Opinions on Nuclear weapons

[Cpt_Cutter]

What are peoples opinions on Nuclear weapons?

I personally am quite conflicted. The pro's of them are mainly the M.A.D theory, and that they are a great national Defense system (No one wants to invade if one of them is pointed their way), yet they seem to have massive negatives too; Quite possibly ending the world, making land uninhabitable for many many years, Near total destruction of the target, causing horrible mutations to those exposed the the detonations, insane damage to size ratio, e.t.c.

I believe that the creators of the bomb such as Oppenheimer were near war-criminals, but I acknowledge that someone was going to invent them at some point. I don't think there can be a use of them that shouldn't be considered a war crime, either in testing or in combat, but I do support the opinion that they should have been used as a demoralization weapon in Vietnam (Go figure, I'm weird).

What are everyone's opinions on them?

[Harry Smith]

Just like Chemical and biological weapons they should be banned, I would even go as far to say that they should be destroyed.

There have been thousands of incidents where nuclear bombs have nearly gone off and the poor crew have had to try and disarm it in flight. As said above it's a war crime to use such a weapon under about nearly every international law.

Then there is the cost to maintain them- it costs us about 2 Billion a year to maintain them. How many hospitals or schools could be built using that money. We're never going to use them in a first strike so what's the point in having them? I also disagree that they are a good national defense because Britain has been attacked by 2 nations since we acquitted nuclear weapons

[tovaris]

We shpuld rid the world of such wepons and stop any future production.

[RavleIncarnate]

No-Go Nuclear, No-Go Nuclear ( imagine it in a protest context as a chant)

[AgentHomo]

I think building nuclear weapons was one of the biggest mistakes in human history, next to discrimination and genocide. Science can be used for be for the advancement of the human race. First and foremost, proving evolution as fact. That's the beginning I think should happen. Also rid the world of AID's/HIV, Cancer and other diseases. We need to use science to build humanity up, not for destruction.

[thatcountrykid]

They are extremely useful weapons for both offense an defense. I personally beleive that if we had use them sooner in ww2 the war would have been over much quicker and should have been used in many other conflicts.

[Harry Smith]

They are extremely useful weapons for both offense an defense. I personally beleive that if we had use them sooner in ww2 the war would have been over much quicker and should have been used in many other conflicts.

Many other conflicts? Are you fucking serious?

Please tell me how killing about 6 million innocent civilians and polluting an entire country would ever help? The effects of nuclear weapons are diabolical and there also a war crime- but the US can never commit war crimes can it ;)

[AgentHomo]

They are extremely useful weapons for both offense an defense. I personally beleive that if we had use them sooner in ww2 the war would have been over much quicker and should have been used in many other conflicts.

Holy fuckin shit. Please tell me you are fuckin kidding me? How can you completely justify killing millions? Because of this shit we were no better than Hitler himself. In fact we reached a level far beyond Hitler. Americans literally found a way to murder countless innocents in the blink of a second, something we have been doing for centuries. So to say you support nuclear war is to say you support a cause much worse than Hitler's holocaust.

[Human]

We should only use nuclear power for peaceful purposes, the money for maintaining them could be spent on fusion development

[CharlieHorse]

nukes are designed to be as destructive as possible. Their use should be illegal and all nukes should be disassembled.

[Cygnus]

If we fight the third world war with nuclear weapons then we will fight the fourth with rocks, they are so devastating it will end wiping us all out, they should all be banned and disarmed.

[Danny_boi 16]

What are peoples opinions on Nuclear weapons?

I personally am quite conflicted. The pro's of them are mainly the M.A.D theory, and that they are a great national Defense system (No one wants to invade if one of them is pointed their way), yet they seem to have massive negatives too; Quite possibly ending the world, making land uninhabitable for many many years, Near total destruction of the target, causing horrible mutations to those exposed the the detonations, insane damage to size ratio, e.t.c.

I believe that the creators of the bomb such as Oppenheimer were near war-criminals, but I acknowledge that someone was going to invent them at some point. I don't think there can be a use of them that shouldn't be considered a war crime, either in testing or in combat, but I do support the opinion that they should have been used as a demoralization weapon in Vietnam (Go figure, I'm weird).

What are everyone's opinions on them?

War is illogical, using nuclear energy as a weapon is equally illogical. It is my opinion that these weapons should not be used as devices of war. However, I disagree that Oppenheimer and his associates at the Manhattan Project were war criminals or near war criminals. The creation of these weapons were necessary for the advancement of mankind, for it open the doors to several possibilities, both good and bad. Again, using nuclear energy as a weapon is illogical, but I support the use of nuclear energy in several other ways.

[tovaris]

They are extremely useful weapons for both offense an defense. I personally beleive that if we had use them sooner in ww2 the war would have been over much quicker and should have been used in many other conflicts.

Of course, why not convert the northen hemasfire into a nuclear vasteland. Than lets party hard in the radioactive dust. And make snowman during the nuclear winters.

Not only that armed conflict is terafiing, you want to use nukes to blow youraelf to smiderins... go ahed noone is stopping you.

Wars themselves cost tremendes amount of inicent lives, using nukes only encreses the los of civilian life by googilian per cent.

Nuclear wepons should be made ilegal by international law and their use considerd a war crime.

[thatcountrykid]

Of course, why not convert the northen hemasfire into a nuclear vasteland. Than lets party hard in the radioactive dust. And make snowman during the nuclear winters.

Not only that armed conflict is terafiing, you want to use nukes to blow youraelf to smiderins... go ahed noone is stopping you.

Wars themselves cost tremendes amount of inicent lives, using nukes only encreses the los of civilian life by googilian per cent.

Nuclear wepons should be made ilegal by international law and their use considerd a war crime.

Many other conflicts? Are you fucking serious?

