[bhamlaxy]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

I'm not sure why you would think that? Or are you taking that stance simply to get us to argue, because there's no way they're existence benefits us in any way, whatsoever.

I'd rather not have to have nukes, but my argument is what I believe, that they have created a significant decrease in the amount of violent conflict in the world.

Think back to their first purpose. They were used for the first time in combat for what reason? To massively kill people to intimidate Japan into surrendering IMMEDIATELY so that our troops would not die, but we were happily ready to sacrifice their COMPLETELY innocent civillians; thousands upon thousands upon thousands of them.

That's true, but I'd argue that the amount of lives they have saved greatly outweigh the number killed in those original attacks. Since those bombs went off, we haven't seen a single instance where two world powers fought against each other. There are so many examples of where conflicts would have erupted if it were not for nuclear weapons. Communist Russia may have gone after Europe, the proxy war in Korea would have instead been a full blown battle between the US and Russia.

I feel like the only people that should have authority over such things are the UN, as a COMBINED decision.

BLEH! Talk about vesting all of our sovereignty into a world-government wannabe. Luckily, we make our own decisions, and will continue to do so, despite whatever the UN says. It's worked damn well in preventing large scale conflict, and our possession and control of a nuclear arsenal will continue to maintain peace in the future.

Those things hold such devastating power, then I really don't think humans can be trusted with it, at least not ones like the pepople in power at the moment. If people are going to be using them irrationally on things solely like religion (yes it may be obvious to use such things for those that believe in the religion, but they're obviously naive and don't understand how much it affects everyone and what they're really doing).

Empirically, you are just flat out wrong. Every leader of any nuclear power fully understands the destructive potential, which is EXACTLY why they would never use them.

The simple fact of the matter is that before nuclear weapons, we were supposed to trust our leaders with conventional weapons- tanks, fighter jets, bombers, aircraft carriers, and missiles. This obviously proved disastrous, with multiple conflicts between the military powerhouses of the world.

The fact that there is even a small possibility of a nuclear war compeltely annhilating the entire human race on earth is just way too much of something to risk. The US and USSR should've been much more mature about the whole matter and realized something like that needs not to be brought into earth, whether their country is at stake or not. Some humans are better than none, whether it's your country surviving or not.

What possibility is there? We won't nuke another nuclear power, because we would be writing our own death sentence. A world where the most powerful countries fight against each other has ended. Like I said before, my argument is that in a world without nuclear weapons, powerful countries can deploy military might as they please. The only reason the cold war didn't turn hot was because of the fear of nuclear weapons. Take that away, and we would have had WWIII on our hands. Soviet tanks rolling across Europe, bombers carpetbombing US cities, and a complete shift in world politics, ending in either a communist US or a capitalist USSR, and there would be MASSIVE casualties on all sides.

EDIT: I just saw the example that nuclear weapons prevent wars in that they scare people from doing it? I believe scaring them into not wanting to do a war due to nuclear weapons will only make those countries want to make nuclear weapons themselves (Iran, NK) and thus point them back.

Which is exactly what Russia did. The result? A "cold" war with no casualties.

I agree Iran and NK shouldn't get nuclear weapons, and wow, they aren't. Iran's nuclear weapons program was put on hold, and talks with NK are going pretty well. And again, both countries know if they even had a dream of nuking us, they better wake up and apologize. If they were somehow able to launch a missile capable of hitting the US, they know that we would level their entire country.

In that situation, SOMEONE is going to use it. And in that comes a nuclear war, killing us all. :s

Expand on why "someone" would use it. If I had a gun to your mothers head, and you had a gun to my mothers head, would you pull the trigger? If I you could, with a button press, blow up my house, and I had a button that would blow up yours, would you press it? Absolutely not. The point is no one ends up using it because it is mutually assured destruction.

[Bleudrgn2010]

Mmm, maybe I'm underestimating the leader's that have nuclear weapons. But do you honestly think that there will never be a time, that one person will never come in power that is just so crazy (like Hitler, though smart, made a lot of irrational decisions like spending so much time and money on the genocide of Jews) that will recognize he/she has access to such things and just use it on a whim?

I still stand by the fact that I think nuclear weapons shouldn't be had a bit, but I understand they do help us in getting rid of war, but if they stay here forever, who's to say eventually (like I said) they'll be used. And if someone goes bomb-happy, the rest of the world isn't going to have any other choice to fight back using nuclear weapons (that is if that person coming into power is also smart and not too easily taken down by other means).

