NationStates Jolt Archive

Should nuclear weapons exist?
If so who should hae them and who should not?
Do we have a right to dictate who may own such weapons?

My own opinion is that the desire to use a nuclear weapon should disqualify as insane, it's owners right to possess such an item.

AMK
xxx

Well toss this in the pile about Iran having nukes or not...

*Waits for AP's post on how radicals should have nukes*

Alas they exist so there's little point in debating whether they should or shouldn't.

It's no more insane than if someone is aggressively coming to me with a stick, that I should pick up a stick to defend myself - you might say I'm doing the equivalent of picking up a grenade with the intent of causing my own destruction but god knows I'd rather take someone down with me than go meekly into the night.

Yet, with my nuclear weapon, I'm also now taking out innocent bystanders as well.

Hmm...

I think our main hope is that we face an alien attack and actually band together as human beings rather than fight each other as nationalities.

...and remember kiddies, when the aliens come they'll eat the fat people first.

So, in conclusion, don't get too fat.

I hope this answers your question.

Yes, they should.

Nuclear armaments are responsible for the longest period of general peace the world has enjoyed in several thousand years. Since the only defence against a nuke is having one of your own, and engaging in MAD, then unless the government involved is manifestly unreliable, nuclear weapons can only reduce the chances of war.

What the fuck are you talking about? Nukes are fucking awesome! They've only been used in a single war and ended it before fall-back plan of a massive invasion that would have surely claimed millions of lives was executed. Since then they've prevented further global conflict and spurred tons of research into nuclear physics and practical applications of that science. During the 1950's there was even project in the US to use nuclear warheads to propell large spacecraft, some of them with thousand-ton payloads, at incredible speeds.

Agreed. Nuclear Weapons are the best peace makers of all time. Just imagine if the Soviets had no nuclear deterrent from the Americans, Europe would have fallen. Japan would surely loose hundreds of thousands more civilians in combat as opposed to the strikes, as horrible as they may be.

Long live the bomb.

If so who should have them and who should not?only me and my very best friends

In the short term, nukes cut down on the number of wars.

In the long term, nukes cut down on the number of habitable planets -- and we currently have only one.

genies tend not to return to their bottles, no mater how big a sledge you try to beat them back in with. you only end up with broken bottles and broken everything else.

those most powerful enough to dictate who else should have what, at present seem the least sane of anyone to be determining who should and shouldn't.

and making war on everyone who'se doing anything that looks like it might be useful for making nuclear weapons, more likely then not as a dodge for stealing something else from them entirely, seems likely to prove to have serious both limits and consiquences on entirely different vectors then any currently acknowledged, and quite possibly immagined.

not so much spectacular ones. that is the most obvious. but more subtle things, and i'm not claiming to know to specify, that in as yet entirely unpredictable ways impact everyone's lives.

yah i don't favor anyone having, let alone using nuclear weapons, but i even less trust anyone in a possition to tell someone else not to.

=^^=
.../\...

Should nuclear weapons exist?
Nukes are stupid: too powerful and dangerous to be used, too risky to be stockpiled. This is in an ideal world, however.
In the real world, any country - nay, any organisation with a book about nuclear physics, a small chemistry lab and a washing machine is technically able to build a fission bomb.


If so who should hae them and who should not?
Do we have a right to dictate who may own such weapons?

No one should have them. But, since some countries have them and aren't likely to dismantle their arsenals - including the only one country who used them in war - well, then, a nuclear balance is better than a lack of balance. If a single country has nukes, any other country has the right to have them. That's why I support a general dismantling of the nuclear arsenals... not that I believe that it will happen, though.

My own opinion is that the desire to use a nuclear weapon should disqualify as insane, it's owners right to possess such an item.
Also, the desire to own nukes (or other WMDs, or weapons that can cause a lot of "collateral damage") disqualifies people and countries. Yes, most countries ARE already disqualified, im(ns)ho.

Kudos.

As long as only a ruthlessly dominant few have nuclear weapons, and these are economically dependent on each other, it's not much of a problem.

As soon as that changes, it becomes a massive problem, because it limits the options of the ruthless few.

I'm not opposed to Iran getting the bomb because I think they're insane enough to use it without provocation. I'm opposed to them getting the bomb because I don't think we're sane enough to avoid forcing them to use it. And that argument covers nuclear proliferation in general. Iran is just a handy example.

Prey and predator shouldn't both have weapons capable of destroying humanity, no matter how unjust that sounds.

Nukes have kept only a large-scale era of peace. There's been plenty of war since WW2, it just was far smaller then it would otherwise have been. The Gulf War, tribal wars in Africa, Serbia/Bosnia, the assorted wars about Israel, the War on Terror, all happened despite nuclear proliferation. Of course, if the weaker countries in those wars had had nukes, then...bad.

Thank God for The Bomb (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/o/ozzy+osbourne/thank+god+for+the+bomb_20103978.html)


Nukes by and large keep the peace, rather than cause death. Gods only know how many would of died in a WWII and the Cold War had it not been for nukes.

Ideally no one should possess nuclear arsenal. Of course, this is not reality so... meh.

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever." - Thomas Edison

We're well on the way there. :p

Should nuclear weapons exist?
If so who should hae them and who should not?
Do we have a right to dictate who may own such weapons?

My own opinion is that the desire to use a nuclear weapon should disqualify as insane, it's owners right to possess such an item.

AMK
xxx

Nobody should have them, but some countries do. So then either everybody gets rid of them, or every body gets to own some.

Should nuclear weapons exist?
If so who should hae them and who should not?
Do we have a right to dictate who may own such weapons?

My own opinion is that the desire to use a nuclear weapon should disqualify as insane, it's owners right to possess such an item.

AMK
xxx

Of course they should. They're excellent deterrents, and they can actually be used in pursuits that are not harmful.

That that spaceship design that was going to use nuclear weapon explosions as part of its movement...that's a worthy cause, certainly.

That that spaceship design that was going to use nuclear weapon explosions as part of its movement...that's a worthy cause, certainly.

A nuclear explosion need not manifest itself in the guise of a weapon. Granted its human nature, if we find something cool, to see if it can be used to rip apart other humans.

In answer to the question of whether this thread is relevant, its not about discussing reality, it's about people discussing their ideas and their ideals. If you are not grown up enough to do that then cool, but don't be so childish as to put a post on here decrying the need to talk about it. If you don't feel the need or feel any relevance, then feel free not to post on this thread.

AMK
xxx

Nobody should have them, but some countries do. So then either everybody gets rid of them, or every body gets to own some.

That is kinda my viewpoint, but I for some reason, cannot see the countries with Nuclear weapons submitting to giving the more interesting contries such as Somalia, Yemen, Algeria etc nuclear weapons. It does seem to be a case of, if you agree with me, you can play with my toys.
Having said that, Germany, a nation which is "not allowed" nuclear weapons has got round the ban by having use of the USA's nuclear weapons if it needs them. An interesting fact I thought.

Cue the following conversation between Angela Merkel and Dubya's aide.
"Hi, er, we really need a shot of one of your nukes, where is George?"
"He's on the toilet right now, can he phone you back?"
"Well its kind of urgent, Putin has finally lost the plot and there are some on their way over here"
"Oh dear, well George had a curry last night he might be some time"
" *nothing but the sound of static* "

The Indians may have a lot to answer for in the near future!

AMK
xxx

I would like to see some statistics comparing the number of wars in the twentieth century compared to past centuries. I have a fairly hard time believing that the last century has been a particularly "peaceful" one, especially when considering more people have died from warfare in the last century than any other.

I'd also like to chime in with the logical absurdity of claiming that because peaceful nuclear research is good, thus nuclear weaponry is, too, simply because it also happens to be nuclear.

That is kinda my viewpoint, but I for some reason, cannot see the countries with Nuclear weapons submitting to giving the more interesting contries such as Somalia, Yemen, Algeria etc nuclear weapons.I can't really speak about the other two, but I had to follow Somalia's "revolutionary cycle" for a class last year and I sure as hell would not want them to have nukes considering there are three obvious "thems" vying for control, one of which is the warlords in general who are actually a whole bunch more "thems". So, no, no matter what, country's being torn asunder by civil war should not be allowed access to nuclear weapons if possible. Chaos + world ending capabilities = no thanks.

The peace you are speaking of is a false peace, and it is bought with a terrible price: the considerable chance of complete thermonuclear annihilation. Stockpiled nuclear weapons are an accident waiting to happen. The whole system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) depends on two things: that all actors are rational and that the actors have accurate knowledge of the situation.

All throughout the Cold War, and even after, there have been plenty of cases of false alarm and mistaken Early Warning systems that have nearly led one side to push the button. During Clinton's administration, such a false positive had the US a mere minute away from thermonuclear war. Clinton literally had his had on the switch, waiting for confirmation by the Early Warning sites. It turned out to be a false alarm.