Please tell me how killing about 6 million innocent civilians and polluting an entire country would ever help? The effects of nuclear weapons are diabolical and there also a war crime- but the US can never commit war crimes can it ;)

Holy fuckin shit. Please tell me you are fuckin kidding me? How can you completely justify killing millions? Because of this shit we were no better than Hitler himself. In fact we reached a level far beyond Hitler. Americans literally found a way to murder countless innocents in the blink of a second, something we have been doing for centuries. So to say you support nuclear war is to say you support a cause much worse than Hitler's holocaust.

Wars have casualties and unfortunately some are those of innocents. Im nit saying use nukes for single targets. Im saying use them in areas primarily military. People will realize one day that all these international laws are useless as soon as someone wants something they don't have. And who's gonna convict a COUNTRY of "war crimes." Your enemy? No they're done.

[Harry Smith]

. And who's gonna convict a COUNTRY of "war crimes." .

If only there was some magical court which was able to convict people for war crimes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court.

Do you know what happens when you use a nuclear weapon? It tears the world apart- we're not suppose to weaponize that unless you want your children to have 12 legs

[Vlerchan]

[...] should have been used in many other conflicts.Can you expand on this? I'm interested here. What other nations should America have nuked?

[thatcountrykid]

If only there was some magical court which was able to convict people for war crimes... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court.

Do you know what happens when you use a nuclear weapon? It tears the world apart- we're not suppose to weaponize that unless you want your children to have 12 legs

Yes i am aware what happens and i will use one of these so my children can live.

Can you expand on this? I'm interested here. What other nations should America have nuked?

Vietnam. North Korea in the 50's. Should have dropped the bomb earlier in ww2

[Vlerchan]

Vietnam. North Korea in the 50's. Should have dropped the bomb earlier in ww2Have you ever actually studied the history of both those conflicts? More importantly have you ever heard of the Soviet Union (went nuclear in 1949-ish) and China (went nuclear in 1964)?

As for WWII: the US didn't have access to nuclear weaponry until the end.

[thatcountrykid]

Have you ever actually studied the history of both those conflicts? More importantly have you ever heard of the Soviet Union (went nuclear in 1949-ish) and China (went nuclear in 1964)?

As for WWII: the US didn't have access to nuclear weaponry until the end.

Yes i have studied both of those subjects. The US created the first nuclear weaponry.

[AgentHomo]

Yes i have studied both of those subjects. The US created the first nuclear weaponry.


I would really be interested to see you live in the Cold War era with the simple threat of "Mutually Assured Destruction" hanging over every nation, every human on the globe. In the matter of a click of a button and the ENTIRE human race, as well as countless other species save for cockroaches to go extinct in a matter of seconds.

[thatcountrykid]

I would really be interested to see you live in the Cold War era with the simple threat of "Mutually Assured Destruction" hanging over every nation, every human on the globe. In the matter of a click of a button and the ENTIRE human race, as well as countless other species save for cockroaches to go extinct in a matter of seconds.

Well if that happens then i wont have to worry about the after math because i'll be long gone wont i?

[ImCoolBeans]

I think it's a tragedy that man created a weapon that has the potential the end the world. It should have never been created.

[Cpt_Cutter]

Yes i have studied both of those subjects. The US created the first nuclear weaponry.

That has nothing to do with the fact that the bomb was too late for most of WW2, if we nuked NK the Chinese and the Russians would have gotten mad, Though I am in 2 minds about the opinion to use them in Vietnam.

[Typhlosion]

I feel that it's a necessary evil to maintain and preserve in national arms. I do not condone their use, but if one big country (Britain, U.S. or Russia, as an example) do not keep warheads in stock, then war becomes a much less political affair and still concentrated on bombing and sending troops to their death.

Wishing nuclear warheads weren't developed is a utopia. If the Manhattan project failed, another future project would succeed and have the upper hand. When talking about war, there's usually the "bad guy" and "good guy" (maybe your homeland). If the U.S. hadn't first developed the bomb, maybe Russia could have developed it; the world would be much different if it were so. Imagine the DPRK first developing the bomb. We don't want that. (Save the North-Korean military)

There are somewhat effective international anti-nuclear-arms policies so we're aren't at mercy at any crazy nation that attempts to construct them. There are also anti-ballistic missiles to halt/intercept an incoming attack in an emergency.

Yes, nuclear warfare is bad, but it's inevitable. We learned its effects in WW2, and it itself was the motive for grand fear worldwide. But because having them is vital for less volatile encounters, I am in favor of preserving nuclear bombs.

[Harry Smith]

i will use one of these so my children can live.

What happens when the US gets attacked in return by either Russia, China or Pakistan. If that happens your child is dead. I don't understand how killing a child in Korea is going to save your child either. I'd also love to hear about Vietnam- where would you drop- on the Vietcong who were trying to be of western oppression or the North who hadn't once attacked the US

. But because having them is vital for less volatile encounters, I am in favor of preserving nuclear bombs.

Was this before or after the Cuban missile crisis.

Nuclear weapons do not help prevent wars at all

[tovaris]

Wars have casualties and unfortunately some are those of innocents. Im nit saying use nukes for single targets. Im saying use them in areas primarily military. People will realize one day that all these international laws are useless as soon as someone wants something they don't have. And who's gonna convict a COUNTRY of "war crimes." Your enemy? No they're done.

Les than one per cent of war casulties are actuly responsible for war.
There are no such things a promarely military targests espacely with nukes which cause widespread damage.
There is a reason people made rules for war, and it does serve a pupose!
Aha i see as soon as you want something you will start a war for it. Ph so american.
The international courts are the ones who will convict you of war crimes, they are doing it as we speek(thow they could be more eficiant at it)



There are somewhat effective international anti-nuclear-arms policies so we're aren't at mercy at any crazy nation that attempts to construct them. There are also anti-ballistic missiles to halt/intercept an incoming attack in an emergency.


