Nuclear Weapons

[Axe&Hammer]

Do you think anymore nations should be allowed to have them?

[Pgsley]

I think it dosnt matter who has them what makes us say who can and cant but i also they that if there just going to go to waste why even have them, atleast use them

[DayWalker]

the question doesn't make sense... countries DO have them.

Who's going to take them away???
Besides... how else are we going to defeat the asteroids and aliens???

Nuclear proliferation should be discouraged though. Not everyone should be allowed to have a gun, not everyone should be allowed to have a nuke- that's my thinking.

[Apollo]

Nukes are not there to be readily used; but to deter others from using it. If everyone has it, then no one would dare use it.

Same thing if no nukes existed. Either way, same result.

No one would dare use it and risk to destroy this Earth. I just got my PS3 man - dont blow me up yet.

[Axe&Hammer]

the question doesn't make sense... countries DO have them.

I said-anymore nations-I know some people have them.:-|

[DINAMO788]

axe i think the better question is do you think any nations should be allowed nukes. i mean it would be better if no one had nukes but then again since we have enough to blow up the world more times over than all the other countries have to blow up the world we are in the greatest position fo power and i'd need to think about the sacrifices/gains of this.

[momomike3]

No. The powers of the world have them, and they use them (not on countries... but as a threat) to keep the world in order.

[Vulgotha]

I think we should, I think Britain and Canada should be able..
1st world capitalistic countries that are our allies. Smart countries.

No middle east or 3rd world countires. Nor Should they have any nuclear capabilities. (Yup Iran, we don't want you to have a nuclear reactor. I hate you.)

As a Rule I'd say no communist as well, (Sorry NK), China having nukes disturbs me, however they're not truly "Communist" anymore. Not in the way they're beginning to operate.
^
Irregardless we can't do much about China's nuclear arsenal, but they don't appear to be the twitchy, religiously radical type. But I'd sleep sounder if they had absolutely nothing.

[Axe&Hammer]

axe i think the better question is do you think any nations should be allowed nukes.
Yes only the nations that have had a stable democratic government (sep of church and state as well)for past 50+ years

Israel,Pakistan,India,Iraq shouldn't have them,nor should South Africa

[shcndw]

Iraq should get Nukes. Best idea ever.

[DayWalker]

I said-anymore nations-I know some people have them.:-|

touche.

No, no more countires should be allowed to have them.
but I do think they should be able to use nuclear energy.
(no I don't believe Iran either... ;) )

[SnakeDevil]

I think we should, I think Britain and Canada should be able..
1st world capitalistic countries that are our allies. Smart countries.

No middle east or 3rd world countires. Nor Should they have any nuclear capabilities. (Yup Iran, we don't want you to have a nuclear reactor. I hate you.)

As a Rule I'd say no communist as well, (Sorry NK), China having nukes disturbs me, however they're not truly "Communist" anymore. Not in the way they're beginning to operate.
^
Irregardless we can't do much about China's nuclear arsenal, but they don't appear to be the twitchy, religiously radical type. But I'd sleep sounder if they had absolutely nothing.

I'm against nukes totally because their only purpose is to kill thousands of people which is just wrong, If nukes are to be allowed then everyone should be allowed to have them, but I would prefer it if no-one had them, you cannot say Country X cannot get nukes because you do not trust them, well they can say the same thing for you, who is in the right?

[Axe&Hammer]

What has American done to you guys to make you so mad?

[PiP4LyFe]

America shouldn't even have them, bloody terrorists.

[DayWalker]

It's not like we use them :roll:

we did once (well twice) and it saved the lifes of over 100k US troops.
On the other hand it wiped out entire civilian populations...

[pendinginsanity]

I'm against nukes totally because their only purpose is to kill thousands of people which is just wrong, If nukes are to be allowed then everyone should be allowed to have them, but I would prefer it if no-one had them, you cannot say Country X cannot get nukes because you do not trust them, well they can say the same thing for you, who is in the right?
Even though it sounds redicules, nukes greatest purpose is to save lifes, not take them, at least these days where we've become more familiarized with the effects of 'em.
Simply put nukes prevent major wars to happend.

And as for the question, no I don't think anymore countries should have nuclear arsenals.
I actually think it's great that China also have major supplies of nukes, it prevents western countries for the opputunity to invade or threaten them.

Now nukes is one thing, what you should be worried about is weapon systems such as the MOAB, devastating yet no side-effects, even though it only packs the punch of 1/20th of the nagasaki bomb it's still one hell of a mass destructive weapon.

[Axe&Hammer]

It's not like we use them :roll:

we did once (well twice) and it saved the lifes of over 100k US troops.
On the other hand it wiped out entire civilian populations...

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/55/Nuke_Explode.jpg

This sums up American nuclear policy during WWII

[DINAMO788]

nice pic. ugh lots of liberals. if theres a good balance among world powers for checks and balances thats fine. the worst thing would be for a third world country to get them, ESPECIALLY an arab country, like palestine because we all know who runs the majority of arab nations......

