revan]

Revan

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Do you think there is ever a use for nuclear weapons in a peaceful world? And is it ever justifiable to use WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in warfare?

I don't think there is a use for them in a peaceful world- the mutually assured destruction theory (if everyone had nukes, no-one would use them, 'cos if they did, they'd get nuked back) relies on everyone being sane. Take one crackpot, to fire one nuke, and everyone on the planet dies.

As for justifying their use in warfare... you kill so many people, and affect so many lives for generations to come. Can you really say it was worth protecting your own people (even though they could be harmed too) to harm so much innocent life? And, yes, nukes will always harm innocent life when used in warfare.

No there is no place for nukes in a peaceful world, but sadly this is not a peaceful world..

http://www.youtube.com/HarveyArtifex

Sic vis pacem, para bellum.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

Do you think there is ever a use for nuclear weapons in a peaceful world? And is it ever justifiable to use WMDs (weapons of mass destruction) in warfare?

I don't think there is a use for them in a peaceful world- the mutually assured destruction theory (if everyone had nukes, no-one would use them, 'cos if they did, they'd get nuked back) relies on everyone being sane. Take one crackpot, to fire one nuke, and everyone on the planet dies.

As for justifying their use in warfare... you kill so many people, and affect so many lives for generations to come. Can you really say it was worth protecting your own people (even though they could be harmed too) to harm so much innocent life? And, yes, nukes will always harm innocent life when used in warfare.

No there is no place for nukes in a peaceful world, but sadly this is not a peaceful world..

The presence of nuklear weapons is possibly one of the greatest obstructions to a peaceful world; the distrust of many countries of the nuclear powers causes many conflicts. And, like I said, even in an unpeaceful world, it can never truly be justified to use such weapons.

[tippz]

tippz

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I would definitely say their use can be justified. The only time they were ever used they may have killed a lot of people and made a lot of others sick, but so many lives were saved. I definitely think that is one instance where it was justified.

[Pyru]

Pyru

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

I would definitely say their use can be justified. The only time they were ever used they may have killed a lot of people and made a lot of others sick, but so many lives were saved. I definitely think that is one instance where it was justified.

At the cost of the quality and duration of life of hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of people in the future.

Besides, they were used twice in warfare; Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both still have much higher than average levels of cancer and other mutations.

Besides, nukes don't kill "the bad guys"- they kill everyone. They are totally indiscriminate. Women, children, the elderly....

[tippz]

tippz

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

As would an all out invasion. Those who weren't fighting would have killed themselves. The Japanese people wanted to commit mass suicide, rather than be invaded. It was a total shock when the emperor surrendered.

Also, if battles throughout the Pacific are any indication, the Japanese would have fought to the bitter end. Like I said, as a country they would have rather died. It wasn't until their Emperor, viewed as a god figure surrendered that they even thought about it.

[Who are the brain police?]

Who are the brain police?

Re: Nuclear weapons/WMDs

As would an all out invasion. Those who weren't fighting would have killed themselves. The Japanese people wanted to commit mass suicide, rather than be invaded. It was a total shock when the emperor surrendered.

Also, if battles throughout the Pacific are any indication, the Japanese would have fought to the bitter end. Like I said, as a country they would have rather died. It wasn't until their Emperor, viewed as a god figure surrendered that they even thought about it.

the board  was split 50/50 if it hadnt been for him one half of the 50 they still would have went on but he knew when to call it quits because they would have been pwned.

•