Murphy's law states that what can go wrong will go wrong given sufficient time. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Nuclear disarmament is imperative if humans want to survive as a species on this planet.

The peace you are speaking of is a false peace, and it is bought with a terrible price: the considerable chance of complete thermonuclear annihilation. Stockpiled nuclear weapons are an accident waiting to happen. The whole system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) depends on two things: that all actors are rational and that the actors have accurate knowledge of the situation.

All throughout the Cold War, and even after, there have been plenty of cases of false alarm and mistaken Early Warning systems that have nearly led one side to push the button. During Clinton's administration, such a false positive had the US a mere minute away from thermonuclear war. Clinton literally had his had on the switch, waiting for confirmation by the Early Warning sites. It turned out to be a false alarm.

Murphy's law states that what can go wrong will go wrong given sufficient time. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Nuclear disarmament is imperative if humans want to survive as a species on this planet.

Indeed spot on, however Nuclear bombs are the ultimate Pee the highest contest.
"I can annihilate the world 17 times"
"I can annihilate it 23!!!"
"Muuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm"

AMK
xxx

Should nuclear weapons exist?
Well, definitely there shouldn't be NEARLY as many as there currently are though I'm not sure if I'd say there shouldn't be any...

If so who should hae them and who should not?
Countries with better human rights records would be more allowed to have them than those with worse human rights recaords. Democracy alone would NOT be a qualification; George W. Bush's re-election would indicate that even democracy shouldn't be trusted, though granted I already had a previous bias against majority rule from my personal experiences anyway.

Oh, and maybe whoever would use a nuke to break up a meteor that would be moving towards earth; I remember hearing before about how if a meteor was approaching earth and we launched a nuclear weapon at it, it would break it up into smaller pieces, increasing the surface area and as such the probability that those smaller pieces would burn up in the atmosphere.

And another thing, is there such a thing as the UN itself owning nuclear weapons? Just asking, I don't know much about what could be considered the UN's "property"...

Do we have a right to dictate who may own such weapons?
Who's "we"? And yeah, given the sheer potential for destruction, I think it'd be unreasonable to say nobody has that right.

A nuclear explosion need not manifest itself in the guise of a weapon. Granted its human nature, if we find something cool, to see if it can be used to rip apart other humans.

In answer to the question of whether this thread is relevant, its not about discussing reality, it's about people discussing their ideas and their ideals. If you are not grown up enough to do that then cool, but don't be so childish as to put a post on here decrying the need to talk about it. If you don't feel the need or feel any relevance, then feel free not to post on this thread.

AMK
xxx
I did feel the need and the relevance to say what I said. As you said, this is for ideas, ideals, suggestions, and thoughts. I shared my opinions, because that's what you asked for, and that will happen on NSG. A bit of friendly advice: get used to it. I wasn't trying to be an ass. A lot of others will, and you need to develop a skin for that.

Long Live the Nuke.....

However, the Nuke must only be possessed by a country with a good leader.

I did feel the need and the relevance to say what I said. As you said, this is for ideas, ideals, suggestions, and thoughts. I shared my opinions, because that's what you asked for, and that will happen on NSG. A bit of friendly advice: get used to it. I wasn't trying to be an ass. A lot of others will, and you need to develop a skin for that.

Thanks for the advice, I have a perfectly thick skin, however a persons right to say what they want is accompanied by the respondents right to reply. I am not undermining my position by asking people to grow up.
Imagine the carnage that would happen in schools if teachers could not take issue with cheeky children for fear of being accused of being weak!?!?!

Give a stupid reply, expect criticism. I do, everyone else should. Also Kyronea I was not criticising your post directly/exclusively so I hope you don't feel that I was. :)

AMK
xxx

No, I wasn't. I was simply making the very point you just made: make a comment, one should expect a reply, and should not complain or state that the other person cannot reply in that manner.

Or rather, accept the fact that they will say what they want, just as you can say what you want, and that's the beauty of free speech.

And then we get a sucky one after that, Koguryo. Then what? Remember, the sucky ones are precisely the ones who'll refuse to give up their nukes.

I kind of miss voted.

No. But if one has them, anyone with the capability to balance it with "butter" has the right to. This means Iran could have them, but North Korea cannot.

I agree, nukes make excellent deterrants. However, what if we get a suicidal nation that is determined to bring down the other side, no matter what? And what if THEY get nukes? I agree, nukes should be regulated, however, we must rotate the people who decide, or we might get an evil nation with the bomb. So really, it's a prime danged if you do, danged if you don't scenario. :confused:

Well, Ideally, no weapon should exist. Practically, though, every nation has the right to develop its own nuclear weapons, its up to everyone else to not give them a reason to use them. Argue with me if you will, but we simply cannot interfere with other countries, for one reason, or offend/ attack other countries without provocation. We can, however, take indirect measures to prevent unstable countries from acquiring it.

Also forgive me, but there is very little chance that all nuclear weapons will strike every place on earth in the event of nuclear war, or that all humanity will be destroyed at that point. Its simply a matter of waiting, developing biological tolerance, or simply dying, but not all of humanity will be wiped out, since humanity has the cognitive ability to adapt to the situation.

However, the Nuke must only be possessed by a country with a good leader.
If only every leader was a good leader. Then we wouldn't have George Bush in power.

Also there is the fact that weapons are tools and can be used outside of a hostile context between humans; such as a rifle being used to hunt in a survival situation, a bomb used to demolish buildings, an ax used to cut wood, etc. Even if a weapon was designed to be a weapon in the first place, it does not have to remain one. Outside of military applications, I've seen plans for transportation (the nuke space propulsion as mentioned before, I believe it was called the Orion Project or something), excavation/mining, asteroid deflection/destruction (said before), jumpstarting a planets core (not really, thats a really, really stupid idea. Silly Aaron Eckhart and his character portrayal of a Geophysicist.). There are many times when a bigass explosion would serve the purpose.

Having said that, Germany, a nation which is "not allowed" nuclear weapons has got round the ban by having use of the USA's nuclear weapons if it needs them. An interesting fact I thought.
Well, they're not gonna be used at German discretion. They're NATO's bombs, it just so happens that the squadrons that deliver them happen to be Luftwaffe.

Germany doesn't actually want bombs: Sarko's Nuke Offer Bombs with Berlin (http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,506124,00.html)

I agree, nukes make excellent deterrants. However, what if we get a suicidal nation that is determined to bring down the other side, no matter what? And what if THEY get nukes? I agree, nukes should be regulated, however, we must rotate the people who decide, or we might get an evil nation with the bomb. So really, it's a prime danged if you do, danged if you don't scenario. :confused:

The idea that there are "suicidal nations" is just ridiculous. Nations are lead by people who have the means of attaining power, those people, cruel and immoral or kind and benevolent, tend to be rational. This is especially true when they have to juggle various factions to maintain power, though some of those faction may very well want him/her out of power. Anyway, my point is that this silly idea that it's a realistic possibility for a nation to want to harm itself is, well, just that...silly. It doesn't happen in the real world.

Also there is the fact that weapons are tools and can be used outside of a hostile context between humans; such as a rifle being used to hunt in a survival situation, a bomb used to demolish buildings, an ax used to cut wood, etc. Even if a weapon was designed to be a weapon in the first place, it does not have to remain one. Outside of military applications, I've seen plans for transportation (the nuke space propulsion as mentioned before, I believe it was called the Orion Project or something), excavation/mining, asteroid deflection/destruction (said before), jumpstarting a planets core (not really, thats a really, really stupid idea. Silly Aaron Eckhart and his character portrayal of a Geophysicist.). There are many times when a bigass explosion would serve the purpose. While I agree that there are peaceful uses for nuclear research, this doesn't imply that creating uses for it whose sole purpose is the massive and imprecise destruction of human life is acceptable. Nuclear power = yay, Nuclear warhead = less yay.

In regards to the question of whether the UN has control of nuclear arms. The answer is no. Correct me if I'm wrong, please, but I'm fairly certain that the UN has no personal army of its own whatsoever. All military personnel used by the UN are troops from other countries whose loyalties, in the end, remain towards those countries. Nuclear weapons would fall under the same category...on paper it very well may have control of nuclear weapons, but, when it comes down to it, those weapons are physically possessed and maintained by member countries.

Mushroom clouds are pretty - so I say yes. :p

No more countries should develop nuclear weapons.

The ones that do have nukes, should be allowed to keep them until they see fit, or they agree on getting rid of them.

Why hasn't anyone anwered my previous question yet?