[DayWalker]

nice pic. ugh lots of liberals. if theres a good balance among world powers for checks and balances thats fine. the worst thing would be for a third world country to get them, ESPECIALLY an arab country, like palestine because we all know who runs the majority of arab nations......

agreed.
And I don't think Israel should have them either. ;)

[StruggleWithin]

Allowed to have them...no we shouldn't either, but are they going to have them yes..

[shcndw]

Iraq will bite you're ears and make you scream. And arab countries arn't Third World. I think Iraq should get them to blow you're brain DINAMO!!

[Denier-of-Soup]

Yes only the nations that have had a stable democratic government

To be precise, a stable democratic government that isn't corrupt.

[Panda Bear Shenyu]

Do you think anymore nations should be allowed to have them?What a silly, ignorant, confused, chauvinistic, obnoxious, pointless, irritating, sad, world-dooming question that makes me lose a little more faith in the American youth.

[DINAMO788]

lol i know you dont day. but hey, israel never said they have them :P


and shadow. i know your name isn't shadow but your name is hard enough so too bad imma call u shadow.


not all arab countries are third world, i didn't say that. pakistan...sorry i meant pakistan instead of palestine.

the UAE is ridiculously rich and swanky. iraq and iran is nice for the rich, very nice and not all that nice for the poor

[Carsonal]

Love em.
The more nukes in the world, the safer we are...

[ankit]

To be precise, a stable democratic government that isn't corrupt.

you mean to say la-la land?

[pendinginsanity]

Love em.
The more nukes in the world, the safer we are...
ordly enough that's the truth...

[Solid_Squirrel]

3 words man...

NUKE THE WHALES

but aside that joke..

I find them pointless at best

we're still making them (Why?)


it's already been said that we have enough nukes to blow the earth up 3 times!


We've got nukes that put the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shame. ask yourself....Do we really need such a horrid and destructive power? and then make it EVEN more destructive than before?

Do we really need such weapons that can reduce civilizations to dust and those affected by it have their offspring disfigured in the most disgusting ways? (ever seen a kid twisted like a pretzel since Childhood? or how about a boy who's Kidneys are bigger than him and heavier)

[prisoner_of_war]

Well America makes nukes for national security. I think nukes are fine in the hands of a just country but in the hands of communists it's a big nono. p.s. i'm only 11 3 words man...

NUKE THE WHALES

but aside that joke..

I find them pointless at best

we're still making them (Why?)


it's already been said that we have enough nukes to blow the earth up 3 times!


We've got nukes that put the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shame. ask yourself....Do we really need such a horrid and destructive power? and then make it EVEN more destructive than before?

Do we really need such weapons that can reduce civilizations to dust and those affected by it have their offspring disfigured in the most disgusting ways? (ever seen a kid twisted like a pretzel since Childhood? or how about a boy who's Kidneys are bigger than him and heavier)

[ninjaboy]

It's not like we use them :roll:

we did once (well twice) and it saved the lifes of over 100k US troops.
On the other hand it wiped out entire civilian populations...

Not only did it save 100k US troops, it also saved many far eastern countries as well. At the time the Japanese were committing atrocities against the civilian populations of China, Korea, and many other Asian countries. Tens of thousands of civilian Asians were killed in order to build a railroad from Thailand through Burma. And the civilians that died in the nukes would have died if the US had invaded Japan. Anyone who says that lives could have been saved if the nukes were not used does not understand history nor Japanese culture at the time. The Japanese were training their civilian population (including schoolchildren) to resist to the death the invasion of American troops. Whether or not nukes are moral is one question, but to say that there was a easier, quicker, more peaceful way to end the war is ignorant. Neither the Japanese nor the Americans were ready to give up, and a long, costly land invasion would not have changed anyone's mind.

[Grifer]

Nukes oddly enough mean peace. But just imagine what nukes would do in the hands of palestinian terrorists, for example. I doubt they would hesitate to use nukes to kill sum infidels. Rules of engagement don't apply to terrorists and you can't respond to unknown threat by using your own nuclear arsenal, which is why it's not suitable for countries like Iran to possess nuclear weapons.

[pendinginsanity]

3 words man...

NUKE THE WHALES

but aside that joke..

I find them pointless at best

we're still making them (Why?)


it's already been said that we have enough nukes to blow the earth up 3 times!


We've got nukes that put the ones in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to shame. ask yourself....Do we really need such a horrid and destructive power? and then make it EVEN more destructive than before?

Do we really need such weapons that can reduce civilizations to dust and those affected by it have their offspring disfigured in the most disgusting ways? (ever seen a kid twisted like a pretzel since Childhood? or how about a boy who's Kidneys are bigger than him and heavier)
If anything they try to make nukes smaller and contain the radioactivity more than ever.

The days of having the monster bombs is over (Tzar bomba anyone?, there's no need for that, bunkerbuster tactical nukes is where it's at, deliver serious firepower with minimal radioactive outcome.

[DINAMO788]

yarly.

anyways axe if we're still making them then i want tell the government to STOP WASTING MY MONEY!

we have enough nukes to blow up the world wayyyy more than 3 times over. when u have 1435 nukes....why do you need 562 more?

[OKlondon]

No country should have one or they should be kept in one place controlled by an international comiteee.