Any crazy nation... I think we are to late for that since the most fanatical alredy have a nuklear arsenal.
And why should the us and israel be able to have such vepons when iran and such are disabled to do so at every step?

[COLOR="Silver"]

Yes, nuclear warfare is bad, but it's inevitable. We learned its effects in WW2, and it itself was the motive for grand fear worldwide. But because having them is vital for less volatile encounters, I am in favor of preserving nuclear bombs.

How can the posesion and usage of nuclear wepons bring forth les violent conflict? How **********?

[Vlerchan]

That has nothing to do with the fact that the bomb was too late for most of WW2, if we nuked NK the Chinese and the Russians would have gotten mad, Though I am in 2 minds about the opinion to use them in Vietnam.Let's pretend that this nuclear explosion would be entirely contained somehow and not obliterate the already weakened eco-system (after Agent Orange and all) of a primarily- agricultural based nation that the US claimed they were trying to save. Let's also pretend that the Vietcong's leaders weren't sitting across the border in Chinese bunker and it's supplies weren't going through both neutral and capitalist-at-the-time Laos and Cambodia and that the Vietcong actually ran arms factories - which they didn't; China and Russia supplied their arms - and didn't fight in that decentralised manner befitting guerilla warfare; hiding amongst the civilians most of the time and given all this that America had a military - read: non civilian - target to actually bombard. Let's pretend it's not an absolutely awful idea from the start. (It's also important to note: borderline-terrorist actions by American forces throughout the course of the war meant that the civilian population had shifted itself predominantly to the cities by 1970 so their would have been a ridiculous amount of civilian causalities was Hanoi (or wherever) struck.)

The Chinese were clear of their support for the Vietcong throughout the war. Who knows what they would've done had capitalist America - who made no secret of their distrust, shall we say, of China - began slinging nukes in East Asia (again). At best they would've began supplying nukes to the Vietcong and allowed the rebel forces to up-the-anti themselves and at worse they would've entered the war. I've also read Pravda (the official communist newspaper) articles from the time and, whilst I'm not as certain, I'd think Russia would of at least got in on the supplying.#

Well if that happens then i wont have to worry about the after math because i'll be long gone wont i?
I'd rather Red than Dead, personally.

[AlexOnToast]

Well in the perfect world there would be no need for them, and even tho i'mm a huge hippie, Im willing to bet that nuclear warheads are the only thing STOPPING another world war right now. If they can be used ONLY as precautioon then yeah ok...But what the US and the Russians were doing is a BIG NONO..i dont pretend to be an expert but those are my thoughts

[tovaris]

Vietnam. North Korea in the 50's. Should have dropped the bomb earlier in ww2

Do youknow ANYTHING about history?
The manhaten project was only made posibke by captured natzi scientists!
Vietnam seriously? They were only fighting of foreighn opresors, and you would nuke them for defending thmselves? Besides what are you going to bomb? The forest?

The US created the first nuclear weaponry.

Alegedly.

Well if that happens then i wont have to worry about the after math because i'll be long gone wont i?

Than what is stopping you from ending it all now, a glas of antifreez and you will be "long gone" ba tomorow.

Yes i am aware what happens and i will use one of these so my children can live.




Who wouldnt want duble headed children with 8 legs

[Typhlosion]

Any crazy nation... I think we are to late for that since the most fanatical alredy have a nuklear arsenal.
And why should the us and israel be able to have such veapons when iran and such are disabled to do so at every step?
I'm not sure if you suggested that U.S./Israel are fanatical. Either way, it depends on who you view as "good/bad" in this world. U.S. and Israel do have an unfair upperhand in comparison to most other countries and their enemies. Personally, I find the U.S. on the better side of the spectrum. If you don't, I totally respect your opinion.

How can the posesion and usage of nuclear wepons bring forth les violent conflict? How **********?
Keeping nuclear nuclear arms in your weaponry puts a country in a "don't mess too hard with me" position. That's how the DPRK whine for more aid, they threat on advancing their nuclear technology. No one wants to advance into a war so serious that nuclear weapons are involved, so they take a few steps back.

[Harry Smith]

Keeping nuclear nuclear arms in your weaponry puts a country in a "don't mess too hard with me" position. That's how the DPRK whine for more aid, they threat on advancing their nuclear technology. No one wants to advance into a war so serious that nuclear weapons are involved, so they take a few steps back.


That's simply not true.

Britain who are a nuclear armed state was attacked in 1983 by Argentina. Our nuclear weapons didn't stop them attacking us

[tovaris]

I'm not sure if you suggested that U.S./Israel are fanatical. Either way, it depends on who you view as "good/bad" in this world. U.S. and Israel do have an unfair upperhand in comparison to most other countries and their enemies. Personally, I find the U.S. on the better side of the spectrum. If you don't, I totally respect your opinion.



Yes im sugesting They are fanatical (actuly it is more of a comonky exepted fact). But that eint the point of what i said is it.


[COLOR="Silver"]



Keeping nuclear nuclear arms in your weaponry puts a country in a "don't mess too hard with me" position. That's how the DPRK whine for more aid, they threat on advancing their nuclear technology. No one wants to advance into a war so serious that nuclear weapons are involved, so they take a few steps back.


Russia keeps an enormes armory of nukes jet "is provoked" intoconflict ll the time. The us has gotten themselves involved in countles wars and newer have the nukes been scary enouth for the atacked not to fight back. Etc. Etc....
Korea seriously you think they use their nukes as bargening chips for money? They simply use them to draw atention to themselves and to scar americanos....

[Typhlosion]

Russia keeps an enormes armory of nukes jet "is provoked" intoconflict ll the time. The us has gotten themselves involved in countles wars and newer have the nukes been scary enouth for the atacked not to fight back. Etc. Etc....
Korea seriously you think they use their nukes as bargening chips for money? They simply use them to draw atention to themselves and to scar americanos....