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. No wait! I got a better one: If you outlaw nukes only outlaws will have nukes! :p

Personally I think nukes are good, I like nukes: They're just very high explosives without all the hassle and expense that goes into capability of carpet bombing or using chemical & biological warfare against a 'hostile' nation. A good nuclear arsenal and well trained nuclear force equals a mighty army relative to opening hostilities...Nukes are thus also a tool for peace. And in case of a nasty ware a clean nuclear device is also a relatively humane way of dealing with mass destruction: It's not as messy or contaminating as large scale chemical or biological attack nor does it cause as much pollution or cost as much as an extensive bombing campaign combined with ground assault.


Then there's the aspect of protecting our planet against extraterrestrial threats (small asteroids...not ETs...I hope ;))


Slightly off topic, I also really don't see how anyone who's "pro-gun" could be "anti-nuke" as the only difference between combat knife, gun or a nuke is power - The people behind the chosen weapons are still the ones deciding whether and *how* to use them.

Nobody should have them, but some countries do. So then either everybody gets rid of them, or every body gets to own some.I 100% agree.

Nukes don't kill people, people kill people. No wait! I got a better one: If you outlaw nukes only outlaws will have nukes! :p

Personally I think nukes are good, I like nukes: They're just very high explosives without all the hassle and expense that goes into capability of carpet bombing or using chemical & biological warfare against a 'hostile' nation. A good nuclear arsenal and well trained nuclear force equals a mighty army relative to opening hostilities...Nukes are thus also a tool for peace. And in case of a nasty ware a clean nuclear device is also a relatively humane way of dealing with mass destruction: It's not as messy or contaminating as large scale chemical or biological attack nor does it cause as much pollution or cost as much as an extensive bombing campaign combined with ground assault.


Then there's the aspect of protecting our planet against extraterrestrial threats (small asteroids...not ETs...I hope ;))


Slightly off topic, I also really don't see how anyone who's "pro-gun" could be "anti-nuke" as the only difference between combat knife, gun or a nuke is power - The people behind the chosen weapons are still the ones deciding whether and *how* to use them.

What in the name of god is a clean Nuke? There is no such thing as a nuclear weapon which does not give a massive fall-out that will contaminate the affected area and anywhere else it can for a great length of time. Anyone that tells you different is just plain wrong.
A combat knife lets you kill one at a time whilst having to seriously consider your actions, a nuke lets you kill 3 million at a time whilst eating a bowl of cornflakes. The difference is vast.
If you call heating someone up to about 10 000 celcius and melting them against their bedroom wall humane, then you are probably right, I on the other hand would take exception to that as a method of mass destruction. Primarily asking the question why mass destruction needs to happen at all? I thought we went into Iraq to stop mass destruction! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AMK
xxx

I kind of miss voted.you voted for Bush?

damn you :p :mp5::mp5::sniper:

The peace you are speaking of is a false peace, and it is bought with a terrible price: the considerable chance of complete thermonuclear annihilation. Stockpiled nuclear weapons are an accident waiting to happen. The whole system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) depends on two things: that all actors are rational and that the actors have accurate knowledge of the situation.

All throughout the Cold War, and even after, there have been plenty of cases of false alarm and mistaken Early Warning systems that have nearly led one side to push the button. During Clinton's administration, such a false positive had the US a mere minute away from thermonuclear war. Clinton literally had his had on the switch, waiting for confirmation by the Early Warning sites. It turned out to be a false alarm.

Murphy's law states that what can go wrong will go wrong given sufficient time. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Nuclear disarmament is imperative if humans want to survive as a species on this planet.

I don't know, it would truely take a mad man to intiate that sort of thing. Perhaps I have more faith in human kind, and it's compassion? As to Murphys law, you do know that aint real yeah?

Long Live the Nuke.....

However, the Nuke must only be possessed by a country with a good leader.

Heheh and how do we tell one of them, then? By what atributes is a good leader known?

Nukes by and large keep the peace, rather than cause death. Gods only know how many would of died in a WWII and the Cold War had it not been for nukes.

What a load of bullshit.

WW2 was already over in its main theatre (European eastern front) when nuke were employed against Japan - and Japan was going to fall even without nukes. They were already cut out of their supply routes, and the CCCP was about to turn its armies east. Even an embargo would have been enough to topple Japan.

People didn't die in Cold War-era wars? Ask: Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Nicaraguenses, Hungarians, Afghani, Lebaneses, Iraqis, Israelis, Iranians, Kurds, Pakistani, Indians, and lots of many other people...

Oh yeah, Cold War was an ideal peacetime for all the world, I guess.

What in the name of god is a clean Nuke? There is no such thing as a nuclear weapon which does not give a massive fall-out

Actually, a Nova-style (laser) ignited tritium/lithium mix within a huge tank of deuterium would be a "clean" nuke... no major fallout, just one of the most horrible gamma bursts ever. Never underestimate the human ability of building better machines to kill more people.

Fuck no!

Honestly, the sooner we're rid of the scourge of nuclear weapons, the better. Unfortunately, we don't live in a world that's particularly conducive to accepting such a change.

What in the name of god is a clean Nuke?

A clean, compared to dirty, nuclear weapon is a weapon which mainly produces only a short lived isotopes and/or produces most of its explosive yield from fusion power.

For example, the Tsar Bomba.

There is no such thing as a nuclear weapon which does not give a massive fall-out that will contaminate the affected area and anywhere else it can for a great length of time.

While fallout is a concern it is usually only substantially dangerous locally and for a relatively short time - matter of several months instead of years.

Nagasaki & Hiroshima come to mind as solid examples of the relative cleanliness of nuclear attack...A wiki quote:
By December of 1945, thousands had died from their injuries and a small number from radiation poisoning, bringing the total killed in Hiroshima in 1945 to perhaps 140,000.[23] In the years between 1950 and 1990, it is statistically estimated that hundreds of deaths are attributable to radiation exposure among atomic bomb survivors from both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In my view, in case you want mass destruction nukes are the way to go: Famine & diseases - perhaps even sectarian violence or the 'total war' itself - due to prolonged conventional war, non contained biological attacks and/or chemical weapon campaigns can have so much more horrid death tolls than few hundred, perhaps thousands, cancer victims!!

Besides, a nation with a publicly acknowledged nuclear arsenal has never been a target of a (symmetric) war directly threatening its people or sovereignity.

The peace you are speaking of is a false peace, and it is bought with a terrible price: the considerable chance of complete thermonuclear annihilation. Stockpiled nuclear weapons are an accident waiting to happen. The whole system of MAD (mutually assured destruction) depends on two things: that all actors are rational and that the actors have accurate knowledge of the situation.

Murphy's law states that what can go wrong will go wrong given sufficient time. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Nuclear disarmament is imperative if humans want to survive as a species on this planet.
Or the very real chance that our survival as a species, on this planet or any place else, may depend on access to something as powerful.

Then there's the aspect of protecting our planet against extraterrestrial threats (small asteroids...not ETs...I hope ;))



What a load of bullshit.

WW2 was already over in its main theatre (European eastern front) when nuke were employed against Japan - and Japan was going to fall even without nukes. They were already cut out of their supply routes, and the CCCP was about to turn its armies east. Even an embargo would have been enough to topple Japan.
Maybe, maybe...but at the cost of how many millions more lives?


People didn't die in Cold War-era wars? Ask: Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Nicaraguenses, Hungarians, Afghani, Lebaneses, Iraqis, Israelis, Iranians, Kurds, Pakistani, Indians, and lots of many other people...

Oh yeah, Cold War was an ideal peacetime for all the world, I guess.
*See above comment, only lives lost x2-3 (best case scenario)

It was by no means an "ideal peacetime," nobody's trying to claim that. Please leave the poor straw man alone!


a load of bullshit indeed...

Oh yeah, Cold War was an ideal peacetime for all the world, I guess.
There has never been an "ideal peacetime," and we're even less likely to get such niceties now that many industrialized countries can invade anywhere at any time. The Cold War, and its several small conflicts, however, was at least preferable to the first half of the 20th Century.

Actually, a Nova-style (laser) ignited tritium/lithium mix within a huge tank of deuterium would be a "clean" nuke... no major fallout, just one of the most horrible gamma bursts ever. Never underestimate the human ability of building better machines to kill more people.

I can imagine the huge thrill you got writing all that out. C'mon now, lets be realistic here...

Nagasaki & Hiroshima come to mind as solid examples of the relative cleanliness of nuclear attack

There are still people born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with defects as a result of exposure to radiation. If that is clean I want to get Rentokil in to check it out.

AMK
xxx

There are still people born in Hiroshima and Nagasaki with defects as a result of exposure to radiation. If that is clean I want to get Rentokil in to check it out.