I dont see why Iran cant have them and why America should have them?
It shouldnt matter whether its a democratic country or not.

[sonyfan6]

No country should have one or they should be kept in one place controlled by an international comiteee.

I dont see why Iran cant have them and why America should have them?
It shouldnt matter whether its a democratic country or not.

What matters is that the president of Iran has gone on record saying that he would gladly lose the entire population of his country to a nuclear retaliation as there are many Arab countries out there and only one Jewish country.

The theory of nukes supporting peace only work if the people controlling the nukes aren't willing to sacrifice their population. That's why Iran doesn't deserve nukes.

[shcndw]

That's why the world does'nt deserve nukes....
No one deserves one, as the nukes don't even deserve themselves. They are the opposite of what we are trying to achieve. HUMAN-LIFE. Any member of a religion, or race, or any kind of belief there will be only one kind of human emotion that we will share - love. Now why do you want to end love? you shatter it, it = death. Have a dream about seeing you're sister dieing, then you appreciate everything in life. Why is the world seperated into countries while we can all work together without any bounderies...
Someday...

[DINAMO788]

there are pros to nukes when used responsibly. nukes are already a bad taboo which is good but for extreme cases they can be useful.

and oklondon its not about democatic governments or not. norway and denmark can have all the nukes they want no one will make a big fuss. but when openly hostile nations who make threats to other countries as trying to get them, then its dangerous.

[pendinginsanity]

there are pros to nukes when used responsibly. nukes are already a bad taboo which is good but for extreme cases they can be useful.

and oklondon its not about democatic governments or not. norway and denmark can have all the nukes they want no one will make a big fuss. but when openly hostile nations who make threats to other countries as trying to get them, then its dangerous.
Exactly, Iran's president openly admitted on live TV that he wanted to get rid of Israel, I mean clues dooh?

And there really isn't that many countries with nuclear weapons avaible, and the few that have nuclear weapons don't even have the means to deliver them over long distances.

[Grifer]

No country should have one or they should be kept in one place controlled by an international comiteee.

I dont see why Iran cant have them and why America should have them?
It shouldnt matter whether its a democratic country or not.
Iran pretty clearly supports terrorism, and you can't respond to nuclear attack of terrorist organization with your own attack, which renders Mutually Assured Destruction, the balance of fear, obsolete. Terrorists hide in major population, they use civilians as a shield, and that means if Hamas blows New York, morally superior USA most likely wont blow up some palestinian slum with nuke in response (although I'd see that completely justified, palestinians wanted terrorists to lead their country). Besides, there's Israel right next to Gaza. Although sawing Gaza off the continent, towing it to atlantic ocean and then sinking it would serve humanity well, it's not very practical.

[killzone_71]

Exactly, Iran's president openly admitted on live TV that he wanted to get rid of Israel, I mean clues dooh?

And there really isn't that many countries with nuclear weapons avaible, and the few that have nuclear weapons don't even have the means to deliver them over long distances.

LoL... if Iran fires a Nuke to Israel, im sure that 10 other nukes will bombard Iran. and if Terrorists get their rat claws on one of these, only two countries will get the blame... either Iran or North Korea.

[OKlondon]

there are pros to nukes when used responsibly. nukes are already a bad taboo which is good but for extreme cases they can be useful.

and oklondon its not about democatic governments or not. norway and denmark can have all the nukes they want no one will make a big fuss. but when openly hostile nations who make threats to other countries as trying to get them, then its dangerous.

Iran pretty clearly supports terrorism, and you can't respond to nuclear attack of terrorist organization with your own attack, which renders Mutually Assured Destruction, the balance of fear, obsolete. Terrorists hide in major population, they use civilians as a shield, and that means if Hamas blows New York, morally superior USA most likely wont blow up some palestinian slum with nuke in response (although I'd see that completely justified, palestinians wanted terrorists to lead their country). Besides, there's Israel right next to Gaza. Although sawing Gaza off the continent, towing it to atlantic ocean and then sinking it would serve humanity well, it's not very practical.

Both fair points, Iran have possibly hinted that they may want to use one on Israel, how very stupid that would be anyway considering how close they are.

[majinvegeta]

What matters is that the president of Iran has gone on record saying that he would gladly lose the entire population of his country to a nuclear retaliation as there are many Arab countries out there and only one Jewish country.

The theory of nukes supporting peace only work if the people controlling the nukes aren't willing to sacrifice their population. That's why Iran doesn't deserve nukes.

Did you also know that a political American publicly said that they would bomb Pakistan to the stone age? so why does America have bombs at all? besides, their the ones to use them in the first place, to create nukes even.

Seriously, every nation has equal rights to have a nuclear missile as any other nation. There shouldn't be this ridiculous biased bull**** about who can have one and who can't. Either everyone gets to have one, or no one does, and I prefer the latter. But would America listen? nope, they don't want to get rid of the nukes, I bet they intend to use them, otherwise stacking up on hundreds or thousands of nukes has no purpose and is a waste of money.

[pendinginsanity]

Did you also know that a political American publicly said that they would bomb Pakistan to the stone age? so why does America have bombs at all? besides, their the ones to use them in the first place, to create nukes even.