I think it's a double-edged sword, nuclear weapons. They might prevent war, but if they ever, by any chance, come into use, we have a huge problem on our hands. Like I said with the car and plane analogy, if they ever happen to be used, we're screwed. >_< Those little wars that don't kill near as many people as a nuclear war would cause, may actually add up if it ever happens that a nuclear war occurs. If it never happens, obviously we'd regret it. But it's like having laws. We have the laws in case someone does it. If no one does it, then the law was pointless to have, but at least it was there in case it ever happened.

[Moshineko]

I think we need to face up to the fact that there have been large numbers of nuclear weapons around, and in the hands of mutual enemies, for over 30 years now. It hasn't happened, why would it happen now?

And why would the use of one nuclear weapon escalate into a full-on nuclear war? It didn't the first time they were used. To use the same metaphor, this would be like someone seeing a plane crash, then getting pissed and crashing their own plane in retaliation. They are dangerous, that's why we don't use them.

The people in government that can get nuclear weapons aren't as bad as we make them out to be. Again, nuclear weapons take a lot of technology to create, they don't just show up overnight. Governments with lots of technology generally have lots of money. Iran is actually a fairly advanced country, not necessarily the bastion of terrorism and extremist religion that people may think. The president of Iran actually has very little power in the government. North Korea is an outlier, not a rule. Even so, they can barely make missles that could reach China, and are aware that the use of such weapons would mean their instant, total annihiliation.

Again, to go back to the plane metaphor, North Korea has a Cessna. A crash would be a problem, but hardly the death of the species. America, Russia, and China are rocking the 747s, and they've had them a long time, and haven't used them yet.

We used nuclear weapons on Japan, yes. But, do soldiers matter less than civilians? Japan was destroying itself, literally sending its own people out to commit suicide, fighting on after the other Axis powers had surrendered.

Look at the world before nuclear weapons. We had two world wars, that wiped out whole generations of young men, and bankrupted several countries. Since the advent of nuclear weapons, the idea of a large-scale conventional war is nigh unthinkable. Europe has been allowed to rebuild and thrive, the US and USSR postured at each other where earlier they may have fought full-on, using Europe, South America, and Southeast Asia as their battlegrounds.

We can't prove a negative, so I can't say "blankity-blank million people were saved by nuclear weapons", but I can look at history. Each generation we were having a major war. That means around 1970 we'd be having one, and another in 1990. I can say that in the time we've had nuclear weapons, and the time that the US and Russia and China have had to sell nuclear technology to rogue powers, there have been two detonations of a nuclear weapon in anger. This says to me that humans are much more likely to kill each other piecemeal through conventional war than wipe out millions at once through nuclear detonation.

That seems fairly safe to me. One last time, the car and plane metaphor. Yes, when a plane crashes, you are going to die, almost certainly. This makes planes more feared and regulated than cars. Yet, in 2004 there were less than 700 deaths by plane crash, and over 400,000 car crash fatalities. So, smaller amounts of deaths with more instances is much more likely to lead to your death than a large-scale accident. The same way, death by firearm or conventional bomb is much more likely than a full-scale nuclear conflict.

It's just safer having a weapon you know could kill everyone than taking the chance that two opposing armies can out-manouver each other.

[bhamlaxy]

Mmm, maybe I'm underestimating the leader's that have nuclear weapons. But do you honestly think that there will never be a time, that one person will never come in power that is just so crazy (like Hitler, though smart, made a lot of irrational decisions like spending so much time and money on the genocide of Jews) that will recognize he/she has access to such things and just use it on a whim?

I do believe that no one who is crazy enough to functionally destroy their own country will ever seize power in a nuclear capable country that has the ability to attack the US, or any other long distance target.

I think there are two checks on this.

1. The internal politics of the country. If someones position is "If elected, I will nuke the US", I don't think they would ever get elected into office, unless a majority of the country is suicidal.

2. The rest of the world puts checks on this. For example, Iran did quite a bit of shit-talking about how they want Israel wiped off the map. The result? They don't get nuclear weapons. The US and the world put pressure on countries who are perceived to lack the responsibility to have nuclear weapons.

The example of the Jew's does prove how irrational a leader is, but doesn't really apply because the holocaust, although irrational, would never result in the absolute destruction of every square inch of Germany.