AMK
xxx
There are people born all around the world with birth defects who've never been exposed to radiation or chemical hazards. Sometimes it just happens. You can actually grow food in Nagasaki soil that is safe to eat today. I wouldn't be surpised if you could even do it in the 50s and 60s. A lot of people who say no to the bomb really don't understand it and I think that a lot of their fear comes from their ignorance. We don't teach kids in school how to make guns or bombs or very much, if anything, about nuclear physics or anything else that can lead to knowledge of how to kill. This lack of knowledge leads many to misinformed thinking and poor decisions later in life and those that do bother to educate themselves about all the crazy shit that most people don't want to talk about will probably be more likely to use it in the wrong ways.

Nuclear weapons can be broken down into to two basic types, gun and compression. Gun-type bombs are the simpler of the two and fairly easy to construct though they aren't as clean and efficient and generally require more material to function. You cannot use plutonium in a gun-type bomb or it'll just sort of fissle out (pardon the pun), the most you'd see would be a radiation surge like what they observed during the super-criticality experiments they conducted with te Dragon. That was a scary motherfucker! It consisted of a uranium ring and a uranium slug that was dropped through the ring. If the two components ever jammed it would have been like a mini-meltdown but it wouldn't have exploded.

The other, more versatile type is the compression-type. This is the cleaner, more efficient bomb. It consists of a slug of plutonium surrounded by conventional explosives that have to fire together at the same time and create a nearly perfectly balanced explosion that squeezes the core until the atoms start to split apart. The more conventional explosives you pile on, the more complete the "burn" will be. You can even boost them with light nuclei that fuse.

Now who wants to learn about plasma and how it stagnates against different materials to create meganewtons of thrust?

Nukes exist, and although you can destroy something, you can't un-create an idea. Like it or not, they are here to stay. Wishing otherwise is a waste of time.

There was a plan to use them to create another Atlantic-Pacific canal (this one in Mexico I believe,) but nothing was ever done along those lines.

Oh, and the spaceship powered by nuclear bombs was called project Orion.

There are people born all around the world with birth defects who've never been exposed to radiation or chemical hazards. Sometimes it just happens. You can actually grow food in Nagasaki soil that is safe to eat today. I wouldn't be surpised if you could even do it in the 50s and 60s. A lot of people who say no to the bomb really don't understand it and I think that a lot of their fear comes from their ignorance. We don't teach kids in school how to make guns or bombs or very much, if anything, about nuclear physics or anything else that can lead to knowledge of how to kill. This lack of knowledge leads many to misinformed thinking and poor decisions later in life and those that do bother to educate themselves about all the crazy shit that most people don't want to talk about will probably be more likely to use it in the wrong ways.

Nuclear weapons can be broken down into to two basic types, gun and compression. Gun-type bombs are the simpler of the two and fairly easy to construct though they aren't as clean and efficient and generally require more material to function. You cannot use plutonium in a gun-type bomb or it'll just sort of fissle out (pardon the pun), the most you'd see would be a radiation surge like what they observed during the super-criticality experiments they conducted with te Dragon. That was a scary motherfucker! It consisted of a uranium ring and a uranium slug that was dropped through the ring. If the two components ever jammed it would have been like a mini-meltdown but it wouldn't have exploded.

The other, more versatile type is the compression-type. This is the cleaner, more efficient bomb. It consists of a slug of plutonium surrounded by conventional explosives that have to fire together at the same time and create a nearly perfectly balanced explosion that squeezes the core until the atoms start to split apart. The more conventional explosives you pile on, the more complete the "burn" will be. You can even boost them with light nuclei that fuse.

Now who wants to learn about plasma and how it stagnates against different materials to create meganewtons of thrust?

Look, a wikipedia article on Nuclear bombs does not qualify you to say what effect it has. The rates of congential birth defects in the two aforementioned areas are considerably higher than in the rest of Japan. The factors that medical opinion considers to be the most significant is the nuclear fallout.
Congratulations that we have devised a bomb that it only takes 20 years until we can grow food in the affected area! We must be well pleased with ourselves there. Thats ok, just like its ok that only a few hundred thousand people died. It could have been a million eh? Lets all pat ourselves on the back shall we?
Jesus, the thing is inhumane, how can you possibly say that the effects it has from the instant of detonation to whatever happens 50 years later can possibly be described as positive? It is indescriminate killing on a scale that can never ever be defended. The only reason for them is to kill innocent people and use the threat and effect of that as a blackmail tool.
If that is how you wish your country to conduct its foreign affairs then so be it.

AMK
xxx

Look, a wikipedia article on Nuclear bombs does not qualify you to say what effect it has. The rates of congential birth defects in the two aforementioned areas are considerably higher than in the rest of Japan. The factors that medical opinion considers to be the most significant is the nuclear fallout.
Congratulations that we have devised a bomb that it only takes 20 years until we can grow food in the affected area! We must be well pleased with ourselves there. Thats ok, just like its ok that only a few hundred thousand people died. It could have been a million eh? Lets all pat ourselves on the back shall we?
Jesus, the thing is inhumane, how can you possibly say that the effects it has from the instant of detonation to whatever happens 50 years later can possibly be described as positive? It is indescriminate killing on a scale that can never ever be defended. The only reason for them is to kill innocent people and use the threat and effect of that as a blackmail tool.
If that is how you wish your country to conduct its foreign affairs then so be it.

AMK
xxx

So please explain how you would have conducted the invasion of Japan without destroying most of the country.

Nuclear weapons are extremely effective tools for doing what they are meant to do. This is basically provide an utterly huge explosion on demands. Like all other explosives, they were developed, and are primarily used for, military purposes. However, they do not have to be.

Project Orion has been mentioned several times already. It was a concept for an interstellar starship. Intended to get a colossal number of people from A to B reasonable quickly. Calculations showed that this thing is more efficient and effective as you scale up - to the point where you could basically transport the population of a small city (if I remember correctly).

Another thing is that many people have very strong misconceptions about nukes. These include: A nuclear detonation vaporizes everything in several miles. Everyone who is even able to see a nuclear detonation will die a horrible death of cancer. Nuclear fallout renders locations inhabitable for centuries.

All of these are, quite simply, untrue. Nuclear tests showed that simply a layer of grease, left by fingerprints, on the surface of metal could protect it from serious damage. Project Orion relied on being able to detonate bombs within a hundred metres or so of the spaceship.

For the second and third, it is true that the aftereffects of a nuclear blast can prove to put those who are in range at a higher risk of cancer. From the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl: "...and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed", "...the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.", and "In addition, there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer)". Obviously, then, this radiation thing isn't actually that lethal in smallish doses. In fact, it helps build your body's resistance.

Having said all that, I would prefer it if all countries voluntarily gave up nuclear arms. As they appear to be here to stay, I support the right of non-nuclear nations to arm themselves as well.

What in the name of god is a clean Nuke? There is no such thing as a nuclear weapon which does not give a massive fall-out that will contaminate the affected area and anywhere else it can for a great length of time. Anyone that tells you different is just plain wrong.
A combat knife lets you kill one at a time whilst having to seriously consider your actions, a nuke lets you kill 3 million at a time whilst eating a bowl of cornflakes. The difference is vast.
If you call heating someone up to about 10 000 celcius and melting them against their bedroom wall humane, then you are probably right, I on the other hand would take exception to that as a method of mass destruction. Primarily asking the question why mass destruction needs to happen at all? I thought we went into Iraq to stop mass destruction! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Excellent, but I must clarify. A combat knife is owned by a person, while a nuke is owned by everyone (government) but controlled by one person (president, leader, or madman).

Another thing is that many people have very strong misconceptions about nukes. These include: A nuclear detonation vaporizes everything in several miles. Everyone who is even able to see a nuclear detonation will die a horrible death of cancer. Nuclear fallout renders locations inhabitable for centuries.

All of these are, quite simply, untrue. Nuclear tests showed that simply a layer of grease, left by fingerprints, on the surface of metal could protect it from serious damage. Project Orion relied on being able to detonate bombs within a hundred metres or so of the spaceship.

For the second and third, it is true that the aftereffects of a nuclear blast can prove to put those who are in range at a higher risk of cancer. From the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl: "...and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed", "...the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.", and "In addition, there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer)". Obviously, then, this radiation thing isn't actually that lethal in smallish doses. In fact, it helps build your body's resistance.

Amen, brother. Amen.

Look, a wikipedia article on Nuclear bombs does not qualify you to say what effect it has.
But an engineering background does. Not everyone here is going to understand the inner workings of nuclear warheads explained in great detail and it probably isn't a good idea to go into specifics about their construction on the internet. I didn't pull what I said from wikipedos, I drew on my education and did my best to simplify the information for a lay audience.