Seriously, every nation has equal rights to have a nuclear missile as any other nation. There shouldn't be this ridiculous biased bull**** about who can have one and who can't. Either everyone gets to have one, or no one does, and I prefer the latter. But would America listen? nope, they don't want to get rid of the nukes, I bet they intend to use them, otherwise stacking up on hundreds or thousands of nukes has no purpose and is a waste of money.
Stacking up nukes is not expensive once you go into full production of nuclear power.
Nukes is basically produced from the wastes of the stuff they use to create nuclear-power.

Also from a strategical viewpoint it's important to have a lot of nukes spred over your country, if you were to go into a full scale nuclear war you wouldn't want your enemy to be able to wipe out your arsenals too easy.

[Grifer]

Did you also know that a political American publicly said that they would bomb Pakistan to the stone age? so why does America have bombs at all? besides, their the ones to use them in the first place, to create nukes even.

Seriously, every nation has equal rights to have a nuclear missile as any other nation. There shouldn't be this ridiculous biased bull**** about who can have one and who can't. Either everyone gets to have one, or no one does, and I prefer the latter. But would America listen? nope, they don't want to get rid of the nukes, I bet they intend to use them, otherwise stacking up on hundreds or thousands of nukes has no purpose and is a waste of money.
Uhh, care to give any link to news about that bombing of Pakistan to smithereens? Either you're lying just like any anti-USA intellect or severely ripping statement out of context.

Making first strike with nukes would be political mass-suicide (both domestic & international) in USA since it would need congress approval. That's not like in Iran where religious leaders are pulling the strings and can't be voted out of office.

[DayWalker]

Pakistan said we said that... we of course denied it.

Who knows... but imo I am sure we hinted at something along those lines ;)

[sonyfan6]

Did you also know that a political American publicly said that they would bomb Pakistan to the stone age? so why does America have bombs at all? besides, their the ones to use them in the first place, to create nukes even.

Seriously, every nation has equal rights to have a nuclear missile as any other nation. There shouldn't be this ridiculous biased bull**** about who can have one and who can't. Either everyone gets to have one, or no one does, and I prefer the latter. But would America listen? nope, they don't want to get rid of the nukes, I bet they intend to use them, otherwise stacking up on hundreds or thousands of nukes has no purpose and is a waste of money.

Musharraf said in his 60 minutes interview that US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage said "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age" to the Pakistani intelligence director as a threat if Pakistan did not cooperate in bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. There is no threat of nukes here. Quite the opposite, nukes would be stupidity as both countries have them and neither country wants to sacrifice its civilian population. So I'm not sure what this line, which is essentially 'if you harbor the people that attacked us it will mean war' has anything to do with the nuke discussion. This is a far cry from the Iranian president saying that he would gladly accept his country being nuked as a small price to pay for nuking Israel.

As far as the whole no one should have nukes line goes, it's like pandora's box. You can't put it back. Nukes exist and really that's all there is to it. However we should still do everything we can to keep them out of the hands of people that are crazy enough to use them offensively.

[OKlondon]

Bush said he wanted to nuke the sun?!! hmmm

[majinvegeta]

Musharraf said in his 60 minutes interview that US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage said "Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age" to the Pakistani intelligence director as a threat if Pakistan did not cooperate in bringing the perpetrators of 9/11 to justice. There is no threat of nukes here. Quite the opposite, nukes would be stupidity as both countries have them and neither country wants to sacrifice its civilian population. So I'm not sure what this line, which is essentially 'if you harbor the people that attacked us it will mean war' has anything to do with the nuke discussion. This is a far cry from the Iranian president saying that he would gladly accept his country being nuked as a small price to pay for nuking Israel.

As far as the whole no one should have nukes line goes, it's like pandora's box. You can't put it back. Nukes exist and really that's all there is to it. However we should still do everything we can to keep them out of the hands of people that are crazy enough to use them offensively.

Well he better thank god it wasn't me he was saying that to, otherwise I would have sliced his head off, no matter what America thinks of it.

Its funny how they try to prevent nations from getting it, yet they are not willing to destroy the nukes and prevent any nation from building any period.

And bombing back to stone age, hmm, I wonder what kind of a weapon can do that? oh a nuke! secondly, Pakistan does not have ICBM's, they just have medium / small range missiles. So they could not possibly fire at America at all. The maximum damage they can do is harm India or other neighboring countries like Iran, which is not in their interest.

Honestly, if America wants to make friends with that kind of tone, they won't have any at all. America is really becoming arrogant, and they are going way too far with this. I hope they will be crippled one day, so they can't go around bullying nations and forcing them what to do.

Ok you don't want nuclear missiles to get into everyones hand, I understand that, we don't want a crazy government to bomb nations killing millions of innocent lives. But what makes you so sure that America is a land of perfection? what? America has no chance of getting an idiot in line who decides to launch nukes in random nations? you think a government in America can't go insane like Stalin? I am just giving examples.

All I am saying is, America is not perfect. There is a chance that an idiot will step in, and hey he may act nice and like a good gov at first, and all of a sudden hes launching nukes where he shouldn't.

