kramadas Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 Regarding nukes and WMD's - I am TOTALLY against their use, especially in cities which could cause millions of casualties (hint, Japan, WWII). What are you views on this? Thats why it makes sense for total disarmament of all nations. Please answer this before moving onto the next question.OK, second question. In the event that the US is at war with some other country (this is hypothetical, so assume any country), and WMD's have not been used thus far - do you think, if the US was losing this war, that the president would abstain from using nukes? Would he rather lose this war, and save lives or use nukes to win the war, albeit causing millions upon millions of people to die. Realize if he does resort to nukes it would be first use by the US.What are the moral/ethical values that are behind your answer. Don't jump too hastily to answer this, just think about it a second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 Originally posted by raver_mania Regarding nukes and WMD's - I am TOTALLY against their use, especially in cities which could cause millions of casualties (hint, Japan, WWII). What are you views on this? Thats why it makes sense for total disarmament of all nations. Please answer this before moving onto the next question.OK, second question. In the event that the US is at war with some other country (this is hypothetical, so assume any country), and WMD's have not been used thus far - do you think, if the US was losing this war, that the president would abstain from using nukes? Would he rather lose this war, and save lives or use nukes to win the war, albeit causing millions upon millions of people to die. Realize if he does resort to nukes it would be first use by the US.What are the moral/ethical values that are behind your answer. Don't jump too hastily to answer this, just think about it a second. Will you supply the bong before we answer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 Originally posted by raver_mania Regarding nukes and WMD's - I am TOTALLY against their use, especially in cities which could cause millions of casualties (hint, Japan, WWII). What are you views on this? Thats why it makes sense for total disarmament of all nations. Please answer this before moving onto the next question.OK, second question. In the event that the US is at war with some other country (this is hypothetical, so assume any country), and WMD's have not been used thus far - do you think, if the US was losing this war, that the president would abstain from using nukes? Would he rather lose this war, and save lives or use nukes to win the war, albeit causing millions upon millions of people to die. Realize if he does resort to nukes it would be first use by the US. My Opinion:1. No..those that have it now, stay with them...those seeking them now (Iraq, Iran and N. Korea) must stop...as far as WMD..thats a hard one..those countries that have shown "rogue" tendencies should disarm...(and i know where Normal will be going with this statement)2. No..i dont think he will use them unless used on our troops first...if he is losing the war, he will pull out..plain and simple...i think this is a good question...and should make for good, intelligent debate...IMO:aright: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnice35 Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 first of all dissarming every nation is just a dream, and it will never happen. anyways I preffer us having the arsenal we have instead of a hostile nation having nukes, so I have to disagree with you on disarment Raver. by the way Japan had it coming.secondly, we didnt use WDM in vietnam and its obvious we lost that war, so why do you think we would be careless enough to use them in the future, well unless its neccesary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 13 Author Report Share Posted March 13 Originally posted by igloo Will you supply the bong before we answer? Lol - it really is one for that, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr mahs Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 1) In WWII be fore the dropping of the bomb which Germany came within months to develop the Allies were planning an invasion. The estimated invasion of japan was estimated to cause 5-10 million lives. The United States is not proud of using the weapons but isn't 200k better then 10 million?? I am all for total disarment but how do you enforce it? In a perfect world this would work but can't that really happen? These are the questions that hinder that thought from becming a reality... 2) The sad thing about a nuclear exchange is once it happens it over for all of us. That thought is scary right? that's why we can't let any of these twisted middle east leaders get there hands on them. The leader of Iran is willing to destroy his country for the name of Islam and to defeat the infidels the American's would never do that.. see the diffrence? morally we are on a diffreent level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igloo Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 Originally posted by raver_mania Lol - it really is one for that, no? I am going to have to wait for tonight to respond;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigpoppanils Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 1. i would love to see the world get rid of its nukes/WMDs. Unfortunately I think the only way disarment would occur is if a nuclear weapon is used: most people in this world have not been able to see the devastation a nuclear weapon can cause...especially modern weapons.2. I would hope that he would not resort to that level. I dont think he is that stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 13 Report Share Posted March 13 * BUMP * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 14 Author Report Share Posted March 14 I believe the initial death toll upon imact was about 200k, but the total loss of life came to over a million. I've heard that "it would have cost more lives" argument (5-10 million?!?!?) but I don't buy it -I think its just govt propaganda. Here's an interesting site I found on this topic with original conversations and declassified documents. http://www.dannen.com/decision/Especially read the last article - interview with Leo Szilard. Also, the article (actual minutes of the meeting)on the meeting that discussed "targeting". Its sickening! There is no justification for that horrible act. The message could have as easily been conveyed by dropping a single bomb over a military target or an uninhabited region - a show of might if you will. But to drop not one but TWO bombs on civilian populations - the deliberate targeting of civilians if you will....thats evil! Hell, the wonderful General Groves even seems to have made the order "open-ended". http://www.dannen.com/decision/handy.htmlLook, whats done is done, and can't be undone. People in Japan to this day still feel the after-effects of that terrible day...children are still being born deformed, etc. What really pisses me off are the people who actually try to defend this evil act, and try to justify it with the excuse that more lives would have been lost otherwise. Sorry, I don't buy that - the bomb could have been used in a better way, with less death. And btw, the bomb was not used in Vietnam, but sarin nerve gas (WMD) was. My view - Bush would not hesitate to use nukes or WMDs if push came to shove...after all, the new defense policy (I forget what its called) now authorizes "first strike" use of nuclear weapons against certain countries. Sorry - had to vent! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 Originally posted by raver_mania My view - Bush would not hesitate to use nukes or WMDs if push came to shove...after all, the new defense policy (I forget what its called) now authorizes "first strike" use of nuclear weapons against certain countries. i really really disagree with ur statement...nukes are deterants against other nations that dont or do have nukes...a total breaking down of diplomacy would have to occur before nukes are used or if a first launch is done...the problem lies in the "rogue" countries or terrorist groups...those people dont care about life, so nukes are not a deterant to them...IMO, Bush will only use nukes under two conditions: 1. biological weapons are used (though i am sure he will second guess himself on that) and 2. first strike is launched (he WILL NOT second guess himself on this issue)...just my .02 cents Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kramadas Posted March 14 Author Report Share Posted March 14 Originally posted by mrmatas2277 i really really disagree with ur statement...nukes are deterants against other nations that dont or do have nukes...a total breaking down of diplomacy would have to occur before nukes are used or if a first launch is done...the problem lies in the "rogue" countries or terrorist groups...those people dont care about life, so nukes are not a deterant to them...IMO, Bush will only use nukes under two conditions: 1. biological weapons are used (though i am sure he will second guess himself on that) and 2. first strike is launched (he WILL NOT second guess himself on this issue)...just my .02 cents BUt, just take the historical evidence...WWII, Vietnam...they've both been "first use".And they do have "tactical nukes" ...old articlehttp://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,47319,00.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrmatas2277 Posted March 14 Report Share Posted March 14 Originally posted by raver_mania BUt, just take the historical evidence...WWII, Vietnam...they've both been "first use". i hear ya bro..i just dont think we will use nukes if we are losing...and ur right, wars are testing grounds for new stuff...can u say? M.O.A.B. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.