Nuclear weapons are GOOD

Sure you can. There's pleny of plents, stars, etc in the "out there" that might be interesting to see blow ....
Click to expand...
The entire amount of nuclear material on the planet (in fact, the entire planet) would not noticably affect a star in any way if thrown into it. Stars are big. Actually, throwing it into the sun is not such a bad idea...
 
I can just see us sending it all out to space, then about 30 years from now, there will be a battallion of spaceships sitting out there by our Moon and hailing us asking why we blew the fuck out of thier planet. woops.
 
I can't really take this thread seriously. I think Gonz was still going through withdrawl when he posted this. I'd say he was just itching for an arguement.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
I can't really take this thread seriously. I think Gonz was still going through withdrawl when he posted this. I'd say he was just itching for an arguement.
Click to expand...
:smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke::smoke:

Could be.
 
HeXp£Øi± said:
I can't really take this thread seriously. I think Gonz was still going through withdrawl when he posted this. I'd say he was just itching for an arguement.
Click to expand...

If that was the case, he'd have stuck around long enough to start one...nah, just another opinion..not a very well founded one, but timely, I guess.
 
I had to go to work & I wanted to leave you something to think about.

Hey Les-those pictures are awful. Are the ones where the kid has a knife sticking out of his back any better? Dead is dead.


Argument-1900-1945 two world wars (plus many smaller skirmishes) well over 100,000,000 dead.

1946-2004-less than 10,000,000 dead from warfare.
 
So I guess when some terrorist nukes Indianapolis with the weapon he got due to the uncontrolled proliferation and Fort Wayne is in the fallout pattern, that'll be okey-doke by you because nu-cue-lar (let's pronounce it right) weapons are GOOD. :thumbup:

Argument-1900-1945 two world wars (plus many smaller skirmishes) well over 100,000,000 dead.

1946-2004-less than 10,000,000 dead from warfare.
Click to expand...

Maybe, just maybe (and it goes against a lot of what I believe) we as a species are finally learning some restraint? Not much though, 10,000,000 is a hell of a lot of people.
 
uncontrolled proliferation is bad. India & Pakistan should still be killing each other with conventional weapons but since they cheated & aquired nukes they are looking at peace....hmmmmm

>10M dead is a guess (too lazy to look) it could be 500k for all I know
 
Since the end of the Second World War in 1945 there have been over 250 major wars in which over 23 million people have been killed, tens of millions made homeless, and countless millions injured and bereaved.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't have known without looking myself.

Here's something interesting to consider:
At the beginning of the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians.

In World War 2 more than 50% of those who died were civilians.

By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians.
Click to expand...

So, while becoming more efficient at killing, we've become less discriminating, apparently.
 
The issue isn't that peace isn't a good thing, it's the assumption that the peace was caused by nuclear proliferation and mutually assured destruction.

Ad hoc ergo proctor hoc *After this, therefore because of this* - it's a logical falacy.

It's like saying that owning a gun will keep you safe... if someone wants to kill you, you'll die no matter how many guns you own or possess. Several presidents learned that lesson the hard way... dozens of armed secret security agents vs. one guy with a gun..game over.

Thousands of nuclear missiles and a missile defence screen vs. one rogue nation with a nuclear suitcase bomb and an Air Canada flight to Washington..game over.
 
Thousands of nuclear missiles and a missile defence screen vs. one rogue nation with a nuclear suitcase bomb and an Air Canada flight to Washington..game over.
Click to expand...

That's the problem alright. And our "friends" in Pakistan are having a sale on the technology.
 
i think it is sad so much pf humanity's knowledge of science went to destruction. Tho they can prevent war as gonz said is it really worth all the destruction adn suffering that comes along wiht it?
 
Have to give it to you that Nuclear weapons have caused an end to the World Wars, for now anyway. The problem is that at some point some nut with the control is going to fire one off. Then it's over.

Now, sidenote question: Why did we drop the bomb on Japan? I mean, I know it was to stop the war, but why not drop it on Germany? Why Japan?

I have an answer for this but I'm going to hold off until I hear a few responses before I give my opinion.
 
PuterTutor said:
Have to give it to you that Nuclear weapons have caused an end to the World Wars, for now anyway. The problem is that at some point some nut with the control is going to fire one off. Then it's over.

Now, sidenote question: Why did we drop the bomb on Japan? I mean, I know it was to stop the war, but why not drop it on Germany? Why Japan?

I have an answer for this but I'm going to hold off until I hear a few responses before I give my opinion.
Click to expand...


Wasn't it because they bomb'd us first?



* doesn't know history so well ... :(
 
Gemany was defeated before the bomb was ready. As for Japan, we would have beaten them anyway, but the consensus was that it would have cost tens (if not hundreds) of thousands more American lives. There is also quite a bit of evidence that the upper levels of Japanese government were widely divided on the issue of surrender, but we construed it as dragging their feet, so to speak, so Truman decided bombing was the most expedient solution.

For the record, I think he did the right thing given the information at hand.
 
For the record..I believe that any strong show of force other than the A-Bomb would've done it. If they were that close to surrender, all they needed was a little push.

The demilitirization of Japan (the coup de grace), helped Japan to recover faster than if they'd kept their military.
 
I don't think they were that close to the surrender. Remember they didn't bend after the first bomb.
I'm not sure if the bomb wasn't ready for use at Germany. Maybe they weren't sure if the germans had a bomb on their own, I don't know.Or feared to blow up some important technology expected to be assimilated after occupation...
 
I think it all boils down to one word. Racism. Germans look an awful lot like us, Japanese don't.

Now, you can say the bomb wasn't ready for Germany but that's crap, it was ready for most of the war, they just didn't want to have to use it. I think the decision was made for two reasons, one, racism, and two, that Japan is an island, and if it fucked up the whole island, no big loss, where if it fucked up Germany, the center of Europe would be toast for the next few thousand years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top