Phoenix Network Forums

no against. If nukes happen, life ceases to exist as we know it. death will be extreme. There is no use for such a catastrophic device. They should not exist, but they do. And in time, worse devices will exist.

pctech wrote:no against. If nukes happen, life ceases to exist as we know it. death will be extreme. There is no use for such a catastrophic device. They should not exist, but they do. And in time, worse devices will exist.

Odd, last I checked guns also cause life to cease to exist and death is always extreme, theres no light death you can't heal from it.

Nuclear weapons sure are a bad thing. But there are a few things to consider about them.

• Humans are stupid. They really are. For us to have a microwave in our kitchen, thousands of people had to die. Nearly half of all technology we have at home was initially invented for combat purposes. Yes, even the microwave.
  
• As long as a few organized countries do own mass-destruction technology, there will be no war. As soon as all countries get equal power, everyone will have the opportunity to start a war, with a chance of 1/2 of winning it. So it's okay to have some of them.
  
• Biological warfare is worse. With current biological knowledge, you could be able to create a bacillus, that attacks humans with specific properties only - theoretically. However, without this kind of science, we wouldn't have any vaccine.

The point is: The existence of weapons (either tactical or strategic) does not mean that we will use them. Humans have used mass destruction to kill ten thousands of people at once. And they have learned from it, so they won't do it again. In fact, they have always converted them to something useful: vaccine, nuclear power and the microwave. =)

As long as a few organized countries do own mass-destruction technology, there will be no war. As soon as all countries get equal power, everyone will have the opportunity to start a war, with a chance of 1/2 of winning it. So it's okay to have some of them.

Yes but think what will be hapened if this technology get into terrorists hands. If two planes could kill so many peoples, how many peoples could kill 2 nuclear bombs?[/quote]

The ingredients required to build a nuke are much harder to obtain and much better monitored than funny looking people boarding a plane were 4 years ago.
It is very unlikley they would be able to obtain a large enough quantitiy of the materials they needed, at least not over a reasonable timeframe and even if they did, the chances of them smuggling it into a "developed" nation like the UK, US, Canada, Australia, etc. are very low.

goliat wrote:Yes but think what will be hapened if this technology get into terrorists hands. If two planes could kill so many peoples, how many peoples could kill 2 nuclear bombs?

Simple: they won't use it. Example: a group of gangsters kills your sister and doesn't even get arrested for that. Even if you wanted to strike back and had powerful technology, would you do it? Consider the consequences.

The US government just abuses people's fear of nuclear weapons to have a pretext for what they call 'anti-terrorism'.

Absolutly FOR nuklear weapons, it prevents wars, actually.

Example: a group of gangsters kills your sister

I hope this will never heppen.

i am against these weapons though not really for the reasons that some of you have said. i mean if you hate them becuase they kill people then thats alright. but then again guns kill people, and they have also saved lives. just the intimidation factor of having a gun has stopped deaths. then again without guns and weapons there would be no need to defend ourselves and everythign would be fine. but be realistis there ARE guns and there ARE nukes. i think, and i know that this sounds all like wow the end of the world, but i think that humanity will destroy itself with weapons like nukes. i mean its bound to happen. unless the goverments around the world who arent bent on world destruction of some sort of really really good way of keeping nukes away from people then the chances of some nut job getting his hands on a couple of nukes is low. i mean in what ised to be soviet russia theres bound to be some loose nukes floating around and.... well im ranting. i thnik by creating these weapons we sealed the fate of humanity.

There's a huge difference between guns and nukes. You can't have a secure state without guns (combined with proper laws regarding them). Nukes on the other hand never save lifes if used. But they could save lifes only by their presence. For an explanation of what I mean, just scroll upwards a bit.

I'm AGAINST!! We should use nuclear energy just for pacific things...

TacOps wrote:I am disgusted by what I have just read on this topic.

The vapourisation of more than 100,000 innocent human beings can never be justified.

Otherwise Al Quieda, the Israelis and all the other terrorists can equally justify their actions using the same logic that the end justifies the means no matter how horrific and how many innoccent people die and suffer.

Nuclear weapons are not developed for first strike weapons, nor should they. The reason nuclear weapons are required in the current political climate is merely the fact that they exist. The fact that a nation has nuclear weapons is just a reason for a nation not to mess with it. Case in point, the Cold War.

Russia and the United States never directly fought. While the ideologies fought in the Korean/Vietnam Wars, and the War in Afghanistan, nuclear weapons prevented any full scale attack.

TacOps wrote:The USA had the capability to end the war without resorting the the atomic bombing of civilian targets, not once but twice.

For example they could have chosen military targets.

The fact is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a continuation of the USA's experiments in the development of "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets.

"With the Meiji Restoration, Nagasaki quickly began to assume some economic dominance. Its main industry was ship-building. This very industry would eventually make it a target in World War II, since many warships used by the Japanese Navy during the war were built in its factories and docks." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagasaki

"During the First Sino-Japanese War, Hiroshima emerged as a major supply and logistics base for the Japanese military. This role continued until World War II." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

[quote=rafomate]I'm AGAINST!! We should use nuclear energy just for pacific things...[/quote]

Should nuclear weapons exist? No, they cause far more problems then conventional weapons. However they do, and there is no way to eradicate them. Therefore it is neccesary to build more for the defense of nuclear detterence.[/quote]

people know the destructive power of this nuclear weapons, those dropped in japan were old prototypes i presume. we can just imagine now how destructive these weapons have evolved through out these years.

in good hands, these weapons can stop wars before they ever happen and in evil hands, these weapons can also lead to armagedon.

man by nature is warring. over the ages we fought againts each other even without apprent or stupid reasons using simple stones, clubs to swords, guns , rockets..etc....

pugrit wrote:those dropped in japan were old prototypes i presume. we can just imagine now how destructive these weapons have evolved through out these years.

What we have now makes Fat Man and Little Boy (or do I have those mixed up?) look like firecrackers.

The technology itself hasn't evolved regarding fire-power. It still depends on the amount of instable material you've got. What has been improved is the probability for a single nuclear warhead to work. Little Boy for example had a 3/4 probability (75%) of working, so with a probability of 25% it would have failed to detonate.

In fact, if they had built Little Boy larger, then it would make much more damage. Current nuclear weapons technology concentrates on finding new and more efficient materials to work with, and combining them (example: thermo-nuclear weapons like the staged hydrogen bomb). Also new sources of kinetic energy are searched for. The next step will be standalone nucleus fusion.