Yes, the DPRK really blackmails other countries for aid, and this isn't new at all.
And what you said, that nuclear arms doesn't solve our troubles, but I believe they hold countries from even more deadly attacks than already done.

[Harry Smith]

Yes, the DPRK really blackmails other countries for aid, and this isn't new at all.
And what you said, that nuclear arms doesn't solve our troubles, but I believe they hold countries from even more deadly attacks than already done.

Once again simply a lie. Do you also happen to have a source for the DPK blackmailing any other country?

Britain ( a nuclear armed nation) where attacked by Argentina despite the fact that Britain possessed nuclear weapons...

[Dark Hatred]

Holy fuckin shit. Please tell me you are fuckin kidding me? How can you completely justify killing millions? Because of this shit we were no better than Hitler himself. In fact we reached a level far beyond Hitler. Americans literally found a way to murder countless innocents in the blink of a second, something we have been doing for centuries. So to say you support nuclear war is to say you support a cause much worse than Hitler's holocaust.

Yes, but if we Americans had not nuked Japan, what would've happened? We could have lost the war! Japan wasn't going to surrender. We had to drop TWO ATOMIC BOMBS to make them surrender. We would've lost tons of more soldiers if we went into Japan.

And you cannot compare this to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was done out of pure hatred. You might not agree with this, but the atomic bombings had to be done. For the fate of the world. Germany could have rose again if Japan won; the atomic bomb helped.

We need bombs. They keep us safe. The world is a messed up place, but you can't just pretend its not. Go ahead and bash this, but just remember our bomb saved all of your asses.

[Dark Hatred]

That has nothing to do with the fact that the bomb was too late for most of WW2, if we nuked NK the Chinese and the Russians would have gotten mad, Though I am in 2 minds about the opinion to use them in Vietnam.

What you said about Vietnam - Vietnam was a huge mistake by the US in my opinion. If we bombed them we would have made a huge mistake. However, WW2's bombings were necessary.

[Harry Smith]

Yes, but if we Americans had not nuked Japan, what would've happened? We could have lost the war! Japan wasn't going to surrender. We had to drop TWO ATOMIC BOMBS to make them surrender. We would've lost tons of more soldiers if we went into Japan.

And you cannot compare this to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was done out of pure hatred. You might not agree with this, but the atomic bombings had to be done. For the fate of the world. Germany could have rose again if Japan won; the atomic bomb helped.

We need bombs. They keep us safe. The world is a messed up place, but you can't just pretend its not. Go ahead and bash this, but just remember our bomb saved all of your asses.

I'm sorry but how could you lose? America had bombed Japan down to a ruin. The Soviets were preparing to land along with the Amerians. The Japanese were not going to win the war in 1945- that's impossible.


How could Germany of rose up again when peace had been made 2 months early? The allies had pretty much occupied the whole of Germany along with the Soviets. The Nazi high command had been taken out they were not coming back

'Our bomb' typical yankie pride. The bomb was made using British, Canadian, German and American scientists. This wasn't your bomb-it was the allies bomb.

Since we're going into the realms of fantasy if Japan had the nuclear bomb would you of been okay with them using it on LA and San Francisco?

[tovaris]

Yes, the DPRK really blackmails other countries for aid, and this isn't new at all.
And what you said, that nuclear arms doesn't solve our troubles, but I believe they hold countries from even more deadly attacks than already done.

What aid again is Korea reciving? I thaught they were under sanctions.
No it doesnt, having nukes only makes more violent conflict(using them) to happen.

Yes, but if we Americans had not nuked Japan, what would've happened? We could have lost the war! Japan wasn't going to surrender. We had to drop TWO ATOMIC BOMBS to make them surrender. We would've lost tons of more soldiers if we went into Japan.
.

Actuly they tried to surender, yust not unconditionatly (they wanted to keep their emperor)

[Kahn]

Suppose a major city is located a few dozen miles from your home. A nuke is detonated above the city, for no other reason besides the scorn they hold against you and yours. The sky emits a frightening light followed by a screaming roar and, in an instant, hundreds of thousands of lives vanish from the Earth. The subsequent fallout then kills, sickens, or debilitates hundreds of thousands (if not millions) more people.

Please justify such slaughter. Justify giving such Awesome power to men, in any circumstance, present past or future.

[Typhlosion]

What aid again is Korea reciving? I thaught they were under sanctions.
No it doesnt, having nukes only makes more violent conflict(using them) to happen.

Once again simply a lie. Do you also happen to have a source for the DPK blackmailing any other country?

Britain ( a nuclear armed nation) where attacked by Argentina despite the fact that Britain possessed nuclear weapons...On DPRK, or North Korea, here it is: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf Foreign Assistance to North Korea - Congressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf)
On the summary it already reads: "The aid was given over two time periods—1995-2003 and 2007-2009—in exchange for North Korea freezing itsp lutonium-based nuclear facilities. In 2008 and 2009, North Korea also took steps to disable these facilities."
and
"United States announced it would provide North Korea with large-scale food aid in return for concessions by Pyongyang on its nuclear and missile programs."

I also restate, "I believe they [warheads] hold countries from even more deadly attacks than already done." The incident U.K. and Argentina was over the Falkland Islands. Not a big state-threatening event.

No it doesnt, having nukes only makes more violent conflict(using them) to happen. Only happened once. Never were they used again. (Thank goodness)

[tovaris]

On DPRK, or North Korea, here it is: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf Foreign Assistance to North Korea - Congressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf)
On the summary it already reads: "The aid was given over two time periods—1995-2003 and 2007-2009—in exchange for North Korea freezing itsp lutonium-based nuclear facilities. In 2008 and 2009, North Korea also took steps to disable these facilities."
and
"United States announced it would provide North Korea with large-scale food aid in return for concessions by Pyongyang on its nuclear and missile programs."