There should be an international voice, not the voice of OPPRESSORS, voice of everyone. Every single nation should have a voice, and everyone should support each other. UN is a good idea, but look at em, they cannot do ANYTHING AT ALL. If America commits a crime (they have many times, including going to war on Iraq and destroying the government, its against UN Laws!) they are never charged or punished. That idiot UN guy just comes on public TV saying, America...please please I beg of you to calm down :(. Thats the best he can do, beg em to step down or stop bullying or doing illegal ****.

If there is no international voice, then there are many many nations that will be ignored and put down, even killed if must. These terrorists, I agree are killing innocent people in the process, but they are fighting too. America is fighting with weapons, and these so called terrorists are fighting back with weapons too.

If we truly are humans, then we should act like em. We are social animals, remember the SOCIAL part. We are meant to talk and find diplomatic solutions. If we don't do our best to find a diplomatic solution, people will be angry, people will fight and take extreme measures. I mean, imagine Iraq takes over America. I can tell you right now, there would be millions fighting back with guns and grenades and what not. Would that make them terrorists? the Iraqi government could be there to "FREE" them too, they could make the same argument that Bush was lying to them, that Bush did not let the American voice go worldwide, that the news is censored. Its the same thing people say about Iraq. People say Iraqi's want America in their nation, people want America to kill suddam, Suddam is a liar and censored the news stations.

And here we are, looking at the TV seeing American soldiers die, seeing people bombing and shooting in different areas, its become anarchy. Terrorists have a voice too, and you may find it hard to believe, but its the truth. No one hires people to die for no reason whatsoever, they must have a very good reason to send people on death like that, and after all they have to convince those suicide terrorists that what they are doing is right. And why is it hard to believe that America could possibly be wrong on this? that this whole thing could be bull**** that America is doing for oil or money?

The possibilities are there, the flaws are there, someone can go become government in America and have all the power they want, who will stop them? this is the problem with having silly Alliances, and only voicing opinion of CERTAIN nations, which could co-operate with each other to cause harm to one nation WRONGFULLY and Unjustly. Just because America and Russia and some Euro nations are part of an alliance who can veto, doesn't mean its going to be perfectly righteous.

So again, either everyone should have rights to nukes, or no one should. And it is definitely preventable, if people take the right steps to do so. Thing is, if nobody has nukes, and one specific nation decides to build them, then the rest of the entire world can look at that specific nation in disgust and fight back against it. But if all these other nations have nukes, and this one other nation is trying to build them. Then people are not going to do as much. That nation trying to build nukes can justify it.

hey america has em, what if they decide to attack Iran? maybe Iran wants to defend itself, from Pakistan and Israel. What then? first America clearly stated, that they cannot stop Iran from making nukes because they have a right to do so. Why? because Pakistan has nukes, and so does Israel, and Iran could get into a bad situation if one of those decide to attack. Now they put sanctions and blame its doing the wrong thing :/.

And please don't call me an idiot, if you find something logical about the way the world works right now, please post your opinion. I am not here to bash americans and say they are all evil, I think the government is evil and this whole system is bull**** to fool people.

[DayWalker]

http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/55/Nuke_Explode.jpg

This sums up American nuclear policy during WWII

:lol:

eh... not really.
Japan was pretty clear about never surrendering... and Truman did get on TV and tell Japan to give up or face "unprecedented destruction"

They were warned... sucks that we used it on civilians though...
I think a demonstration on a remote island would have persuaded Japan to call it a day...

[Vulgotha]

There are alot of people crying on this thread how: "Letting some nations have nukes, and others not isn't fair" "All these things do is kill thousands of people"



1. Yea, its not fair, nor is life. get over it. There are some countries that are sane,and stable. Not fueled by age old hatreds or religious prejudice. They deserve such powerful weapons to hold over the heads of mentally incompetent rulers that control their countries. I.E. Kim Jung Ill.

2. Nukes serve a purpose: To provide widespread destruction and ensure the complete annihilation of ones enemies. The very thought of this kind of sheer power, is what prevents wars.

Would any sane country (1st world) declare war on US or China knowing they have a huge arsenal? Even if said countries refrain from using them, would they not decide to push the button, in the unlikely event the tides are turning?

its called "Talk softly and Carry a Big Stick" ~ Teddy Roosevelt. HE couldn't have been more right. GUnboat policey is the way to go.

Additionally, would any world powers pull out their pistols and start blasting each other, fully knowing the enemy country HAS nuclear capibility? No. Thats why China and the US will never wage a war. Mutual destruction. Watch War games to see what I mean (The movie).

Life is not fair, war is cruel and evil. But it is a necessary evil because I believe man is flawed, and hencly war will always exist. Whoever has the biggest gun is always respected, and always wins.

Yea, I'm a die hard conservative, a right winger, a "War monger". I believe in it, because it works.

Talking has never accomplished anything, unless you have a mighty big stick to back it up. Remember that old saying people always throw out when somebody dictates an intention? "You and what army?" Yea. thats applicable.