The rates of congential birth defects in the two aforementioned areas are considerably higher than in the rest of Japan.
Sauce? Seeing how radiation is typically short-lived I kinda doubt that. It's isotopes that you have some cause to worry over but only certain ones. Uranium 238 or depleted uranium is fairly stable even though it's considered radioactive. Unless you ingest alpha-emitters the radiation they emit usually doesn't penetrate your skin all that much because the helium nuclei (alpha particles) are so big compared with electrons (beta particles), neutrons, and photons (gamma rays). Beta particles are smaller so they can penetrate a little more than alpha. Gamma rays are just light and go through everything. Neutron radiation is the worst of them because it can be more penetrating than alpha or beta due to it not being charged but can still knock electrons out of place. Neutron radiation can also alter the nuclei of some atoms turning them into radioisotopes.

Congratulations that we have devised a bomb that it only takes 20 years until we can grow food in the affected area!
Did I say twenty years or ten? The bombs were dropped in 45 and by the 50s you could grow food safely. The W54 mininuke would have only irradiated a small area for less than a week. Radiation need not persist.

Thats ok, just like its ok that only a few hundred thousand people died. It could have been a million eh? Lets all pat ourselves on the back shall we?
Yes, it could have been more than a million. Why drop a bomb that sacrifices two hundred thousand and saves millions when you could launch an invasion against a hostile and aggressive nation that will fight to the last man and kill millions of people?

Jesus, the thing is inhumane, how can you possibly say that the effects it has from the instant of detonation to whatever happens 50 years later can possibly be described as positive?
Would you kill one man to save thousands? Not killing the one would mean killing the thousands. If you won't kill the one to save the thousands then you're pretty fucking sick.

It is indescriminate killing on a scale that can never ever be defended.
And yet there are quite a few people, not just here but IRL too, who have defended both their existance and use.

The only reason for them is to kill innocent people and use the threat and effect of that as a blackmail tool.
There are more reasons for nukes than just to kill innocent people. They can be used tactically to take out large numbers of soldiers and can be made small enough to only destroy just a few city blocks. As already pointed out, there were plans to use them in advanced space propulsion systems. Hell, one guy even used a mirror during a test to light a fag.

If that is how you wish your country to conduct its foreign affairs then so be it.
Is that a threat or are you approving of such tactics?

AMK
xxx
What is this? What does this mean?

Seeing how radiation is typically short-lived I kinda doubt that. It's isotopes that you have some cause to worry over but only certain ones. Uranium 238 or depleted uranium is fairly stable even though it's considered radioactive. Unless you ingest alpha-emitters the radiation they emit usually doesn't penetrate your skin all that much because the helium nuclei (alpha particles) are so big compared with electrons (beta particles), neutrons, and photons (gamma rays). Beta particles are smaller so they can penetrate a little more than alpha. Gamma rays are just light and go through everything. Neutron radiation is the worst of them because it can be more penetrating than alpha or beta due to it not being charged but can still knock electrons out of place. Neutron radiation can also alter the nuclei of some atoms turning them into radioisotopes.
A person who actually understands nuclear physics on NationStates.

But an engineering background does.
I'm a physics major myself. It gets frustrating when you get these (probably, I don't pretend to know everyone's education) liberal arts majors (I'm assuming, people) who don't really have a clue what they are talking about technically. Politically, however, they typically know almost everything. What type of engineering?

Nukes exist, and although you can destroy something, you can't un-create an idea. Like it or not, they are here to stay. Wishing otherwise is a waste of time.

There was a plan to use them to create another Atlantic-Pacific canal (this one in Mexico I believe,) but nothing was ever done along those lines.

Oh, and the spaceship powered by nuclear bombs was called project Orion.

I've also heard they were used to create underground bases in the 50s and 60s..

Laterale,
Structural and mechanical, though from 6th grade through HS I was pretty interested in chemistry. In HS I built a model nuke but no need to worry, the core was a rubber ball and the explosives were clay or something. I think it's still in my closet somewhere.

People don't buy things that they have no intention of using. I believe no one should have nuclear weapons. I believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings count as genocide and crimes against humanity.

In HS I built a model nuke but no need to worry, the core was a rubber ball and the explosives were clay or something. I think it's still in my closet somewhere.
That is friggin awesome. In high school my friends and I used to do things like build trebuchets, mechanical objects, and such. Well, one set of my friends. The others did drama and discussed politics.

count as genocide and crimes against humanity.

If the populations were any or all of these, then your argument would make sense:

1: the population killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of one homogeneous ethnic group;

2: All of the population of this ethnic group (see above) were located and destroyed by the bombings;

3: The intent was to destroy the ethnic group as a primary or secondary motive.

Otherwise, it does not count as 'genocide'.

Being somewhat of a self-describe historian I think I can talk a little about Japan. Alright first of all initial casualties estimates for the operation were about 1 million without including guerrilla resistance and civilian resistance and all that fun stuff. Modern estimates have been acurately tallied at 1.4 Million men just in the taking. Also consider a long resistance. We would have been occupying a hostile country that would have fought to the death. They taught kids to take wooden stakes and sharpen them and try to kill Americans with them if they invaded. Now I'm not saying everyone would have done that but if one or two did think about jumpy trigger fingers massacres and other things that would have stiffened resistance. Also please remember the Japanese were prepared to die to the last man. So why we are talking about 1.4 Million Americans in initial operations there are also probably a million Japaneses who would be killed. Also the lack of an ally in Japan would have substantial repercussions on the world of today.

Continuing onward about the fall out about 10,000 people or so died from that so far. Alright that is horrible boo hoo. Sorry but I would rather kill (Of all victims) 160,000 than somewhere around the neighborhood of 2.4 million. Look the problem with these arguments is people get caught up too much with the human faults and the fact that "Oh a child is dying of starvation as his parents can't provide because the rot away with leukemia." But in reality very few experience predicaments like this and the most common deaths were Shrapnel like injury wounds. The ones who were burned away instantly were lucky they felt no pain. Might I remind you in the firebombing of Tokyo 200,000 were killed? So We killed more Japanese total in one incident of conventional bombings than total of 2 nuclear bombings.

In the end it comes down to people saying who are killing 20 to save one acting like they kill 1 to save 20l. Know where you stand and in the end. 2,400,000,000>160,000. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - (Ultimate Nerd Spock quote reference).

That is friggin awesome. In high school my friends and I used to do things like build trebuchets, mechanical objects, and such. Well, one set of my friends. The others did drama and discussed politics.



If the populations were any or all of these, then your argument would make sense:

1: the population killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of one homogeneous ethnic group;

2: All of the population of this ethnic group (see above) were located and destroyed by the bombings;

3: The intent was to destroy the ethnic group as a primary or secondary motive.

Otherwise, it does not count as 'genocide'.

1.The Holocaust counts as genocide, yet Jews weren't the only ones killed.

2.No genocide has completely wiped out a race in recent history

3.It was a primary motive.

Nuclear warheads should only be entrusted to a very few entities.

Those entities should be:
The U.S.A.
Russia
The United Kingdom
France (a bit of misgivings, but still ok)
China

And Smunkee. We can trust her. If you can't trust the NS Soccor mom, who can you trust???


Entities that should not get nukes:
Iran
N. Korea
Pakistan (they should be forced to get rid of their nukes)
India (read Pakistan. Those two are just waiting to go at each others' throats)
Israel (if they have them. Since we don't have reliable evidence, I'll just state that they shouldn't be allowed to possess nukes)

And non-active military service members that are supporters of either the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox. Same reasons as India and Pakistan, but to a much greater degree of possibility of use. Especially with that deteriorating lead, either side may try a pre-eminent strike...

Being somewhat of a self-describe historian I think I can talk a little about Japan. Alright first of all initial casualties estimates for the operation were about 1 million without including guerrilla resistance and civilian resistance and all that fun stuff. Modern estimates have been acurately tallied at 1.4 Million men just in the taking. Also consider a long resistance. We would have been occupying a hostile country that would have fought to the death. They taught kids to take wooden stakes and sharpen them and try to kill Americans with them if they invaded. Now I'm not saying everyone would have done that but if one or two did think about jumpy trigger fingers massacres and other things that would have stiffened resistance. Also please remember the Japanese were prepared to die to the last man. So why we are talking about 1.4 Million Americans in initial operations there are also probably a million Japaneses who would be killed. Also the lack of an ally in Japan would have substantial repercussions on the world of today.

Continuing onward about the fall out about 10,000 people or so died from that so far. Alright that is horrible boo hoo. Sorry but I would rather kill (Of all victims) 160,000 than somewhere around the neighborhood of 2.4 million. Look the problem with these arguments is people get caught up too much with the human faults and the fact that "Oh a child is dying of starvation as his parents can't provide because the rot away with leukemia." But in reality very few experience predicaments like this and the most common deaths were Shrapnel like injury wounds. The ones who were burned away instantly were lucky they felt no pain. Might I remind you in the firebombing of Tokyo 200,000 were killed? So We killed more Japanese total in one incident of conventional bombings than total of 2 nuclear bombings.