I think it's a double-edged sword, nuclear weapons. They might prevent war, but if they ever, by any chance, come into use, we have a huge problem on our hands. Like I said with the car and plane analogy, if they ever happen to be used, we're screwed. >_< Those little wars that don't kill near as many people as a nuclear war would cause, may actually add up if it ever happens that a nuclear war happens. If it never happens, obviously we'd regret it. But it's like having laws. We have the laws in case someone does it. If no one does it, then the law was pointless to have, but at least it was there in case it ever happened.

Yea, it certainly is a double edged sword, but in my opinion you just have to weigh out the basics, and look at historical evidence. It is a fact that no two world superpowers have gone into direct conflict with each other since the detonation of the atom bomb in Hiroshima. It is a fact that the history before that detonation was riddled with wars involving the world military superpowers, with insanely high casualties. Nuclear arms are approached extremely cautiously, and the balance remains. Nuclear armed countries don't go to war with each other. If it were not for nuclear weapons, we very well may have been living in the United Soviet States of America right now.

[ALTimore]

Nuclear weapons in our civilized day and age are just a way for countries to show off how much money they could possibly waste.
They should just spend their money on more important things. NAMELY TRYING TO SAVE LIVES BY DONATING TO THE IMPOVERISHED, MAKING SCHOOLS FOR THE UNDEDUCATED, MAKING HOSPITALS FOR THE SICK, ETC.

[bhamlaxy]

Nuclear weapons in our civilized day and age are just a way for countries to show off how much money they could possibly waste.

No, they represent military power and might.

They should just spend their money on more important things. NAMELY TRYING TO SAVE LIVES BY DONATING TO THE IMPOVERISHED, MAKING SCHOOLS FOR THE UNDEDUCATED, MAKING HOSPITALS FOR THE SICK, ETC.

Without national security, all of those things fail. Remember World War II, which occurred in a world without multiple nuclear powers? I wonder how the poor in France were doing, how the schools in Poland were, how the hospitals were dealing with caring for the thousands of injured soldiers along with the civilian injured?

So war without nuclear weapons absolutely rips society apart. With nuclear weapons? You can actually have the ABILITY to go to school or go to the hospital.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by ALTimore

Nuclear weapons in our civilized day and age are just a way for countries to show off how much money they could possibly waste.
They should just spend their money on more important things. NAMELY TRYING TO SAVE LIVES BY DONATING TO THE IMPOVERISHED, MAKING SCHOOLS FOR THE UNDEDUCATED, MAKING HOSPITALS FOR THE SICK, ETC.

I'm going to argue they also represent security.

And please, everyone, stop with the "our civilized day and age". People are people, no matter how rich or how many fancy geegaws we have. There is still the tendency to hurt others who've offended you, and take that which others have. There is no civilization that does not crumble, from within and without.
But, the thread for human nature is down there somewhere, so I digress.

Impoverished people don't need donations, they need jobs and education. Schools, jobs, and hospitals don't exist in an area where there is no certainty. Look at the Palestinian territories. No security, so no-one will open up a business there. Everyone goes to Israel to get work. No businesses in Palestine = no jobs = no taxes or disposable income = no government services.

You can't keep anything without knowing it's going to stay there. That's basic human nature. It's lovely to think eveyone's trustworthy and good, but if you run around acting like you believe it, you're going to end up homeless, poor, raped, and dead by the side of the road.

And we've really already spent all the money we're going to on nuclear weapons. Conventional armies are much more expensive. Human factor adds a constant upkeep cost, and weapons and technology used in conventional warfare are constantly being updated, overcome, and updated again. One of the most prosperous times in the U.S. was right after WWII, when we had poured all of our money into making production facilities, and there were enough dead males that those left had jobs for the picking. Should we adopt a war-driven, 1984-esque economy? Or just sit content with the biggest damn gun on the block, and be assured that if we do spend that money, which we do, on interior renovations, that it's not going to be taken away or blown up next week?

[Tor]

Did you guys read about that lab in illinois or somwhere (lost source) that collides atoms. Apparently it's like 4 miles long or something.

They also got one being built that is even longer in Europe.

Somehow they are able to create mini black holes. I think i'm more worried about man's pursuit of knowledge. Remember the term curiosity killed the cat? Yea, I see something like this killing all of man kind and earth.

I don't think nuclear weapons will destroy the world like that video. Launching 1 nuclear missle won't set off a chain reaction like that.

I think Nature will destroy the world before nuclear weapons will.

[Moshineko]

Yeah, there's a mess of atom-smashers all around the place. They're where most of your elements over 100 come from. Crazy stuff. Elements that last nanoseconds, wild. I'm assuming that's how long the black holes are lasting? There's a surprisingly small amout of stuff that goes into the supercolliders, so I'm assuming any black holes made wouldn't reach a mass that would allow them to take in any sort of matter that we would notice.

