• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Nuclear Weapons- Who should have them and why?

shmogie

Well-Known Member
The US in particular should not be permitted to have them, as they are the only country to have actually used them. Especially now that dangerous idiot, Trump, is at the helm.:mad:
LOL, they were properly used in WW2, Truman was a hero for doing so.

According to your narrative, Trump should have started nuclear war in his first week in office, what happened ? There are dangerous people, everywhere, there are true idiots on RF , Trump doesn´t post here.

So, you aren´t qualified by nationality or knowledge to make the idiot judgement, unless.......................?
 

TransmutingSoul

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The irony is, the only nation who used it on innocent human beings still have them and is the police.

I see they play a part that the world should have embraced after the first world war with the League of Nations. When that failed, the United Nations should have taken on that role.

But now what will it take for people to give way to unbridled nationalism and give control to an elected world legislative?

Regards Tony
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
There was a case that proved they were not needed.

But history can not change, we can learn from it.

Regards Tony
What are you talking about ? The stated goal was unconditional surrender, the Japanese would not surrender. There was no interest on the part of Americans to see anything less.

An invasion of the Japanese home islands was studied from every possible angle, and this study said America would suffer 100,000 killed in conquering Japan.

Remember the passions involved in 4 years of war on two fronts, which started with a pretty dastardly attack by Japan without a declaration of war. There were few families in the US that did not have members in combat, injured, or killed.

The Japanese had defended the islands they conquered viciously when Americans landed to liberate them, they literally fought till all of them, were dead. They would never surrender.

Imagine that zeal when defending the home islands, it would be multiplied.

Even after the first nuclear bomb, they refused to surrender.

Truman was correct in keeping American troops from having to march into that buzz saw.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
I see they play a part that the world should have embraced after the first world war with the League of Nations. When that failed, the United Nations should have taken on that role.

But now what will it take for people to give way to unbridled nationalism and give control to an elected world legislative?

Regards Tony
Hmmmmmm, why should I accept being ruled by people who do not share, or understand my culture, speak a different language, and have different values,. That is nonsensical.

There is NOTHING wrong with nationalism, it has existed from the beginning, and if people believed it to be counter productive, it would have been abandoned a long time ago.

There will be a peaceful world with one government that is honest, caring and loving, I suggest you read the last parts of the book of Revelation to learn about it.

People can never and will never bring this about, the catalyst lies somewhere else.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
"innocent"? That's a matter of opinion. Were the civilians in Pearl Harbor innocent? How about the many villages in mainland China that were raided, and slaughtered?
Pearl Harbor was a military base and it was pretty much just sailors killed. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both civilian cities, and it was mostly civilians killed by those bombs.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Wanderer From Afar
Premium Member
know, for example, how to construct a basic "Little Boy" (sliding cannon) device that would easily rival Hiroshima's destructive capability. That knowledge is readily available to anyone with a pocket phone, or a Library Card. Even the complex requirement to separate isotope 232 from 238 is Out There. Anyone, with the money and the will could do it, too-- no complex engineering required-- gather enough fissionable into one solid lump? Mamma Nature (or physics) does the rest....

Worse: Uranium based bombs are not the only bombs possible. Plutonium? Has been demonstrated countless times, and creating plutonium from uranium is also not that hard to do. A Fat Man type bomb would be much easier to do, today, than in 1945... we have modern ultra-fast computers in the palm of our hands... Even worse: neither of these metals is the only way to make a Big Boom. Other trans-uranic isotopes are certainly possible, and would likely explode, given the right conditions.
You'd be arrested and thrown into federal prison for a very long time, if not the rest of your life, in America. I'm sure the laws are much the same in the rest of the world.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
"Nuclear Weapons- Who should have them and why?"

I should have them. Because.

But regarding religious people having them, no, please, no. Especially not the ones with some Ragnarok eschatology in their belief.
 

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I suspect most of us would agree nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to humanity. A number of countries have them and some aspire to have them. Its been 74 years since the last nuclear bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. As international relationships often become volatile the threat of the use of such weapons rears its head again. So who should have nuclear weapons at all and why?

I believe there’s a moral imperative not to have them at all, though all nations would need to agree to disarm simultaneously. Its a matter my own faith has a lot to say about. When Bahá’u’lláh rather boldly wrote to the Monarchs and rulers of the earth in the 1870s He declared:

O rulers of the earth! Be reconciled among yourselves, that ye may need no more armaments save in a measure to safeguard your territories and dominions. Beware lest ye disregard the counsel of the All-Knowing, the Faithful. (Baha’u’llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 188)

The Baha’is often advocate for for disarmament which in turn strengthens development.

The Relationship Between Disarmament and Development

So that’s where I stand. How about you? What does your faith or worldview say about nuclear weapons and disarmament? Should religion have anything to say at all?

Disarmament is a grand idea and I won't thumb my nose at it....but it just isn't going to happen within the foreseeable future.
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
"Nuclear Weapons- Who should have them and why?"

I should have them. Because.

But regarding religious people having them, no, please, no. Especially not the ones with some Ragnarok eschatology in their belief.
So the hierarchy of those that are allowed to be in possession of nuclear weapons is as follows:
1/ @Ouroboros
2/ Non-Religious people
3/ Religious people without cataclysmic eschatological beliefs
4/ Religious people with cataclysmic eschatological beliefs

The reason is ‘Because’. Well that’s about as rational as any other justification for who should or shouldn’t have nuclear weapons.:D
 

Dawnofhope

Non-Proselytizing Baha'i
Staff member
Premium Member
Disarmament is a grand idea and I won't thumb my nose at it....but it just isn't going to happen within the foreseeable future.
Not until a nuclear weapon is used by one sovereign nation against another or accidentally detonated, no.
 
Top