Phoenix Network Forums

by **hellboy** on Sat Apr 15, 2006 12:25 am

I just Can`t belive that some people vote for.....

by **Samppa** on Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:02 am

Probably because if there were no nuclear weapons, there would be no nuclear physics.

The weapons are an add-on to nuclear power, however unfortunate that is. New technology will always be harnessed for destruction.

by **Samppa** on Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:04 am

roogog wrote:Thing is nuclear power and weapons have been invented and are here to stay until we invent something better for fuel, or until they are replaced by something the military like better..or until we become a bit more enlightened

I don't think the military will like anything better. I don't think there is anything better, it's the best thing the universe has come up with to create multitudes of heat and light. Why should we stumble on a more efficient way? Smile

by **kotuk** on Sun Apr 16, 2006 10:36 am

We just killing ourselfs... All these effort and money spent on some other issues will lead the humanity to very succesfull life.

by **dagoburt** on Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:20 pm

Idiot - for, HUMAN - Againts .. this is my opinion

by **al3xis** on Sat Jul 01, 2006 10:40 pm

against...

by **zeep** on Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:45 am

I am totally against nuclear weapons. They kill innocent people, and it doesn't choose who it kills, whether it's the terrorists or the children and women. All weapons cause death, pain and suffering and I think that they shouldn't have been invented. Oh well, we have to evolve and one of our ways of evolution was to find and use weapons ....

by **darkholm** on Tue Jul 11, 2006 10:30 pm

I pick "for" because is we don't stop researching Nuke options eventually we will develop a tactical Nuke that is precise and has a smaller amount of collateral damage- say, a killzone of 5-10 miles instead of 50.

by **ohplzno** on Tue Jul 18, 2006 9:52 pm

Well, I am against nuclear weapons, just because of the fact that they cause TOO MUCH damage. If we go to war, we don't need to win them with nukes. We've won enough wars without them. Nukes are for mass destruction and I don't think that kind of force is ever necesarry.
And for the people who say they are against nuke's because they can't choose the people it hurts...do bullets choose? What about bombs? No, they don't.

by **lyndz** on Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:40 am

No! Im against nuclear weapons if it's used for destruction, of course. But if it's used for good reasons, then i have to thumbs up to it!

We are living in the same planet, so let's live as one!

by **Samppa** on Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:13 pm

Bullets go where they are aimed, so yes, in a way they choose.

by **Krezarian** on Wed Jul 19, 2006 5:18 pm

I am againts... for some obvious reasons.

Krezarian

by **ohplzno** on Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:09 pm

Samppa wrote:Bullets go where they are aimed, so yes, in a way they choose.

The person firing the bullet chooses for the bullet. Nuke's go where they are aimed too.

by **Samppa** on Thu Jul 20, 2006 9:10 am

Bullets tend to kill the one person they are aimed at.

Nukes tend to kill everything within the blast radius and beyond.

Therefore, the target of the bullet is chosen by the human, whereas with a nuke the human does not even know who will be killed. Ergo, the bullet chooses the victim, whereas the nuke does not choose its victims.

by **d0ppel-D** on Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:40 pm

the most stupiest thing about nukes nowadays is the fact that we cant get rid of them ... where to put them? no ones really needs them, but we cant just let them where they are, because maybe they are safe for 150 years or so, but afterwards?

Phoenix Network Forums

For or against nuclear weapons?

for or against nuclear weapons

for or against nuke?

Who is online