In the end it comes down to people saying who are killing 20 to save one acting like they kill 1 to save 20l. Know where you stand and in the end. 2,400,000,000>160,000. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." - (Ultimate Nerd Spock quote reference).


Why invade at all? Their army and economy was devastated. Just days before the bombings Japan offered a conditional peace treaty. America in its supreme arrogance refused.

The "think of how many would have died if we invaded" argument doesn't work with me. Japan was pushed to their borders and on the brink of collapse either way.

In my humble opinion, most of all things that exist have a purpose, and those that don't should be eradicated. But nukes do have a purpose, not necessarily good, but nuclear armageddon would actually be a good thing. As long as the cockroaches and twinkies dont evolve into humans again. If you think about it, humans are a mistake. Without humans, thousands, millions, maybe even billions of species of plants animals and bacteria would still exist. Also, humans are one species, those that we've exterminated are all but infinite.

Signed, Mr. Dr. Professor Kagetora, a kid who likes debates

France and the UK should not have nukes:mad:

Nuclear warheads should only be entrusted to a very few entities.

Those entities should be:
The U.S.A.
Russia
The United Kingdom
France (a bit of misgivings, but still ok)
China

And me. 'Cuz I've never used them in the past.


Entities that should not get nukes:
Iran
N. Korea
Pakistan (they should be forced to get rid of their nukes)
India (read Pakistan. Those two are just waiting to go at each others' throats)
Israel (if they have them. Since we don't have reliable evidence, I'll just state that they shouldn't be allowed to possess nukes)

And non-active military service members that are supporters of either the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Sox. Same reasons as India and Pakistan, but to a much greater degree of possibility of use. Especially with that deteriorating lead, either side may try a pre-eminent strike...

That's ridiculous. The USA is just as likely to set off a nuke as anyone. Look at the fucking psychopath in office now! Have you forgotten all about the PNAC and their influence? Goddamn, I wouldn't trust Obama with a fucking nuke either. China? A nation with a government dedicated to becoming the world's greatest power. Russia? No. Just no.

There is only one use for a nuclear weapon. Only one. Therefore, it doesn't matter who has it, because the result will be the same: mass murder.

I'm pretty sure that the primary motive was to end the war.

By killing civilians. There were plenty of military bases that were declared beneficial to destroy. They were denied.

3.It was a primary motive.
I'm pretty sure that the primary motive was to end the war.

Kagetora;13068145']In my humble opinion, most of all things that exist have a purpose, and those that don't should be eradicated. But nukes do have a purpose, not necessarily good, but nuclear armageddon would actually be a good thing. As long as the cockroaches and twinkies dont evolve into humans again. If you think about it, humans are a mistake. Without humans, thousands, millions, maybe even billions of species of plants animals and bacteria would still exist. Also, humans are one species, those that we've exterminated are all but infinite.

Signed, Mr. Dr. Professor Kagetora, a kid who likes debates

Aye, but we're the ones that have sentience, and thus, we're the ones with limitless potential. Besides, all of those species would eventually die off as better adpated organisms became the more dominant species. We humans have simply developed one tool that seems to grant us limitless possibilities: Sentience. If we died, it would probably be only a matter of time before another species crawled up that could reason on the abstract level and thus dominate the planet.

Hey Free Socialist Allies, just be glad bush has only one more year in office

Kagetora;13068145']In my humble opinion, most of all things that exist have a purpose, and those that don't should be eradicated. But nukes do have a purpose, not necessarily good, but nuclear armageddon would actually be a good thing. As long as the cockroaches and twinkies dont evolve into humans again. If you think about it, humans are a mistake. Without humans, thousands, millions, maybe even billions of species of plants animals and bacteria would still exist. Also, humans are one species, those that we've exterminated are all but infinite.

Signed, Mr. Dr. Professor Kagetora, a kid who likes debates

I agree that a nuclear armageddon would be beneficial to the Earth, but this vegetarian, eco-friendly, hedonistic anarchist, would not like to die in a nuclear attack, nor would he like to see his friends die in a nuclear attack.

No they wouldnt, how many times in known history has one animal completely exterminated another?

Aye, but we're the ones that have sentience, and thus, we're the ones with limitless potential. Besides, all of those species would eventually die off as better adpated organisms became the more dominant species. We humans have simply developed one tool that seems to grant us limitless possibilities: Sentience. If we died, it would probably be only a matter of time before another species crawled up that could reason on the abstract level and thus dominate the planet.

I think dolphins are close to sentience. Maybe. I'm pretty sure another species will evolve before the human race kills each other.

If you were dead you wouldnt care

Thank God for The Bomb (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/o/ozzy+osbourne/thank+god+for+the+bomb_20103978.html)


Nukes by and large keep the peace, rather than cause death. Gods only know how many would of died in a WWII and the Cold War had it not been for nukes.


Mutual destruction keeps us from nuking each other. If nukes didn't exist, we wouldn't need MD to keep us safe from them.

WW2 (with Japan) could have been ended by the peace offer they made days before we nuked them, and the cold war was the fault of 2 arrogant nations who found the need to hate each other just because they could.

That's ridiculous. The USA is just as likely to set off a nuke as anyone. Look at the fucking psychopath in office now! Have you forgotten all about the PNAC and their influence? Goddamn, I wouldn't trust Obama with a fucking nuke either. China? A nation with a government dedicated to becoming the world's greatest power. Russia? No. Just no.

There is only one use for a nuclear weapon. Only one. Therefore, it doesn't matter who has it, because the result will be the same: mass murder.

Not quite. The role of the nuke has been served very, very well. Thanks to MAD, we haven't had an all out, global war since the Second World War ended. Face it. Human history has been rife with conflict that extends as far as our technology allows us to do battle. Thus, with intercontinental travel and rapid communications around the turn of the Twentieth Century, a global conflict was inevitable. So inevitable, we had two. Since then, however, we've kept our conflicts small, localized affairs. Why?

Mutual Assured Destruction. It is the greatest irony, and arguably one of the coolest anagrams ever, that the most destructive forces ever harnessed by human endeavor have resulted in large scale downs of conflict from the heavy battles that left 20 million soldiers dead, along with twice their number in civilian deaths. Nukes aren't just the potential destroyers of the world. Their mere presence has been enough to prevent the conflicts that brought about their use in the first place.

About WW2, the US could have done nothing and still won due to Japan's lack of economy and/or planning

Kagetora;13068189']If you were dead you wouldnt care

I wouldn't care if I was dead. I care because I'm alive.

I believe death is the final and best thing in the universe, but first I want to enjoy a pleasure seeking life and push my sentience to its limits.

Kagetora;13068204']About WW2, the US could have done nothing and still won due to Japan's lack of economy and/or planning

May the god that doesn't exist bless your common sense driven soul. <3

Hey FSR, do you have a religion? wat is it?

so you believe in science? and then you believe life is a mistake as I do?

Kagetora;13068213']Hey FSR, do you have a religion? wat is it?

I am agnostic for lack of a better word. My values are an odd mix of humanism, Satanism, and Taoism.

Ok and im new here, how do you do the quote thing?

Kagetora;13068227']Ok and im new here, how do you do the quote thing?

You click quote at the bottom right of the person's post and the quote comes up. Don't ask me beyond that, I never learned any fancy posting skills, as long as I can communicate my message.

You click quote at the bottom right of the person's post and the quote comes up.


Like This?

Kagetora;13068218']so you believe in science? and then you believe life is a mistake as I do?

I don't see things in terms of life. I see things in term of sentience and non-sentience. Cause if you think about it, bacteria and plants are "life", but they'd essentially mean nothing if sentient beings couldn't see how they work differently.

I believe consciousness is existence, and that without sentient beings the universe may as well not exist.

(I am so making a philosophy thread now)

Nice, i like philosophical debates (including religion, science, and time)

Whered you cum from, and I wholeheartedly agree with what you sed, r u a professor or sumthing?

Obviously, then, this radiation thing isn't actually that lethal in smallish doses. In fact, it helps build your body's resistance.

I agree about the effects of nukes and all that, and that nuclear technology even has many beneficial applications and I don't think anyone against nuclear weapons would argue that. What most are arguing against is the use of nuclear technology in a weaponized form.

Also, the reason I quoted that is because how does that make any sense? The rest, sure, but by my understanding of how nuclear fallout causes cancer, you can't "build resistance". The particles zing into the chemical bonds that are your DNA, which results in the improper replication of cells; you know, cancer. There aren't anti-neutrons in your body and the structure of your DNA isn't going to suddenly change (except to become cancerous) out of nowhere after you're born, so I'd be interested to know how humans can build up a "resistance" to nuclear radiation.