Reminds me of an old Larry Niven story, though, about a man killed by a singularity (black hole), which goes on to settle at the center of the planet (Mars, maybe?), slowly eating it up. The story ultimately concludes with a sort of "Oh shi-" as they realize there's jack-all they can do about it.

Regarding nature "ending the world", or at least the world humans can live on, an interesting fact: in about 200 million years, all the current continents will meet again in a sort of Pangea: The Revenge. At that point, the only really livable places will be right along the coastline, as rain likely won't be able to reach a majority of the interior.
Best get our arses working on some space-travel.

[tor_tor]

I know the scientists are saying mini black holes won't do anything (probably doesn't), but to me, scientists would say anything just to keep learning. Not all, but I know a few (not super geniouses like these atom smashers) that really take learning to a whole new level. It's just the human mind that wants to learn. They are willing to risk everything just to "know"

I don't think Nature will end the world, I just think it will more likely end the world than nukes would.

lol 200 million years. That's a long ways. Humans will be off traveling the universe by then. The average lifespan would be like 10 thousand year old. That would pwn!

[ALTimore]

The thing is, does anybody want to nuke or get nuked? If someone fired off a nuke now, another would follow, and another, and another. I don't think that ANYONE other than the insane would really want that to happen. I think that the devastation caused by a nuke is just too much for any rational human to use it.

Maybe I just suggested that the government use the money to help its citizens in terms of health, finance and education because I'd like to believe that other countries would follow suit.

Maybe it's because I'm a kid that my thinking is like this. I'd just like everybody to be happy, not living in the fear that someone might nuke them. Sadly, since I'm also growing up, I'm also becoming aware that greed and selfishness are part of human beings. Even if a perfect community was created, corrupt people would probably find ways to exploit it, if not, the people in the community themselves might be corrupted by greed.

Fine, I believe that nuclear weapons are needed for security.

BUT, what I WANT to believe is that someone brilliant would open the eyes of the people and help them understand that helping each other would be not only more fulfilling but more profitable than spending time, money and resources on making nukes.

[Moshineko]

I'm very curious to know why, despite historical evidence to the contrary, everyone assumes that any use of nuclear weapons will result in a cataclysmic domino effect, spiraling into all-out nuclear war.

The Bay of Pigs was one example where the USSR was practically begging the US to start a conflict by placing nuclear weapons on Cuba. What happened? Armageddon? No. Lots of posturing and diplomacy, and a pulling-back from the brink.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki. What happened afterwards? Did the whole world band together and crush the US? Nope. Everyone kind of went "oh shi-", and decided they were better off not having entire cities blasted off the map in a split second.

I still contend that an isolated nuclear incident would stay just that, an isolated nuclear incident. Smaller, less stable countries don't have the resources to construct a devestating amount of nuclear weaponry, and the larger countries are absolutely certain that their neighbors have as many bombs and missiles waiting in the wings as they have, so won't fire off anything, for fear of retribution.

A nuclear war just doesn't make much sense at this point. Everyone knows everyone else has nukes, and we've got far too much to lose to take any risks. So why does that old myth about nuclear armageddon still kick around?

[Tor]

Cuz the goverment has spread it's propoganda to scare the living crap out of all these people and other countries. And then you have youtube videos like that, that people spread around.

There "might" be a crazy terrorist group out there, that has no morals, no human nature, no nothing. They will somehow get a nuke and detonate it somewhere.

The chance of something like this happening, just scares some people. The world is capable of many things, I think most people know that as they grow older. So, I guess the fear just creeps in on them.

I still stand by my opinion though, Nukes aren't going to be a world ender.

[unknownj]

I think there ok to have, not great but ok. If they didnt exist then it would just be better... With them being called a Weapon of Mass Destruction they seem very intemedating, but... if you think about it knowone really knows how many of them are that a country has or how many countries have them... But... if there was a world war 3 then they would be usefull? *Stop or ill just nuke you?* Badexample but... any madman could use it and kill ze world.

[Rhote]

I find that having them is pretty useless.

If a country decides to attack one because of a misunderstandment, the whole world can suffer with it. We are no longer facing 25kg uranium ones, at the moment there are way stronger ones that can make whole countries vanish with 3-4 of them. So yeah, it's pretty much just a statment like '' My power > your power'' wich will likely lead to meanigless destruction.