I also restate, "I believe they [warheads] hold countries from even more deadly attacks than already done." The incident U.K. and Argentina was over the Falkland Islands. Not a big state-threatening event.

Only happened once. Never were they used again. (Thank goodness)

We are nering the end of the year 2013 and you are reheating some old sup from 5 years ago...

So why keep the around if we do not need them and do not wish to use them?

[Typhlosion]

We are nering the end of the year 2013 and you are reheating some old sup from 5 years ago...It's still relevant. The threats from earlier this year are likely going to end up in the same way. I wanted to say that the DPRK has a history of blackmailing will use the recent events to later blackmail again for more aid.

So why keep the around if we do not need them and do not wish to use them? One, because I personally believe that, without nuclear bombs, wars would be bloodier; Two, because if all bombs are disarmed and any country makes a new one, who's stopping them?

I believe that nuclear bombs lower the ceiling for world wars. No one wants to get to a point where the bombs are considered. But they can be considered.

[tovaris]

It's still relevant. The threats from earlier this year are likely going to end up in the same way. I wanted to say that the DPRK has a history of blackmailing will use the recent events to later blackmail again for more aid.

One, because I personally believe that, without nuclear bombs, wars would be bloodier; Two, because if all bombs are disarmed and any country makes a new one, who's stopping them?

I believe that nuclear bombs lower the ceiling for world wars. No one wants to get to a point where the bombs are considered. But they can be considered.


Why what is stopping people NOW from slashing echothers throats? Nothing not even nukes. The presence of nuks makes little or no diference in actual conbat (exeption being iran v izrael).
Wars are blody, extremly. The thret of nukes makes it ony worse.

Look its obvious that nether of us is wiling to give ground (thow yors countrys army is more masive we will not stand down at any cost, yet again a nother proof againced your nuclear filosofy), so lets agree to disagree (=I am right) and call it a night.

[Harry Smith]

On DPRK, or North Korea, here it is: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf Foreign Assistance to North Korea - Congressional Research Service (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R40095.pdf)
On the summary it already reads: "The aid was given over two time periods—1995-2003 and 2007-2009—in exchange for North Korea freezing itsp lutonium-based nuclear facilities. In 2008 and 2009, North Korea also took steps to disable these facilities."
and
"United States announced it would provide North Korea with large-scale food aid in return for concessions by Pyongyang on its nuclear and missile programs."

I also restate, "I believe they [warheads] hold countries from even more deadly attacks than already done." The incident U.K. and Argentina was over the Falkland Islands. Not a big state-threatening event.

Only happened once. Never were they used again. (Thank goodness)

Over 150 British servicemen died in the Falklands war, members of my family served in that war. Don't try and describe it as an 'incident' when it was an act of war by the Argentinian government. It was a full fledged war which shows that one side having nuclear weapons doesn't stop an attack- look at Israel as well.

Your point about NK is also very misleading- you made it out as if they threatened a nuclear attack. When in fact they didn't at all.

Your whole argument rests on security for nuclear nations- if that's true then why are NK not backing down when the US have about 500+ warheads?

[Typhlosion]

Over 150 British servicemen died in the Falklands war, members of my family served in that war. Don't try and describe it as an 'incident' when it was an act of war by the Argentinian government. It was a full fledged war which shows that one side having nuclear weapons doesn't stop an attack- look at Israel as well.

Your point about NK is also very misleading- you made it out as if they threatened a nuclear attack. When in fact they didn't at all.

Your whole argument rests on security for nuclear nations- if that's true then why are NK not backing down when the US have about 500+ warheads? I'm sorry for touching on a personal subject. I still have to belittle the Falklands war, the number of deaths is under 1000. The Pacific War, that lead to the nuclear bombings, had a death toll of around 6 million Military deaths and almost 32 million deaths including civil people. The cold war was all about world domination... not the Falkland islands. Sorry again, but I find the Falklands a much smaller conflict for nuclear arms to even influence them.

If I was misleading about the DPRK, I am very sorry. I wanted to link both recent events with past events related to nuclearization. As for the DPRK backing down, what gave they done? Threat, threat and whine.

I do think we are at stalemate, though.

[Walter Powers]

Our intial usage of nuclear weapons was more then justified. Had we not used them, hundreds of thousands at least Americans would have perished against the Japanese. We also needed a show of power to the world, especially with the USSR as the last remaining superpower. This certainly accomplished that!

However, I think in a modern day situation, it benefits humanity directly to disarm nuclears weapons. That doesn't mean that the West should unilaterally disarm. That would ba completly crazy! We should, however, try to negotionate verifiably reducing the number of nukes in this world, in all countries.

[Harry Smith]

I'm sorry for touching on a personal subject. I still have to belittle the Falklands war, the number of deaths is under 1000. The Pacific War, that lead to the nuclear bombings, had a death toll of around 6 million Military deaths and almost 32 million deaths including civil people. The cold war was all about world domination... not the Falkland islands. Sorry again, but I find the Falklands a much smaller conflict for nuclear arms to even influence them.

If I was misleading about the DPRK, I am very sorry. I wanted to link both recent events with past events related to nuclearization. As for the DPRK backing down, what gave they done? Threat, threat and whine.

I do think we are at stalemate, though.

It doesn't matter about the conflict you stated earlier that

Keeping nuclear nuclear arms in your weaponry puts a country in a "don't mess too hard with me" position.

But Argentina messed with us? Nasser and Egypt messed with us, heck nuclear weapons haven't help make the world peaceful.