As for Japan, we would have lost thousands of troops, and Japan would have lost many times that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why? Because it had brainwashed its entire infantry and all of its subsequent civilians to "Fight do the death". Yup thats right, men, women, and children would rather die then being "captured and tortured" by the US military (as they were told).


Millions would have died, make no mistake. I feel no remorse, no pity for them (Baton Deathmarch, nuff' said). Nor do I believe things would have been better for either side, if we had simply thrown intiated an all out invasion. (as I said above).

If not for those 2 bombs, my grandfather would have died on the beaches of Japan. He'd have died as a Gunner in a tank, because he would have been on the frontline.

Nukes: We need em'.

[majinvegeta]

There are alot of people crying on this thread how: "Letting some nations have nukes, and others not isn't fair" "All these things do is kill thousands of people"



1. Yea, its not fair, nor is life. get over it. There are some countries that are sane,and stable. Not fueled by age old hatreds or religious prejudice. They deserve such powerful weapons to hold over the heads of mentally incompetent rulers that control their countries. I.E. Kim Jung Ill.

2. Nukes serve a purpose: To provide widespread destruction and ensure the complete annihilation of ones enemies. The very thought of this kind of sheer power, is what prevents wars.

Would any sane country (1st world) declare war on US or China knowing they have a huge arsenal? Even if said countries refrain from using them, would they not decide to push the button, in the unlikely event the tides are turning?

its called "Talk softly and Carry a Big Stick" ~ Teddy Roosevelt. HE couldn't have been more right. GUnboat policey is the way to go.

Additionally, would any world powers pull out their pistols and start blasting each other, fully knowing the enemy country HAS nuclear capibility? No. Thats why China and the US will never wage a war. Mutual destruction. Watch War games to see what I mean (The movie).

Life is not fair, war is cruel and evil. But it is a necessary evil because I believe man is flawed, and hencly war will always exist. Whoever has the biggest gun is always respected, and always wins.

Yea, I'm a die hard conservative, a right winger, a "War monger". I believe in it, because it works.

Talking has never accomplished anything, unless you have a mighty big stick to back it up. Remember that old saying people always throw out when somebody dictates an intention? "You and what army?" Yea. thats applicable.

As for Japan, we would have lost thousands of troops, and Japan would have lost many times that died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Why? Because it had brainwashed its entire infantry and all of its subsequent civilians to "Fight do the death". Yup thats right, men, women, and children would rather die then being "captured and tortured" by the US military (as they were told).


Millions would have died, make no mistake. I feel no remorse, no pity for them (Baton Deathmarch, nuff' said). Nor do I believe things would have been better for either side, if we had simply thrown intiated an all out invasion. (as I said above).

If not for those 2 bombs, my grandfather would have died on the beaches of Japan. He'd have died as a Gunner in a tank, because he would have been on the frontline.

Nukes: We need em'.


Nukes are NOT needed.

Diplomacy does work, if you can't talk worth ****, then you can't talk worth ****. But if you can talk, if you have peoples skills, you can win diplomacy wise. Everyone uses it, to this day. Even today in Palestine and Israel, they try to get talks going.

Its because of poor communication that war occurs. If it was not for communication between Russia and America, a nuclear war would have broke out long ago during cold war, but BECAUSE of talks and communication, that was prevented.

Why do you think some people get into fights? poor communication. If I hit you on the head with a bottle by accident, you may not know that, and might get up and say WTF *****!? then if I hear *****, I may get upset and say stfu, and it may get worse to the point where we are fighting each other to death. Yes if one has a gun and the other does not, it can resolve the problem where the one with the gun can get away with it. But you know what, its not necessary. We are social animals for a reason, we have to reason with ourselves, we have to look by other means than just violence.

I mean, i can put up a gun and get money from people, but does it make it right to do so? Its just like you say, life isn't fair. But why are you so negative? we can make life better, we can fight together to make things better.

I can understand there are sane countries, but that doesn't necessarily mean that an insane person will never rule over that country. There are many ways of becoming mentally ******ed, you aren't born with it, and its not a disease that poor people carry. Its something that can occur during your life time or maybe even as a birth defect. Anyone from any nation can become crazy or stupid and do violent things.

Everybody, the whole world looks up to leaders. Leaders are managers, if one manager gets away with something, then the people below want to do the same kind of scams. I am taking business management, and this is something we learn at school. That managers have to be clean and ethical, and if they are, then in most cases so will the people below them. If the manager is unethical, there is a very high chance of people below being unethical as well. They will come with reasoning that if the manager can do it, why can't I?

Now lets take a real world scenario. Lets say, no one in the world has nukes, although the technology and resources are there, lets pretend for a second the world is ruling under UN, and people abide to it and respect it. UN has people all over the world, watching the nuclear programs, and all nations have access to all of this to make sure no one is making any illegal weaponry that may spark a war.

Now imagine your nation decides to make a nuclear missile. First of all, how many would take the risk to do so? if even 3 - 10 nations decided to start building nukes, there are hundreds of others working against that. They can put sanctions, cripple the nations economy, and go as far as declaring war IF NECESSARY. Now who wants to take on a 100 nations? nobody. Not even America. If people work together, we can accomplish things without war, but if we all just look at ourselves as enemies of each other, always finding ways to bomb each other, things will only get worse.

