Thread: The Nuclear Bomb: A Savior?

People always talk about how terrible the nuclear bomb is and how they wish that it had never been invented in the first place.

However, the alternative argument says that if it weren't for the nuclear bomb, there would have been a lot more large-scale wars over the past 50 years. The leaders of the world understand that if one of those bombs are launched, it will most likely lead to the launch of countless more and we will all be doomed. Therefore, this technology acts as more of a war-deturrent rather than a dangerous weapon.

Wow...bradybaker. THis is a new one. Nukes save lives! THe only thing thats stopping us from using nukes is other nukes going off right back. So basically they cancell out and dont deter anyone from doing anything. All other weapons are still there to be used. SO how does this do anything except create the possibility for disaster?

It does keep people from attacking when you have a nuke but it also causes other problems as well. If the wars it stops makes its worth the rest of the trouble I am not to sure. However if someone does end up using one it will cancel out any positive effect they ever had.

Originally posted by gameover
THe only thing thats stopping us from using nukes is other nukes going off right back. So basically they cancell out and dont deter anyone from doing anything. All other weapons are still there to be used. SO how does this do anything except create the possibility for disaster?

So you agree that people do not want to use nukes because they know that it basically means the end of the world. The argument I was presenting was that the fact that nukes exist prevents large-scale wars from happening because of the fear that they could escalate into nuclear wars.

and Im saying that that wont happen. Nukes cancell each other out but it doesnt stop large scale wars. And thier are large scale wars today, but sicne the battle lines are blurred its harder to tell. The US amongst others, is at war all over the country at once. THe korean war is still going on! But no one wants to talk about that.

They tell you this in history class--- It's called balance of power. So many people have so many nukes they're afraid to use them. This in turn stops wars, but correct, there still is the potential. The political climate is so volatile nowadays whole countries could be destroyed at a push of a button.

No, it would not mean the total annihilation of the human race. Most nuclear weapons are small and used tactically in combinations of 9 or ten nukes per area. Increases the accuracy.

How many wars have we fought againt people who have a nuclear bombs?

I say nuke the world and start over.

Ever since the first nuke was used in WWII, everyone has seen the effects and knows that if they bomb and destroy a country, that country will do the same back if they have nukes (assured mutual destruction). The scary thing is that if someone ever developes an effective way to stop an enemy's nuke before it hits, they will be able to hold the world hostage with their own nukes and everyone will be screwed.

Yeah, that's why the USA's Star Wars Missile Defence system is a bit scary because it will upset the delicate balance of power.

Originally posted by Neil
Yeah, that's why the USA's Star Wars Missile Defence system is a bit scary because it will upset the delicate balance of power.

yea baby go us

Originally posted by Neil
Yeah, that's why the USA's Star Wars Missile Defence system is a bit scary because it will upset the delicate balance of power.

? .Explain this thingy

I'm not sure if they're working on the starwars defense system anymore, but the US is still developing a ground-based laser cannon to shoot down missiles, mortars and unmanned aircraft (I think there are going to be some international laws to ban use of the laser directly against human targets and manned craft). I heard back in 2001 they were able to shoot down a missile with it, which is good progress, but I have doubts as to whether this weapon will really be that effective against nuclear warheads, since those can be launched with thousands of decoy duds and the laser probably wouldn't be able to shoot down all of them before they hit the ground.

And note that if the Nuclear Bomb is effectively...defused, you could say, that is a decent defence is made against it, this balance of power could be tipped dramatically and a war could break out.

Originally posted by Stevehattan
but I have doubts as to whether this weapon will really be that effective against nuclear warheads, since those can be launched with thousands of decoy duds and the laser probably wouldn't be able to shoot down all of them before they hit the ground.

Opposing forces will continue to outdo each other to no end eh?
Security measures are temporary...

Originally posted by Neil
Yeah, that's why the USA's Star Wars Missile Defence system is a bit scary because it will upset the delicate balance of power.

yea man, ive never thought about it that way. If they could make it work just like they want it USA would, theratically, be able to rule the world exactly the way they want to. the defence could be a powrful tool in the hands of a bad president. Scary thought...

Nukes haven't ended the world-wars; they've just paused them for a while. Eventually a serious nuclear weapon will fall into the hands of someone without a national allegiance--without a geographical center to "nuke back."