Look at the big conflicts in the post WW2 period
Vietnam- nuclear state involved
Korea- Nuclear State involved
Iraq- Nuclear state involved both times
Falklands- Nuclear state involved
1973 Yom Kippur war-nuclear state involved

But hey the Cold war is over- we're not fighting the Russians, and for once I actually agree with Walter. We need to get the Russians and Chinese on the table and work towards reducing the number of war heads that we have

[Dark Hatred]

I'm sorry but how could you lose? America had bombed Japan down to a ruin. The Soviets were preparing to land along with the Amerians. The Japanese were not going to win the war in 1945- that's impossible.


How could Germany of rose up again when peace had been made 2 months early? The allies had pretty much occupied the whole of Germany along with the Soviets. The Nazi high command had been taken out they were not coming back

'Our bomb' typical yankie pride. The bomb was made using British, Canadian, German and American scientists. This wasn't your bomb-it was the allies bomb.

Since we're going into the realms of fantasy if Japan had the nuclear bomb would you of been okay with them using it on LA and San Francisco?

They wouldn't have to use it on LA or San Fran. The US knows when to pull out of a war. Same with Vietnam, except Vietnam didn't have one. This is why we are not doing anything in North Korea, we know what they are capable of. Japan during WWII was nothing but a bunch of insane people driven by an evil leader in a country that had been shut off from the world since it's creation.

[Typhlosion]

It doesn't matter about the conflict you stated earlier that

Keeping nuclear nuclear arms in your weaponry puts a country in a "don't mess too hard with me" position.

But Argentina messed with us? Nasser and Egypt messed with us, heck nuclear weapons haven't help make the world peaceful.


"Don't mess too hard with me" position. Messing hard isn't just 1000 deaths.

Look at the big conflicts in the post WW2 period

Vietnam- nuclear state involved ///// 1 to 3 million dead Big number? So were the considerations! http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001166479.pdf
Korea- Nuclear State involved ///// Anywhere from half to 2 million dead The U.S. was definitely was in this war but it was not the main combatant nor had to protect its sovereignty. Neither South or North Korea had nuclear warfare at the time.
Iraq- Nuclear state involved both times ///// And Iraq wanted to be one. I'll agree with you on this one. 100+ thousand deaths. I don't feel that it would justify nuclear arms, but definitely you got a point there.
1973 Yom Kippur war-nuclear state involved ///// Although a significant war, it was not on a scale for justifying nuclear arms. 20 thousand deaths.
Falklands- Nuclear state involved ///// Only 1000 deaths.

Both Falklands and Yom Kippur are dwarfed by your other examples.

And you know what, I somewhat agree with Walter as well.

[Cpt_Cutter]

look at Israel as well.

Technically you aren't correct in calling Israel a nuclear state, even though it is widely suspected they have that capability because nothing has been confirmed by either concrete evidence or the state of Israel. I do however support Israel having nukes (Judging with the lack of friends and their past history with neighbors in that part of the world they might need 'em sometime).

They wouldn't have to use it on LA or San Fran. The US knows when to pull out of a war. Same with Vietnam, except Vietnam didn't have one. This is why we are not doing anything in North Korea, we know what they are capable of. Japan during WWII was nothing but a bunch of insane people driven by an evil leader in a country that had been shut off from the world since it's creation.

Don't kid yourself, the North Korean missile would get 30 foot in the air before every patriot missile battery in that half of the planet shoots it down. The only real thing NK are capable of is just overwhelming us with outdated tech and a million troops. (Does anyone actually know NK's conscript army population?)

I don't agree with the last part, Japan was more just wanting land to help counter the fact that they didn't have room to grow enough food to feed the growing population, and resources to help their economy stabilize after the silk industry was decimated in the Great depression. I don't condone the invasion of Manchuria or the rape of Nan-king or anything else that happened in that war, but I understand the reasoning.

The US knows when to pull out of a war. No offence, but no, you really don't.


-merged double post. -Emerald Dream

[Harry Smith]

They wouldn't have to use it on LA or San Fran. The US knows when to pull out of a war. Same with Vietnam, except Vietnam didn't have one. This is why we are not doing anything in North Korea, we know what they are capable of. Japan during WWII was nothing but a bunch of insane people driven by an evil leader in a country that had been shut off from the world since it's creation.

Insane people? These were the same people that the US were getting in bed with in the 1950's. This evil leader remained their head of State until 1980 I believe. I love how your automatic defense is to label the Japanese as crazy when the US did the exactly same thing 100 years before

"Don't mess too hard with me" position. Messing hard isn't just 1000 deaths.

Look at the big conflicts in the post WW2 period

Vietnam- nuclear state involved ///// 1 to 3 million dead Big number? So were the considerations! http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0001166479.pdf
Korea- Nuclear State involved ///// Anywhere from half to 2 million dead The U.S. was definitely was in this war but it was not the main combatant nor had to protect its sovereignty. Neither South or North Korea had nuclear warfare at the time.
Iraq- Nuclear state involved both times ///// And Iraq wanted to be one. I'll agree with you on this one. 100+ thousand deaths. I don't feel that it would justify nuclear arms, but definitely you got a point there.
1973 Yom Kippur war-nuclear state involved ///// Although a significant war, it was not on a scale for justifying nuclear arms. 20 thousand deaths.
Falklands- Nuclear state involved ///// Only 1000 deaths.

Both Falklands and Yom Kippur are dwarfed by your other examples.

And you know what, I somewhat agree with Walter as well.

Your whole argument rests on the fact that nuclear weapons make countries safe from attack when they quite clearly don't. All you've done above is tell me about how many people died during the conflict-thanks.

Nuclear weapons do not prevent wars in any case- in fact I would go as far to say as shown during the Cuba missile crisis, Able Archer '83 and the other various times where the human race nearly killed itself off.

Don't you understand the gravity of the situation- it's like keeping a naval mine by your front door on the off chance it will stop someone from breaking into your house when in fact all it does it take your house out.