You don't care about the dead because your family has no losses from war right? imagine (God forbid) your family DOES indeed have losses. Would you still be ok with war? if your family was in Iraq, would you still be ok with America launching a 1000 cruise missiles? probably not, I sure as hell would not be.

People tend not to care when the danger is farther away, but when it comes closer to them, the more serious people become. If you don't care about the war that occurs and all these innocent people that die, then are you also ok with what happened with millions of Jews that died in the Holocaust? or the 9/11 issue? or all those other genocides that have happened worldwide? SANE people would disagree.

We are HUMANS, we are real live people who can communicate and were born to live together. Just because we have differences should not mean we should isolate ourselves and act as if the white are foolish evil guys or the blacks are ugly monkeys here to terrorize the world. Thats what happens when there is poor communication, and that builds hate.

If I tell you or your family that I will bomb the **** out of you, would you not do anything to fight back or defend? would you be happy that I said such a thing and acted against you? or would you be happy that the incident did not occur?

Life may be cruel, but only the weak decide to accept it and corrupt their life. Those who are strong and want to make a difference, are the ones that don't let anyone corrupt their life, and they fight to the bitter end, even if they die losing. At least they died doing something right.

[Grifer]

Vulgotha: for once I agree with you on something

majinvegeta: if there were pure free trade between nations ("when traders don't cross borders, armies will"), democracy in every country (no democracy has ever waged war against another democracy) and no religion (root of all stupidy), armies were not needed. However, that is not the situation. It's not good to have nukes as a threat in arms of laissez-faire, democratic and mundane nations either, but oh boy isn't that better than giving nukes to theocratic, semi-planned economy nations like Iran.

Sometimes realpolitik sadly wins over pacifist ideologies. To compress my message: were there no threat to liberty, there were no weapons at all.

[CrownOfLove]

I think everyone here would agree that in a Utopian world, no one would have nukes, but the question here is, do we need nukes? My personal opinion is, maybe. From one side, it's better for us to have nukes if countries like North Korea and Iran have them. However, we could also turn it around and say 'maybe Iran are just getting them because we have them?'

I personally believe the world would be a better and safer place if there was a ban on nuclear weapons. It just depends whether countries would stick to them. The chemical weapons act has been working for over a decade now, so there's certainly hope, but i feel that many goverments, particuliarly the U.S's, would not want to give up their weapons.

[Lefein]

I believe the corruption in world governments will catch up to itself sooner or later. I there's a nuclear war, I'm going to find a nice remote part of Mexico to watch the fireworks from. Not everyone who dies will deserve it, obviously. But those who survive will be better educated moving humanity forward.

[Axe&Hammer]

What a silly, ignorant, confused, chauvinistic, obnoxious, pointless, irritating, sad, world-dooming question that makes me lose a little more faith in the American youth.
Um ahh...Well then.....**** you:-|

[pendinginsanity]

I believe the corruption in world governments will catch up to itself sooner or later. I there's a nuclear war, I'm going to find a nice remote part of Mexico to watch the fireworks from. Not everyone who dies will deserve it, obviously. But those who survive will be better educated moving humanity forward.
The problem is that just 1 major full-scale nuclear war will pretty much be the end of the whole damn thing, you wont neseccarely be killed by the blasts, but the radiation and the severe longterm consequences on our planet will.

[majinvegeta]

Vulgotha: for once I agree with you on something

majinvegeta: if there were pure free trade between nations ("when traders don't cross borders, armies will"), democracy in every country (no democracy has ever waged war against another democracy) and no religion (root of all stupidy), armies were not needed. However, that is not the situation. It's not good to have nukes as a threat in arms of laissez-faire, democratic and mundane nations either, but oh boy isn't that better than giving nukes to theocratic, semi-planned economy nations like Iran.

Sometimes realpolitik sadly wins over pacifist ideologies. To compress my message: were there no threat to liberty, there were no weapons at all.

Whoa whoa whoa! WTF!

Ok that pisses me off a lot.

Religion?! you are blaming religion over wars?!

What about world war 1 and 2, were those religious wars? and how many lives did they cause to die?! over 50 million AT LEAST! religion, pfft. Only thing religion has taught people is to be together and love one another, at least Islam has.

I hate it when people say religion causes war. What about this stupid IDIOTIC MORONIC belief of Darwinism. That bull**** of a man is to blame. Remember what he taught? that we are ANIMALS. That the survival of the fittest are the ones that survive and live. This is what is responsible for wars. The thought, the stupid logic behind those two wars, the belief that there is a superior race, that wars are a NECESSITY.

We are not ANIMALS, we are human beings, we live breath and know to do better than to wage war. When your little brother or children fight with one another, do you tell them to stop? do you not tell them that what they are fighting over is pointless and stupid.

In the same way I believe WW1 and 2 were pointless and stupid. They fought over land, over racism, the belief that one race is superior to another. Religion does not teach this, Darwin did. Darwin taught us that its all about the most powerful species, the survival of the fittest.