Kagetora;13068274']Whered you cum from, and I wholeheartedly agree with what you sed, r u a professor or sumthing?

LOL that makes me feel very special. I am a teenage high schooler. My grades generally don't reflect my intelligence as I am very easily bored.

Why invade at all? Their army and economy was devastated. Just days before the bombings Japan offered a conditional peace treaty. America in its supreme arrogance refused.
Japan's condition was keeping the imperial throne with with Meiji Constitution. That would be akin to leting Nazi Germany surender with the Nazis still in power and the potion of Fuhrer not only kept, but kept with all of its powers.

THAT'S Japan's surender offering.

The "think of how many would have died if we invaded" argument doesn't work with me. Japan was pushed to their borders and on the brink of collapse either way.
Not really. The military clique knew damn well it had been beaten, but it still wanted to fight on. 100 Million Deaths With Honor was their idea of a homeland defence plan. They had been stockpiling an awful lot of planes and fuel for kamikaze runs. Beyond that, the Japanese people were literally starving to death. If the war hadn't had ended when it did, there would have been far more deaths than just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sauce? Seeing how radiation is typically short-lived I kinda doubt that. It's isotopes that you have some cause to worry over but only certain ones. Uranium 238 or depleted uranium is fairly stable even though it's considered radioactive. Unless you ingest alpha-emitters the radiation they emit usually doesn't penetrate your skin all that much because the helium nuclei (alpha particles) are so big compared with electrons (beta particles), neutrons, and photons (gamma rays). Beta particles are smaller so they can penetrate a little more than alpha. Gamma rays are just light and go through everything. Neutron radiation is the worst of them because it can be more penetrating than alpha or beta due to it not being charged but can still knock electrons out of place. Neutron radiation can also alter the nuclei of some atoms turning them into radioisotopes.
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/frame/Virtual_e/visit_e/estPanel_4a.html
http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/peacesite/English/Stage1/1-5/1-5-6E.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7917541&dopt=AbstractPlus

Japan's condition was keeping the imperial throne with with Meiji Constitution. That would be akin to leting Nazi Germany surender with the Nazis still in power and the potion of Fuhrer not only kept, but kept with all of its powers.

THAT'S Japan's surender offering.

Not really. The military clique knew damn well it had been beaten, but it still wanted to fight on. 100 Million Deaths With Honor was their idea of a homeland defence plan. They had been stockpiling an awful lot of planes and fuel for kamikaze runs. Beyond that, the Japanese people were literally starving to death. If the war hadn't had ended when it did, there would have been far more deaths than just Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

I know Japanese militaries in WW2 were a lot of die-hard fuckards, but I don't think that the Emperor was so much involved with the conduct of war and the atrocities as the Nazi leadership was. He was more in the sort of condition of Italy's King Vittorio Emanuele III, more than Hitler's.

Also, Japan's never had lots of oil, so maybe a mere blockade, plus selective bombings against the military industry and facilities would have been enough. I always hate the idea of terror bombings (like the Nazis on Coventry and London, or the Allies on Dresden, or the nuclear bombings) as a lawful act of war. If civilians die by accident in a bombing against a military target, it's a sad thing: if civilians are targeted intentionally, it's a war crime.

I know Japanese militaries in WW2 were a lot of die-hard fuckards, but I don't think that the Emperor was so much involved with the conduct of war and the atrocities as the Nazi leadership was. He was more in the sort of condition of Italy's King Vittorio Emanuele III, more than Hitler's.

Also, Japan's never had lots of oil, so maybe a mere blockade, plus selective bombings against the military industry and facilities would have been enough. I always hate the idea of terror bombings (like the Nazis on Coventry and London, or the Allies on Dresden, or the nuclear bombings) as a lawful act of war. If civilians die by accident in a bombing against a military target, it's a sad thing: if civilians are targeted intentionally, it's a war crime.Oh, but don't you know it's only a war crime if it's not the US committing it?

Nuclear weapons are the most profound and effective engine of peace in human history.

Only great powers should have them, to maximize their beneficial effect.

Nuclear weapons are the most profound and effective engine of peace in human history.

Only great powers should have them, to maximize their beneficial effect.
No, only trustworthy powers should have them.

I know Japanese militaries in WW2 were a lot of die-hard fuckards, but I don't think that the Emperor was so much involved with the conduct of war and the atrocities as the Nazi leadership was. He was more in the sort of condition of Italy's King Vittorio Emanuele III, more than Hitler's.
Not true at all. The Showa Emperor was kept apprised of the war. Yes, he did not authorize the original start of the war with Japan's actions in China (Though he did not pull them back or reprimand them), but he did approve of the attack on the US. He did approve of the use of chemical weapons in China and did sign the order for Unit 731. He was told of every step in the war and had to approve a number of them.

He was not the monster Hitler was, but he also is not the powerless puppet that MacArthur made him out to be in the press to keep him from being charged with war crimes. Furthermore, the system under the Meiji Constitution was open to manipulation and control by the military... which is what happened. Again, the wish to surrender should be looked at from where the imperial system WAS because THAT'S what the Japanese wanted to keep, not the powerless symbol it is today.

Also, Japan's never had lots of oil, so maybe a mere blockade, plus selective bombings against the military industry and facilities would have been enough. I always hate the idea of terror bombings (like the Nazis on Coventry and London, or the Allies on Dresden, or the nuclear bombings) as a lawful act of war. If civilians die by accident in a bombing against a military target, it's a sad thing: if civilians are targeted intentionally, it's a war crime.
1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed military targets. The reason why the bombings cost so many lives in Hiroshima that day was due to most of the populous, including school children, being outdoors to clear large fire breaks around various military sites and factories that were embedded in the city (Urban planning is not a Japanese strong point. Even today everything is jumbled together).

2. The military areas that were not in a city were in very short supply by that time.

3. Japan had already been blockaded. It could no longer get any sort of supplies in from its colonies or any areas that it had taken in China (incidentally stranding a very large number of Japanese civilians in China).

4. Japan was starving. The rice harvests had been very, very poor. Hundreds of people were literally starving to death every day and it quickly grew into thousands at the end of the war before food aid was started to Japan by the US (MacArthur famously said, "Send me food, or by God, send me bullets"). A children's magazine at the time had a story entitled "Let's Catch Grasshoppers!" This wasn't for a form of entertainment for the children in the war, this was for them to eat and to add to the protein on their family's dinner table. As I said, had the war not ended when it did, far, far more Japanese would have starved to death than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course the bombs didn't end the war the way that most Americans think, but they provided the excuse that the Japanese leadership needed to end the war.

Also, the reason I quoted that is because how does that make any sense?

I'll take a wild guess...

Because we've evolved from a surrounding that was much more radioactive than the environment today?

Think about it, almost all natural terrestrial nuclear radiation we encounter today originates from isotopes that have a half life in billions of years (specifically U238 & 4.5 billion years) because substances with a half life in range of 100s of millions of years have already decayed away...When life first appeared, 3-4 billion years ago, the situation with sources of natural radiation was radically different.

Secondly, when life first appeared there was no such thing as ozone layer to protect the proto-beings from stellar radiation.

The rest, sure, but by my understanding of how nuclear fallout causes cancer, you can't "build resistance".

The problem is that effects of low dosage radiation to humans hasn't been clinically investigated because it's *assumed* all doses are unhealthy even though there is circumstancial evidence to support radiation hormesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis).

Infact most studies made are from sources where the short term exposure has been extremely high, specifically the nuclear attacks against Japan.

And, thus, because all amounts of radiation are assumed as being harmful for a long time there will be no controlled studies made of the subject concerning humans and we must rely on accidental effects with dosage much higher than what is healthy.

Furthermore, because ecoterrorist organisations, like Greenpeace, are usually whemenently anti-nuclear there is a lot of propaganda and misinformation around that affects the public opinion and makes it hard to obtain unbiased figures even about the effects of nuclear disasters.

While it's true that there is also considerable amount of unbiased evidence showing otherwise, I *personally* think it's foolish to assume that all radiation and sources of radiation are equally and uniformly harmful.

I'd be interested to know how humans can build up a "resistance" to nuclear radiation.

It's not a build up, it's supposed to be an existing mechanism of cellular repair that radiation activates.