Technically you aren't correct in calling Israel a nuclear state, even though it is widely suspected they have that capability because nothing has been confirmed by either concrete evidence or the state of Israel. I do however support Israel having nukes (Judging with the lack of friends and their past history with neighbors in that part of the world they might need 'em sometime).

I am, it's extremely well know that Israel have nuclear weapons, there plausible deniability isn't fooling anyone- Robert Maxwell broke that story back in the 1980s'.

[Typhlosion]

Your whole argument rests on the fact that nuclear weapons make countries safe from attack when they quite clearly don't. All you've done above is tell me about how many people died during the conflict-thanks.

Nuclear weapons do not prevent wars in any case- in fact I would go as far to say as shown during the Cuba missile crisis, Able Archer '83 and the other various times where the human race nearly killed itself off.

Don't you understand the gravity of the situation- it's like keeping a naval mine by your front door on the off chance it will stop someone from breaking into your house when in fact all it does it take your house out.

I'm sorry for my past insistence, but I think I've got to the point where we're starting to bicker rather than debate...

In my last post I wanted to justify what I said on the Falkland wars being a minimal conflict - a conflict so small in comparison to conflicts where nuclear arms were considered. That's what I meant.

My point was that I believe wars are not as intense as they could be had the nuclear bombs not be invented.

"it's like keeping a naval mine by your front door on the off chance it will stop someone from breaking into your house when in fact all it does it take your house out." I think it's more like having a gun in your house for emergencies only. It sure can backfire, but you're safer (or your house, at least) with it than without.

I hope you at least you understand my point/view on the subject - I understood yours...

[Harry Smith]

I'm sorry for my past insistence, but I think I've got to the point where we're starting to bicker rather than debate...

In my last post I wanted to justify what I said on the Falkland wars being a minimal conflict - a conflict so small in comparison to conflicts where nuclear arms were considered. That's what I meant.

My point was that I believe wars are not as intense as they could be had the nuclear bombs not be invented.

I think it's more like having a gun in your house for emergencies only. It sure can backfire, but you're safer (or your house, at least) with it than without.

I hope you at least you understand my point/view on the subject - I understood yours...

No- a gun can be kept relatively secure and stable. It also has the advantage of not killing the person who uses it.

That's why Nuclear bombs have never been used on a tactical scale because they simply don't work. They haven't made warfare any less volatile-just look at the the Soviets in Afghanistan or the US in Vietnam. Both were pretty crap.

There is no evidence that a nuclear armed state is any safer-in Iraq's case it caused the potential downfall of the their state for the next 50 years. It's became a rather stupid club for the world elite

[Vlerchan]

Our intial usage of nuclear weapons was more then justified. Had we not used them, hundreds of thousands at least Americans would have perished against the Japanese.I personally find the murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians through either direct or indirect consequences of usage of nuclear weaponry on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - which was technically a war-crime as set down by the League of Nations - to be much worse than the other alternatives. Which include, but were not limited to: an invasion by sea of Japan (more than just America would have been involved here, I'll add); the continued fire-bombing of military targets until an eventual surrender came; etc.

There was no pressing need to drop the nuclear bomb - not to mention that it was both immoral and unethical.

We also needed a show of power to the world, especially with the USSR as the last remaining superpower. This certainly accomplished that!This could've easily been done by nuking a position that wasn't a major civilian population centre. Given what I said above I'm sceptical that the American's even had to drop the nuke in the first place.

The Americans could easily have set of a demonstration in front of invited Soviet scientists and generals and politicians on some Island in the middle of the pacific and given a preview of their nuclear strength.

The US knows when to pull out of a war.I'm going to have to agree with the previous poster. It really doesn't.

My point was that I believe wars are not as intense as they could be had the nuclear bombs not be invented.
The entire point of keeping nuclear weapons is not that when war happens it will be less intense but rather it won't happen in the first place.

Though I believe that the rise of both globalisation and accountable social democracies as the worlds leading powers mean that MAD is becoming less and less relevant.

[Walter Powers]

I personally find the murder of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians through either direct or indirect consequences of usage of nuclear weaponry on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - which was technically a war-crime as set down by the League of Nations - to be much worse than the other alternatives. Which include, but were not limited to: an invasion by sea of Japan (more than just America would have been involved here, I'll add); the continued fire-bombing of military targets until an eventual surrender came; etc.

Regardless of what you, as a teenager living in twenty first century personally think, the military experts at the time determined that this was the best option given how many Americans we'd lose invading by sea.

Also, the Japanese had already committed tremendous war crimes against our soldiers. That doesn't justify it completely, but at a certain point you have to play dirty if your opponents are going to play dirty, otherwise the greater evil will prevail.

There was no pressing need to drop the nuclear bomb - not to mention that it was both immoral and unethical.

Other then the fact that Japan was attacking us and we needed to defend ourselves? :0

This could've easily been done by nuking a position that wasn't a major civilian population centre. Given what I said above I'm sceptical that the American's even had to drop the nuke in the first place.

Obviously not, as even dropping the first of the two bombs on a major population center wasn't a big enough show of power to get them to surrender. That's why we had to drop the second. Also, we had a very limited number of these things at that time. It was a very new kind of weapon.

[Cpt_Cutter]

Regardless of what you, as a teenager living in twenty first century personally think, the military experts at the time determined that this was the best option given how many Americans we'd lose invading by sea.

Its a case of 20/20 hindsight, where looking back on it we see different and in some cases better ways of doing it.

Also, the Japanese had already committed tremendous war crimes against our soldiers.

In my limited knowledge of the pacific campaign of the second world war, I would assume this was a case of "History written by the victors" where even though the allies did some messed up stuff too(On a much smaller scale), it is hushed up by the victors and overshadowed by the victory.

