Phoenix Network Forums

for or against nuclear weapons?


http://www.lclark.edu/~history/HIROSHIMA/photo2-1.html

that kind of weapon is used to kill lots of people.. it does not choose which or who will be killed..

yesterday i was watching a documentary about hirosima. i think this should stop! right away! what did to those people... unbelivable. in hirosima, there is still a shadow of a man who sat on some steps... he was burned to ashes in no-time... a mom was writing: after the bomb exploded it was looking for my daughter... she was trapt in ruins and the fire was closing.. she could get her out so she had the hear her screaming when she was burning alive... this was showed on TV in i felt really uncomfortable...

Definately for the use of nukes. If it helps us win faster with fewer casualties, then great, use it. Hopefully it will convince people not to go to war.

thats what it would someone should count... does the use of nuclar bombs really make less causalites? i think no one know... i dont know the exact number how many died at hirosima and nagasaki. a lot of them died later because of the radiation... were there really less casualties or were it be less if the war kept going on? nobody can tell how longer would the war last...

How can ppl be so ignorant and actually vote for " For " . Where you guys been? Has our past world history not taught you anything? I understand everyone has there own opinion.

al_tyranny that was the most ignorant thing i have ever read in my life. Its a poor excuse for not using your head. You know the damages nukes caused and are still causing to this very day? I doubt it or you wouldn't post such giberish.

i am against any kind of nuclear weapons.....
i hate it ....
Fuj

how can you say tham, man?

Nukes are wsome, we ended WW2 with it and im sure we could win the current war we are in with it as well. Just that Bush is a wuss and has money riding on those countries with the oil. I just say nuke everyone that is against this country and my beliefs.

if you actually think about it, nuclear weapons are just terrible, even in US hands. they kill without mercy and just devistate the earth, destroying it

al_tyranny wrote:Definately for the use of nukes. If it helps us win faster with fewer casualties, then great, use it. Hopefully it will convince people not to go to war.

Um... so you're saying you'd sacrifice a civilion population, granted you wouldn't really *care* about this population as it would be in another country, but can you really say you would sacrifice millions of civilions -- people that have nothing to do with the war, and may even disagree with their country going to war with the US -- and bombing people like that?

A nuclear bomb is not just an outlet to take out military eqipment, it is used and only can be used to destroy large areas at once. If you wouldn't mind killing millions of innocents, then it should also be fair not to even begin using it as a threat.

TacOps wrote:How can ppl be so ignorant and actually vote for " For " . Where you guys been? Has our past world history not taught you anything? I understand everyone has there own opinion.

al_tyranny that was the most ignorant thing i have ever read in my life. Its a poor excuse for not using your head. You know the damages nukes caused and are still causing to this very day? I doubt it or you wouldn't post such giberish.

Ignorant? Definately. Completely ignoring the large-scale war that was averted between the United States and the USSR because each side was afraid the other would blast them to Hell. Totally oblivious to the fact that nobody wants to pick a fight when there's a good chance the other side is going to flip a switch and erase them from Earth. Turning a blind eye to the fact that that once the US used nukes on Japan it conceded defeat, thus ending a 6 year war. I mean damn! Why can't I be more observant, like you?

Don't know about the modern-day effects of nuclear bombs? There are still radioactive pieces of crud flying around and infecting people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Uh oh. That happens sometimes when you're too adamant to back down even when you're losing badly (and at the end of the War, I mean badly). Japan's position had been severely compromised. Defeat was inevitable. What's that? Not surrendering? Why should we lose more of our citizens because they won't give up? What's more important, our lives, or theirs? Sit there and respond that you'll gladly allow three of your best friends to have their brains scattered about the ground because you won't use a weapon that will kill your enemies and some of their next-generation kin. Go on, I can wait.

It's also too bad that this is "the most ignorant thing i have ever read in my life" -- maybe when you're done being such a solipsist, pretentious little upstart, you can give me a few quick lessons on quantum theory and introduce me to Stephen Hawkings.

Puffball wrote:

al_tyranny wrote:Definately for the use of nukes. If it helps us win faster with fewer casualties, then great, use it. Hopefully it will convince people not to go to war.

Um... so you're saying you'd sacrifice a civilion population, granted you wouldn't really *care* about this population as it would be in another country, but can you really say you would sacrifice millions of civilions -- people that have nothing to do with the war, and may even disagree with their country going to war with the US -- and bombing people like that?

A nuclear bomb is not just an outlet to take out military eqipment, it is used and only can be used to destroy large areas at once. If you wouldn't mind killing millions of innocents, then it should also be fair not to even begin using it as a threat.

If I had to, yes. War is not a thing of "being nice" -- it is a thing of survival. In the "us or them" scenario, which would you be? You can wait for the enemy to come and kill you (perhaps directly bombing your war-effort town, maybe you were drafted; however is really irrelevant), or you can fight with whatever you have to make sure you continue your time here. Tell me, which would it be?

To get into figures (because I've noticed a trend in posts that consist of "it does a lot of damage" without getting into actual damage estimates), the estimated death toll in Hiroshima was (at the high end) 180 000. After deaths from radioactive posioning, fallout, etc. it's about 237 000 or so (Hiroshima's official 2004 estimate). For Nagasaki it was somewhere around 70 000. Combined, it's about 307 000 (millions? It's not even 1/3 of one!).

To put that in perspective, in the Korean war, where no nukes were used, ~2 800 000 Korean civilians and military personnel were killed. Looking at the Vietnam war, where no nukes were used, ~4 000 000 Vietnamese civilians and military personnel were killed.

Korea had 9 times more deaths than Japan. Vietnam had 13 times more deaths than Japan. In neither of these were nuclear weapons used. What exactly is my point? To convice you to think it through from another point-of-view. I know that the story on the receiving end is pretty sad, but such is the nature of war.

Perhaps you've heard of William Tecumseh Sherman, a great general of the American Civil War. He quickened its end by burning enemy territory to the ground, and, as such, disrupting the enemy forces greatly. A courageous man, extremely determined to end the war as quickly as possible, and did a damn fine job. To give you an idea of his mindset, I'll put a few quotations here:

"If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking."

"War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueller it is, the sooner it will be over."

"War is, at its best, barbarism."

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and defeat."

All this is true, and to quote him again, "War is Hell". The sooner it is over, the better. If nukes are needed to accomplish this, then use them. I hope this makes my position clearer.

Nuclear radiation cause damage even now, 60 years after, many people have cancer and the reason it`s only one, the nuclear bombs

We have nuclear weapons there is now nothing we can do about that so we need to embrace them, if we don't then someone else will and when that someone does if they don't think we have the potential to defend ourselves then they will annihalate us.

At the end of the day its a case of survival of the fittest and if we don't embrace the technology we have discovered then we will no longer be the fittest because we didn't survive.

Everyone is well aware that these weapons cause massive ammounts of destruction, destroying many many people most of whom are not involved in the dispute however, if we don't neutrilize the threat that is there they will neutrilize us, whether it be using their own nuclear weapons, conventional bombs or old-style guns and bullets.

Humans are a selfish race, we don't much care for others as long as we survive, if this is how our race is going to develop and how we are going to make sure we survive then so be it.

I'm REALLY against these weapons... Every country who has nuclear weapons should be hit by them - so they see how much dmg they do...