• 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

3.14

3.14

Well-Known Member
only in movie's, we got te few acres on the world to waste it with nuclear radiation
 
darkendless

darkendless

Guardian of Asgaard
Trey of Diamonds said:
Check out this map application that shows the damage area caused by different sized nuclear weapons.

Ground Zero: Google Maps and Nuclear Weapons

What do you think about the use of nuclear weapons in conflict? Is there ever a time when it would be acceptable?
Click to expand...

There is no need for nuclear weapons given the current ballistic technology avaliable to us these days. I think the ongoing suffering caused by nuclear weapons in Japan would be enough to discourage anyone who doesn't have a mount Everest sized ego to protect. I think most countries only have them for scare tactics as in "don't mess with me or ill melt one of your cities."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mjolnir

Mjolnir

Member
Nuclear weapons should not be used in conflict. Whoever wishes to use them at their our present level of technology is stupid. Millions of people will die if one is dropped on a big city in the explosion, not counting all the deaths in latter years resulting from radiation and such. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was atomic bombs in 1945. What do we have in 2009? A whole arsenal of way more powerful bombs. All those lives just gone in a few seconds, I do not see how you can ustify the use of nuclear weapons.
 
Trey of Diamonds

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Dezzie said:
I say no to nuclear weapons. It is not necessary.:knight:
Click to expand...

Yes but are you saying that nuclear weapons are not necessary because no weapons are necessary or are you saying they are not legitimate weapons of war? If you don't believe war is legitimate then it doesn't matter what the weapons are, you will consider all of them unnecessary. Just looking for some clarification.
 
BucephalusBB

BucephalusBB

ABACABB
I think that once we elimininated every weapon that is not necessary, we can safelly call the game "chess". Although I do think the queen is quite powerfull...

Up untill then, I believe people will get killed..
Now what was the question around "acceptable"?
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Bouncing Ball said:
I think that once we elimininated every weapon that is not necessary, we can safelly call the game "chess". Although I do think the queen is quite powerfull...

Up untill then, I believe people will get killed..
Now what was the question around "acceptable"?
Click to expand...
That's a fair question, but I think we can look at what's considered "acceptable" now and see how tactical nukes fit into the spectrum of weaponry.

For example, both land mines and tactical nukes make the area where they're used during war dangerous to inhabit long after the conflict ends. This is the reason behind why the international community now generally considers land mines to be unacceptable. Should tactical nukes be considered more acceptable than land mines? I'd say probably not.
 
Dezzie

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
Trey of Diamonds said:
Yes but are you saying that nuclear weapons are not necessary because no weapons are necessary or are you saying they are not legitimate weapons of war? If you don't believe war is legitimate then it doesn't matter what the weapons are, you will consider all of them unnecessary. Just looking for some clarification.
Click to expand...

Well... nukes and stuff are just insane. I don't find them to be needed. When there is a war and we use those, they would kill so many people. Maybe there are people that are innocent. It's just so gruesome. I guess sometimes there is no use but... war is just not my thing. I don't know why we can't just all get along. lol :p
 
9-10ths_Penguin

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Dezzie said:
Well... nukes and stuff are just insane. I don't find them to be needed. When there is a war and we use those, they would kill so many people. Maybe there are people that are innocent. It's just so gruesome. I guess sometimes there is no use but... war is just not my thing. I don't know why we can't just all get along. lol :p
Click to expand...
Hang on... aren't you in the Navy? :confused:
 
Trey of Diamonds

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
Ok, lets rephrase the question. Do you think there is ever a scenario where the use of tactical nukes would be justified and the best course of action?

My answer is yes, I think such a scenario exists. It would be an extreme scenario but one that is still possible.
 
Dezzie

Dezzie

Well-Known Member
9-10ths_Penguin said:
Hang on... aren't you in the Navy? :confused:
Click to expand...

lol I knew someone would catch that. Yes I am in the Navy. I did not join to go to war though. I joined for the free schooling and to have a good paying job when I get out of this mess. I do hate wars though. The Navy is not that exciting either... I may end up having to stay in though because of the way the economy is going. I don't want to get out and be uber screwed... lol
 
Trey of Diamonds

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
I think it would have to be a pretty freaking extreme situation.

wa:do
Click to expand...

Certainly, but extreme situations have existed in the past and will exist again in the future. Before you can decide whether nukes are legitimate weapons, you must first decide on whether or not the situation in which they are needed could arise.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
I personally don't think I can think of one that isn't so extreme that it's not in the realm of B-movie plots.

wa:do
 
Trey of Diamonds

Trey of Diamonds

Well-Known Member
painted wolf said:
I personally don't think I can think of one that isn't so extreme that it's not in the realm of B-movie plots.

wa:do
Click to expand...

Ok, how about this. China has invaded Russia to gain access to the oil fields and agriculture. They continue moving towards Europe. The US is supporting Europe with troops and equipment to try and stem the tide but the size of the Chinese army is staggering. China, in an attempt to stop US involvement strikes several European targets with small tactical nukes, saying we can expect full blown nukes on US soil if we don't abandon Europe and go home.

Should the US employ tactical nuclear weapons in an attempt to render the Chinese nukes inoperable or just go home? Or should the continue with conventional weapons and let the Chinese send their cruise missles?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top