Other then the fact that Japan was attacking us and we needed to defend ourselves? :0

Yeah because being on the offensive for 2 and a half years of the 4 year war and preparing to invade the enemies homeland is so defensive, amiright?


Obviously not, as even dropping the first of the two bombs on a major population center wasn't a big enough show of power to get them to surrender. That's why we had to drop the second.

Fun-fact, they offered to surrender several times before and during the bombings, but the Americans wanted a total-humiliation defeat, not a conditional surrender.

[Vlerchan]

Regardless of what you, as a teenager living in twenty first century personally think, the military experts at the time determined that this was the best option given how many Americans we'd lose invading by sea.As Cpt_Cutter said: it's about being able to look back in the 21st century now and ponder over the alternative solutions. Though hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese civilians sound wrong to me regardless of what year or circumstances I find myself in.

Also, the Japanese had already committed tremendous war crimes against our soldiers. That doesn't justify it completely, but at a certain point you have to play dirty if your opponents are going to play dirty, otherwise the greater evil will prevail.Take note of the word I bolded in this last paragraph. You're stopping to a whole new level of dirty when you start inflicting these tremendous war crimes on civilians.

Though the idea of matching war crimes with war crimes is always going to be an awful one regardless of who you're inflicting them on.

Other then the fact that Japan was attacking us and we needed to defend ourselves? :0What part of preparing to invade the homeland of a nation that had been on the retreat for the last two years sounds defensive to you?

Obviously not, as even dropping the first of the two bombs on a major population center wasn't a big enough show of power to get them to surrender.The Japanese had been prepared to surrender since - and this is only to the extent of my knowledge; it could have started earlier - 1943 There (main) terms:

o Complete surrender of all Japanese forces and arms, at home, on island possessions, and in occupied countries.
o Occupation of Japan and its possessions by Allied troops under American direction.
o Japanese relinquishment of all territory seized during the war, as well as Manchuria, Korea and Taiwan.
o Regulation of Japanese industry to halt production of any weapons and other tools of war.
o Release of all prisoners of war and internees.
o Surrender of designated war criminals.
You'll find that the only difference between this proposed treaty and the treaty that came about in 1945 is that the Japanese weren't willing to relinquish (entirely) the role of their emperor in their governance. This leaves me with two theories: a) America wanted, as CPT_Cutter put it: a total-humiliation defeat or b) America wanted to do the usual and enforce democracy on countries that don't really want it - which contradicts the core principles of democracy but that's another debate. The Japanese preceded to make four more attempts (that I am aware of) to gain peace by Yalta (January, 1945) and two more (again: that I am aware of) by that June. (SOURCE) (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html)


That's why we had to drop the second. Also, we had a very limited number of these things at that time. It was a very new kind of weapon.I'm arguing that the American forces didn't have to drop either - which I quite adamantly believe they didn't.

[Gigablue]

Our intial usage of nuclear weapons was more then justified. Had we not used them, hundreds of thousands at least Americans would have perished against the Japanese. We also needed a show of power to the world, especially with the USSR as the last remaining superpower. This certainly accomplished that!

However, I think in a modern day situation, it benefits humanity directly to disarm nuclears weapons. That doesn't mean that the West should unilaterally disarm. That would ba completly crazy! We should, however, try to negotionate verifiably reducing the number of nukes in this world, in all countries.

I think this is the first time I actually agree with you. If the US hadn't nuked Japan, thee would have been more lives lost on both sides. An invasion of Japan would have resulted in victory for the Americans, but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. Even more important, though, is the fact that nuking Japan ended the war quickly. Every day, Japanese troops were killing civilians in China and Southeast Asia. If the war had continued for the months of years that it would have taken to invade Japan, millions more civilians would have died. While bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, it saved the lives of millions.

Nuclear weapons should still be eliminated. Disarmament should be done in a careful, controlled way, where all nuclear powers disarm at the same rate to avoid a massive power imbalance. It won't be an easy process, and there is much to take into consideration, but it has to be done.

[darthearth]

As Cpt_Cutter said: it's about being able to look back in the 21st century now and ponder over the alternative solutions. Though hundreds of thousands of dead Japanese civilians sound wrong to me regardless of what year or circumstances I find myself in.

Take note of the word I bolded in this last paragraph. You're stopping to a whole new level of dirty when you start inflicting these tremendous war crimes on civilians.

Though the idea of matching war crimes with war crimes is always going to be an awful one regardless of who you're inflicting them on.

What part of preparing to invade the homeland of a nation that had been on the retreat for the last two years sounds defensive to you?

The Japanese had been prepared to surrender since - and this is only to the extent of my knowledge; it could have started earlier - 1943 There (main) terms:


You'll find that the only difference between this proposed treaty and the treaty that came about in 1945 is that the Japanese weren't willing to relinquish (entirely) the role of their emperor in their governance. This leaves me with two theories: a) America wanted, as CPT_Cutter put it: a total-humiliation defeat or b) America wanted to do the usual and enforce democracy on countries that don't really want it - which contradicts the core principles of democracy but that's another debate. The Japanese preceded to make four more attempts (that I am aware of) to gain peace by Yalta (January, 1945) and two more (again: that I am aware of) by that June. (SOURCE) (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_Weber.html)


I'm arguing that the American forces didn't have to drop either - which I quite adamantly believe they didn't.

Thank you. Right on. People need to study history objectively seeking all viewpoints then judiciously decide on an opinion. I read that the Japanese people were not even supporting the war anymore and had the bombs not been dropped Japan would have surrendered anyway within months, with no need to invade the homeland. Dropping the bombs was immoral in the extreme. From what I have studied, there was just no justification. However, I'm sure some would claim "revisionist history" right?

I'm undecided about not having ANY nukes around, but lean toward getting rid of all of them. You just have these annoying rogue states that seem to be the "flaw in the slaw" lol.