Man you have very little knowledge of Religion, you need to do some research. Because Islam, Judaism, Christianity all teach love and peace amongst each other. yes they talk of war, yes they talk of protecting one another and fighting for good. But they also say that war is a very bad thing, and that God hates corruption. They also talk about how this must be used as a last resort, just like how when a cat is cornered it must fight back to defend itself. We are humans, we know better than to wage war, we have words, communication to use instead.

Man if you love war, then go wage one on your neighbor, but I am disgusted by wars and hatred around the world. I don't understand why a White man feels ashamed or hateful when he sits beside a black or a brown person, or why a Jew feels hateful or ashamed to sit beside a Muslim. But the religion themselves do not teach hate.

Remember this, religion is a tool used to start wars, people abused religion to use it to gather people together to fight for greater good or for God. By saying things like God wills it! which is used many times in Kingdom of Heaven.

People abused these kinds of strategy to attract more people into becoming soldiers to fight for God. This is not God's fault if liars and evil people start to abuse the religion, soldiers and every man should think for himself. Just because you are under Hitler's control does not mean you should do everything as he says.

Religion is necessary, if it was not for it, we would have even more bloodshed. So stop making it seem like religion is some stupid bull**** made to fool people. There are very good reasons why people believe in God. If you really want to learn about Islam, heres a good site: http://www.harunyahya.com/

He has free videos that he made for people to watch, so you do not have to necessarily read. You can download the full versions, all of his films for free. He does this for God, not for money. And if you ever have any questions, you can even ask me.

I don't understand what your teachers teach you. Honestly, you all sound like negative people who believe life is what it is, and we cannot change it for the better. You guys need to pull that big black cloth over your eyes out of the way, and look at life. We are not meant to spread bloodshed and hate, we are meant to live together, even through our differences.

[Lefein]

The problem is that just 1 major full-scale nuclear war will pretty much be the end of the whole damn thing, you wont neseccarely be killed by the blasts, but the radiation and the severe longterm consequences on our planet will.

Depends on how many weapons are deployed, really. I imagine a conflict stemming from acts of terror or the middle east won't have huge world ending consequences. Even countries that hate the US to its core realize that they will benefit from not being in any direct aggressions. A vacation home in Tibet would be a nice place to make some popcorn and watch empires fall.

[Vulgotha]

Grifer, aside from scientific\religious views, I think you and I are on the same page on alot of things.

We just haven't gotten around to discussing them yet.

I am sorry for the past between us, and I know we'll never agree on science and religion, but lets put that behind us.


Back on topic, Because somebody has nukes (forgetting the ethics of "Should we have invented them?!") They're made ok?

And because they're made, this world needs balance. If one world power (lets say China) has nukes, and no one else had em'. They could force everybody to dance to their beat.

any demand they made would have to be followed. why? they have the big guns.

People only understand power, and force. As history continually shows us. in WWII, WWI, every war ever made.

And this is why, the french are horrible at the art of war. (lol jk)

[MrFenwick]

Yep, NUKE = Power. Thats all it comes down to. If they want to have a little push or pull in this world they will have or say they have them. Its just how this crappy world is. You can't really trust any of the Governments in this world. All they are doing is flexing there muscles.

[Chemo]

bah!!! we all know these idiots leading nations only need excuses to test the latest. none should be in possession of nukes hell there are several rumors that nuclear hand grenades are in some countries plans. i'll just run my *** back home in Africa and watch this **** unfold from a remote location underground.

[majinvegeta]

bah!!! we all know these idiots leading nations only need excuses to test the latest. none should be in possession of nukes hell there are several rumors that nuclear hand grenades are in some countries plans. i'll just run my *** back home in Africa and watch this **** unfold from a remote location underground.

Thats what I say man, no one should be in possession. Anyone who is, has the ability to threaten other smaller nations to do as told or face sever consequences. Last thing a nation wants is to be blown back to the stone age.

Just because its America or China does not necessarily mean they will always be civil and righteous, things can go wrong in every nation. There is corruption, hate, crime, rape, religious hate, religious beliefs in every nation of the world.

So these super power nations or those that are part of the alliance should either give up nukes, or give everyone the right to do what they want. If they want to do good for the humanity, then the whole world should be part of the UN and all abide by international laws, that includes America and other nations, anyone who commits a crime should be punished. Every nation should have equal rights and have the right to voice its opinion. Not just CERTAIN nations of the world.

[hgmaster]

Its bad enough countries have them to threaten others with, but do they really have to test them out? It can have a devastating effect on the Eco-system.

[Feuerstarter]

Cool. I'm going to add my opinion to this thread and say that Nuclear weapons are justified because they are such a goood deterrant. My point is pretty clearly illustrated by the fact that there hasn't been a war between two major nations since the end of WWII. From then on you only generally see wars between big nations and small nations (hence the rise the guerillas, which is the most effective tactive aganist the larger nations whom abide by the Geneva covention)

While I will admit if there ever is Nulcear war the Earth will undoubtedly become almost uninhabitable, this mere fact generallly means nucs won't be used and nations will seek to find a peaceful solution, avoiding the conflict that unwise may have arisen