In the meantime, major powers like the US will continue to use conventional warfare against smaller, less developed nations (and continue to be kicked out by guerilla forces).

The only way to end war is to END WAR--replace it with an alternative system built on nonviolent organization.

Originally posted by Taosaur
Nukes haven't ended the world-wars; they've just paused them for a while. Eventually a serious nuclear weapon will fall into the hands of someone without a national allegiance--without a geographical center to \"nuke back.\"

Then the logic there is to nuke a random country until you get it right! D:>

Originally posted by Taosaur
Nukes haven't ended the world-wars; they've just paused them for a while.

I never suggested that Nukes have \"ended world-war\". I agree 100% that have just been post-poned.

Originally posted by Taosaur
The only way to end war is to END WAR--replace it with an alternative system built on nonviolent organization.

War will only end when all life on this planet has been obliterated. Humans have wars, ants have wars, monkeys have wars. It's in our nature.

Originally posted by bradybaker

War will only end when all life on this planet has been obliterated. Humans have wars, ants have wars, monkeys have wars. It's in our nature.

Well, I think we can get past it. If we do things your way, we're obliterated. If we do things my way and it works out, we have a world without war.
You pick.

Well obviously if it were that simple I'd pick a world without war. But it's not that simple. Do you truly believe that the possibility of achieving world peace is realistic?

Hahahahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahah

Yeah right be able to have a choice of war or peace, as if. Lets say in this 'in my peaceful world' i screwed your wife. You would say it's ok right. Lets say in this peaceful world i dumped 500 tonnes of radioactive waste secretly in your homeland, then flew a plane into an important building, would you still stay peaceful.

No it's out of our control as everyone is in control of themselves.

(I had about a page of theory on US views regarding world dominance and the 'we rule 'invincible' attitudes, but decided not to post it.)

(I had about a page of theory on US views regarding world dominance and the 'we rule 'invincible' attitudes, but decided not to post it.)[/b]

I wouldnt mind hearing that out. If its to long then just make a summary

Originally posted by bradybaker
Well obviously if it were that simple I'd pick a world without war. But it's not that simple. Do you truly believe that the possibility of achieving world peace is realistic?

It is that simple.

1) Don't throw up your hands and say "It's in our nature."

2) Work to resolve conflicts in your own life in a way that most benefits all living things.

3) When violence is directed at you, meet it with nonviolent resistance (this is probably the hardest part, but think for a second--in a violent encounter, which response is more likely to get you injured or killed?)

4) Express disapproval of all violence. There are situations where a violent response is understandable, but none where it is justified.

Yes, it is a much more difficult path than "Eye for an eye," and just because you are nonviolent doesn't mean you won't come to harm, but generally, far fewer people will die in a nonviolent campaign than a war, and the result is a better world.

the star wars missile defense system was ment to be a space-to ground laser system, that would render missiles harmless, at least, all missiles above 20 (or was it 200?) feet above ground level. They have allready built a plane that can do this, and it was expensive, and i think there is only one in existence, maybe two... also, we have found out, that terrorists may be useing "left overs" from local nuclear power plants to create fission bombs, it is rumored that they will sail these bombs into the 12 biggest harbors in america, and detonate them, effectively screwing most of the city, poisoning of water, irradiating the air, and blowing up all of the near-ocean buildings. The us cant retalliate because (as the only megapower in the world) we arent cut out for fighting small groups of people, especially in gurella warfare, (excuse the spelling, i dont feel like correcting it, and my hands are REALY cold) also, it wouldnt really matter, even if we were pit against a country like, say, russia, or germany again. we dont have any active nuclear weapons to begin with, because the stuff to keep the nukes "alive" is in short supply... so all our nukes are effectively dead....

okay, that was long winded, i hope i cleared up a few things....

oh, and that attack on our 12 major harbors would then unite the whole country and no one will be "against" the war on terrorism, the millitary would re-instate the draft. and many of our closest allies will either, not get involved, (untill they get attacked) so that they wont be a target, OR get involved in order for us to stomp out terrorism. airports would have security measures galore, and the economy would plumet, for one reason or another, (probibly because of the harbor situation) yea, you can infer the rest....