One interesting article that might, or might not, have something to do with the issue of nuclear radiation & living tissue is this:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Radiation_Eating_Fungi_Could_Change_The_Energy_Balance_On_Earth_And_Beyond_999.html

Radiation-Eating Fungi Could Change The Energy Balance On Earth And Beyond

"Just as the pigment chlorophyll converts sunlight into chemical energy that allows green plants to live and grow, our research suggests that melanin can use a different portion of the electromagnetic spectrum-ionizing radiation-to benefit the fungi containing it," says Dr. Dadachova.
..
..
The research began five years ago when Dr. Casadevall read on the Web that a robot sent into the still-highly-radioactive damaged reactor at Chernobyl had returned with samples of black, melanin-rich fungi that were growing on the reactor's walls.
...
...
Dr. Casadevall notes that the melanin in fungi is no different chemically from the melanin in our skin. "It's pure speculation but not outside the realm of possibility that melanin could be providing energy to skin cells," he says. "While it wouldn't be enough energy to fuel a run on the beach, maybe it could help you to open an eyelid."

Not true at all. The Showa Emperor was kept apprised of the war. Yes, he did not authorize the original start of the war with Japan's actions in China (Though he did not pull them back or reprimand them), but he did approve of the attack on the US. He did approve of the use of chemical weapons in China and did sign the order for Unit 731. He was told of every step in the war and had to approve a number of them.


I stand corrected.


1. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were indeed military targets. The reason why the bombings cost so many lives in Hiroshima that day was due to most of the populous, including school children, being outdoors to clear large fire breaks around various military sites and factories that were embedded in the city (Urban planning is not a Japanese strong point. Even today everything is jumbled together).

I still think that
1.A military industry is a legitimate target
2.Residential areas and civilians aren't

So, unless you are able to target the military industry ONLY, you should refrain from attacking it. A nuke isn't the best weapon for a "surgical" attack - as a matter of fact, it's totally idiot to use a nuke on a city. Cities are better occupied than destroyed, from a purely strategical point of view.



2. The military areas that were not in a city were in very short supply by that time.

3. Japan had already been blockaded. It could no longer get any sort of supplies in from its colonies or any areas that it had taken in China (incidentally stranding a very large number of Japanese civilians in China).


You see, another point saying that keeping the blockade would have been enough to make Japan harmless.


4. Japan was starving. The rice harvests had been very, very poor. Hundreds of people were literally starving to death every day and it quickly grew into thousands at the end of the war before food aid was started to Japan by the US (MacArthur famously said, "Send me food, or by God, send me bullets"). A children's magazine at the time had a story entitled "Let's Catch Grasshoppers!" This wasn't for a form of entertainment for the children in the war, this was for them to eat and to add to the protein on their family's dinner table. As I said, had the war not ended when it did, far, far more Japanese would have starved to death than were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Of course the bombs didn't end the war the way that most Americans think, but they provided the excuse that the Japanese leadership needed to end the war.

Well, you have some points here.

No, only trustworthy powers should have them.

Who's trustworthy? Those who actually used them in war TWO times?

...trust is a very subjective thing.

I still think that
1.A military industry is a legitimate target
2.Residential areas and civilians aren't

So, unless you are able to target the military industry ONLY, you should refrain from attacking it.
Most of Japan's military industries were in cities. Even today, this is the case. The current brouhaha in Yokosuka is the Japanese government's permission of allowing the USS George Washington, a nuclear aircraft carrier to be forward deployed at the naval base. The residents are up in arms about the danger of having a nuclear carrier in a densely packed city. But, as noted, EVERYTHING in Japan is done this way. The school I teach at is next to a large swath of rice fields, next to an iron and steel works, next to a banking center.

Cities are better occupied than destroyed, from a purely strategical point of view.
Hence the problem of actually invading Japan and what that would lead to. The Japanese military was planning on quite a bit more kamikaze runs. They were fairly sure they could take out a number of troop transports with them. They were also getting flying bombs (Based off of Germany's V2 rockets, but with a pilot) ready for suicide runs.

You see, another point saying that keeping the blockade would have been enough to make Japan harmless.
Blockaded and starving to death. The human cost for Japan would have been cataclysmic.

So please explain how you would have conducted the invasion of Japan without destroying most of the country.

Nuclear weapons are extremely effective tools for doing what they are meant to do. This is basically provide an utterly huge explosion on demands. Like all other explosives, they were developed, and are primarily used for, military purposes. However, they do not have to be.

Project Orion has been mentioned several times already. It was a concept for an interstellar starship. Intended to get a colossal number of people from A to B reasonable quickly. Calculations showed that this thing is more efficient and effective as you scale up - to the point where you could basically transport the population of a small city (if I remember correctly).

Another thing is that many people have very strong misconceptions about nukes. These include: A nuclear detonation vaporizes everything in several miles. Everyone who is even able to see a nuclear detonation will die a horrible death of cancer. Nuclear fallout renders locations inhabitable for centuries.

All of these are, quite simply, untrue. Nuclear tests showed that simply a layer of grease, left by fingerprints, on the surface of metal could protect it from serious damage. Project Orion relied on being able to detonate bombs within a hundred metres or so of the spaceship.

For the second and third, it is true that the aftereffects of a nuclear blast can prove to put those who are in range at a higher risk of cancer. From the Wikipedia article on Chernobyl: "...and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra deaths due to cancer among the approximately 6.6 million most highly exposed", "...the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity.", and "In addition, there has been no increase in the rate of birth defects or abnormalities, or solid cancers (such as lung cancer)". Obviously, then, this radiation thing isn't actually that lethal in smallish doses. In fact, it helps build your body's resistance.

Having said all that, I would prefer it if all countries voluntarily gave up nuclear arms. As they appear to be here to stay, I support the right of non-nuclear nations to arm themselves as well.

erm. the same way we invaded the whole of europe without destroying it.
Having said that, it was led by european generals who are mildly competent at setting foot in a place without levelling it. Japan would have been invaded by the US army (Wermacht mkII) and subsequently been levelled for looking at it funny.

AMK
xxx

Who's trustworthy? Those who actually used them in war TWO times?

...trust is a very subjective thing.

Only winners are trustworthy. The same way losers are terrorists.

AMK
xxx

again brining up the japan thing...it doesn't work..get off that already

And in Europe we just liberated France took out Italy and let Russia do most of the dirty work...in crushing the Nazi's..also every Nazi man woman and child wasn't going to take up arms against us and they would actually surrender..not the case of the Japanese with their "Living God" Emperor...

So, unless you are able to target the military industry ONLY, you should refrain from attacking it. A nuke isn't the best weapon for a "surgical" attack - as a matter of fact, it's totally idiot to use a nuke on a city. Cities are better occupied than destroyed, from a purely strategical point of view.


According to your logic, yes. However, attacking the military industries and the industries supporting your enemy (stressing 'enemy'. Because you generally don't spend too much time on thought concerning the welfare of your enemy.) are what keeps their military alive and shooting. Literally.

Nukes can be used for surgical attacks, you just have to do it right. And no, its not 'totally idiot' to use a nuke on a city if you are trying to destroy the city. If you are trying to minimize civilian casualties, well, then it would be totally idiot.

You can't make a generalization about strategy at all, at least if you know anything about strategy at all, which is an ever-changing course of action. It adapts to circumstances. If your forces are spread thin (American forces), face an enemy with extreme potential for both insurgency and hatred (Japanese forces in Japan), it is generally a rather stupid idea to occupy a city. The only time occupation outweighs destruction is if you need the city to stay functional or if the population can be subjugated into not being much of a problem.

Having said that, it was led by european generals who are mildly competent at setting foot in a place without levelling it. Japan would have been invaded by the US army (Wermacht mkII) and subsequently been levelled for looking at it funny.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. Once again, individual policy of the army is dependent on the strategy and personality of the general commanding it, with few constants. Since you cannot judge strategy nor personality based on nationality of any sort, that was just a hateful statement. If you give me some historical examples I may believe you.

Also, the reason I quoted that is because how does that make any sense? The rest, sure, but by my understanding of how nuclear fallout causes cancer, you can't "build resistance". The particles zing into the chemical bonds that are your DNA, which results in the improper replication of cells; you know, cancer. There aren't anti-neutrons in your body and the structure of your DNA isn't going to suddenly change (except to become cancerous) out of nowhere after you're born, so I'd be interested to know how humans can build up a "resistance" to nuclear radiation.

I don't have much experience with biology (one class in high school, years ago) but I do have lots of experience with radiation. Most people don't understand this part of radiation and radioactive materials: radiation effects are exponential. They are not linear. To put it simply, if you have a small amount of radiation over time, your body develops a low level of tolerance such that the DNA replication gets better at preserving the actual code of the DNA and your body gets better at removing wrong DNA. (This is why you don't get cancer every time you have an X-Ray.) Having a background in quantum physics also leads me to believe that your DNA does indeed spontaneously change, just one cell at a time, and your body is very good at preserving your actual DNA. I also hope you don't have anti-neutrons in your body, or otherwise you'd probably explode from the annihilation of any neutron in your body with its anti partner (one of the cleanest and beautiful example of the symmetry of the universe.)