The nuclear bomb debate.

[Isamu]

What do you think about the nuclear and hydrogen bombs? there are many types ranging from bunker busters to tactical to full blown anti city and possibly even a planet killer. do you think we have the right to use them on other countries? is using them in space as bad as using them on the ground. basically just discuss your feelings. if this turns into a debate thats okay. i have included some vids to portray what we are discussing. i suggest you watch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5867201412148088115
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmYkwkzJSZk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jmYkwkzJSZk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TfsWBgfpznk&feature=related
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1sS1TmXF38&feature=related
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2203295298222048083&q=nuke&total=12540&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

[Meyer]

I support nukes. They're the reason Cold War never escalated in to a WWIII. Neither side wanted to be blamed for using them first and both were afraid of attacking with regular methods as they were afraid of retaliation. So they're done more good than harm. And I think that country having few nukes is the best to way protect itself.

[Slornie]

I dont agree with nuclear weapons.  There is no need for such hugely destructive weapons.

Here are some quotes from a favourite TV series of mine, Yes (Prime) Minster:

On nuclear deterrent:

Sir Humphrey: With Trident we could obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Jim Hacker: I don't want to obliterate the whole of Eastern Europe.
Sir Humphrey: It's a deterrent.
Jim Hacker: It's a bluff. I probably wouldn't use it.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but they don't know that you probably wouldn't.
Jim Hacker: They probably do.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, they probably know that you probably wouldn't. But they can't certainly know.
Jim Hacker: They probably certainly know that I probably wouldn't.
Sir Humphrey: Yes, but even though they probably certainly know that you probably wouldn't, they don't certainly know that, although you probably wouldn't, there is no probability that you certainly would.

On nuclear weapons:

Sir Humphrey: Don't you believe that Great Britain should have the best?
Jim Hacker: Yes, of course.
Sir Humphrey: Very well, if you walked into a nuclear missile showroom you would buy Trident - it's lovely, it's elegant, it's beautiful. It is quite simply the best. And Britain should have the best. In the world of the nuclear missile it is the Saville Row suit, the Rolls Royce Corniche, the Ch

[Meyer]

yes there is. when many country has those it prevents one country from becoming too powerful. it also prevents massive, large scale wars. nobody wants to go to war with the possibility of nuclear weapons being used. it's the last resort. And always remember that in nuclear war there are no winners. just like it says on DEFCON.

[Slornie]

if no-one has nuclear weapons, no-one is too powerful then, either.

How close did the Cold War come to becoming a real war, waged with nuclear weapons?

So, if there are no winners with having nuclear weapons, they are just a waste of money.

[Meyer]

without nuclear weapons I guess USA would try to conguer the world. but now they can't. that's  just an example of course. I'm not accusing USA of conguering the world or even thinking it.

Well at the time of Cuban crisis it was very near.

and at the moment the nuclear weapons are like expensive paperweights. that can kill thousands of people.

[vadereclipse]

we owe ouur lives to nukes.
at the same time, they take lives away.
and meyer, any country that becomes too powerful will have nukes.
by your logic, we should nuke the usa.
it is not just to get rid of a threa by absolutely destroying its population, and damning it to an inhospitable wasteland for the next thousand years or so.
interestingly, i support nuclear power, though.
nukes should never be fired. the human cost is too great.

[Meyer]

my logic doesn't say that destroy USA. I'd like to know where you got that idea. and my point is that when there are many countries with nukes none can become too powerful.

[Corey]

Not every country has nukes, and you could always have an accidental launching, or have a complete madman/retard in charge of a country with the ability (or almost have the ability) to make them that IS willing to launch them. During Suez, Russia almost nuked London and Paris over a single canal.

[Dane Kiet]

I don't support nuclear weapons on an emotional level, but, intellectually, I have to admit that it does make it harder for someone else to launch one at you.

[Scarecrow63]

For now, im in support, I mean, they did stop WWIII, so for now im good with them.

[GrndAdmrlPellaeon]

Alot more people would have died at Japan, if we hadn't used them. Here are some reasons: a siege (starvation, etc.), other types of bombings, and all sorts of crossfire during an invasion. It would have become like France, desolated. We had to show them we mean business.

I support nukes. They're the reason Cold War never escalated in to a WWIII. Neither side wanted to be blamed for using them first and both were afraid of attacking with regular methods as they were afraid of retaliation. So they're done more good than harm. And I think that country having few nukes is the best to way protect itself.

I wouldn't say that. Maybe now we would be, but not back then. We didn't know the full effect, but the other part is right.

without nuclear weapons I guess USA would try to conguer the world. but now they can't. that's  just an example of course. I'm not accusing USA of conguering the world or even thinking it.

Not to say that you are, but if we wanted to conquer the world we could have done it. We, unlike everyone have nuclear missile defense weapons, as far as I know. But that is not to say we can defend against every method. We have a huge navy and the most advanced military. Now I am not saying we should, but we would be the most likely to, if everyone had a chance.

[Isamu]

Not every country has nukes, and you could always have an accidental launching, or have a complete madman/retard in charge of a country with the ability (or almost have the ability) to make them that IS willing to launch them. During Suez, Russia almost nuked London and Paris over a single canal.

i was talking to one of my teachers today who served in the military during the cold war. there were over a dozen times where the books said that soviet commanders should have launched their missiles but decided not too only later to find out that it was infact a false alarm that nearly triggered a thermonuclear war.

[Scarecrow63]

And theres also the incident where the Russian missle silo's computer malfunctioned at the silo doors opened and the missle was ready for launch, without orders

[Corey]

And the incident where Americans elected Al Gore George Bush. He is insanely fascinated by the big red button....

[GrndAdmrlPellaeon]

When has he said he has ever considered launching a WMD?

[Corey]

I'm not saying he has, but that shiny launch button must be awfully tempting.

[strike23]

When has he said he has ever considered launching a WMD?

he hasnt but its bush... he was probably about to launch one at iraq before people told him that wouldn't work... im american and im embarrased that hes our president. also our navy is only the most advanced now, it doesnt have that much size, however the tech. is good enough that we can kick any other navy's ass.

back on point, im not sure we need as many nukes as we have, there are enough in existance that we could end all life on earth however their use in WWII i agree with because the japaneese were going to fight until they were all dead.

[GrndAdmrlPellaeon]

I agree, maybe so many nukes over does it, but we might need them.

[strike23]

we might need them.

to do what, kill everyone on earth? idk i think its a waste of resources, the uranium should be used in power plants.