Political Crossfire Forums

[thundertaker]

Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

[hereiswhatithink]

At best, it is a mixed blessing. At worst, it is the most horrible killing machine ever created.

Yes, without it WWII may have gone on indefinately. On the flip side of that, to end WWII we killed literally hundreds of thousands of innocent people and the effects of the bomb (radiation, poisoned water, etc.) have stayed with them up to this day.

Does the end justify the means? I say no.

[thundertaker]

What means? millions more would have died in the invasion of Japan by the allies if it hadn't been for hiroshima and nagasaki.
But it is not there use, but their potential use which protects countries which possess them from foreign invasion.
The only wars which nuclear-armed nations have to worry about really are minor ones, not ones about national survival....

Nukes have saved far more lives than they have taken.......

I think the nuke is a worthy candidate for the greatest invention ever devised by mankind.......

[eynon]

Yep...they rule...if it hadn't of been for nukes the US and USSR would've gone at it a bunch of different times for a bunch of different reasons. Considering conventionally both sides were pretty even it would've been a blood-bath...maybe more then one blood-bath; we would've fought over Korea, Germany, Greece, Iran, ect, ect....hell, we probley would've picked most of the fights, but it would 've s*cked!

[thundertaker]

Ahh, the lovely warm glow of an atomic blast. Brings tears to your eyes, doesn't it? 8)

[CeleronAcheronius]

thundertaker wrote: Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

The problem arises when world war III does come. Then we all be screwed :lol:

[cap'n queasy]

Ya'll are crazy. :-D

[Nico]

thundertaker wrote: Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

I think we have just bought ourselves a newer and more scary demon-in-the-closet than the last ones [air delivered bombs, machine-gun]

[JackieTreeHorn]

thundertaker wrote: Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

In the hands of countries with (semi) responsible people managing them, nuclear weapons have been a deterent. But at this point, who knows what nut job has got one? Remains to be seen whether they have been a blessing....

[krinkle]

CeleronAcheronius wrote: thundertaker wrote: Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

The problem arises when world war III does come. Then we all be screwed :lol:

Yep...there won't be a fourth

[krinkle]

CeleronAcheronius wrote: thundertaker wrote: Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

The problem arises when world war III does come. Then we all be screwed :lol:

Yep...there won't be a fourth

[krinkle]

JackieTreeHorn wrote: thundertaker wrote: Think about it, if it hadn't been fo the deterent effect of nuclear weapons, wouldn't we have had world war III by now?
Who knows? We may even be up to our bollocks in mud fighting for our freedom RIGHT NOW, if it wasn't for those glorious weapons of mass destruction.
So I say unto you all, thank god for the bomb, which has ended major conflicts worldwide.......

In the hands of countries with (semi) responsible people managing them, nuclear weapons have been a deterent. But at this point, who knows what nut job has got one? Remains to be seen whether they have been a blessing....

(semi) responsible in the eyes of who? The fact that any country saw need to create a weapon of such magnitude illustrates our careless disregard for our survival on this planet. There aren't too many places you could drop a nuke without starting.....well, a nuclear war. And then...we cease to exist!.

So, all in all, I'd reckon nukes are pretty fcukin BAD!!

[thundertaker]

It is my honest belief that WWIII and possibly WWIV would have happened by now if it hadn't been for the calming influence of realising that we posses the seeds of our own destruction if we went too far.
We in the west haven't had a major war since WWII because of nukes, only 'sideshow' wars whose outcome has not been crucial to national survival.

Can you imaging a world were every 20 years, a generation is decimated by industrialised warfare? Think how many lives have been saved by something that on the face of it, seems so terrible..........

[IMPERATOR CAESAR]

The Nuke wont be used at all, if any, because peace-lovers are so scared of it that they'll never let the government hear the end of it. People don't understand that the Nuke is a propaganda and intimidation tactic more than an actual weapon. Who wants to go to war with a country that could bomb you back to the stone age.

[Eonve]

i very much doubt the positive outcomes that were brought to us by the atomic bomb. i don't think that things are as good as they may seem on the surface.

1. WW II would have ended rather quickly and most likely with not a lot of casualities. when Japan would realize that USSR was still in and still planned to attack it, it would have surrendered. the bomb was dropped more to prevent Soviet participation in the war rather than to ensure low casualities. Truman did not want to share Japan with Soviets and hence dropping the bomb or two was politically logical course of actions.

2. nuclear deterrence has put the world in much bigger risk during the Cold War that it actually helped to keep peace. there has always been a threat of war and that war would be much more destructive than any conventional conflict that might have happened.

3. at the present moment nuclear weapons present at least as much of a threat as they used to in the cold war times. this invention turned into the best toy that everyone wants to have and works towards having. but as opposed to other types of weapons:

a. there is no effective defense against nuclear weapons except for MAD type of strategy.

b. they are much more destrcutive both in the short term and in the long run.

c. they are a source of a much greater instability on the international arena than any other conventional weapons system would be.

[CeleronAcheronius]

thundertaker wrote: It is my honest belief that WWIII and possibly WWIV would have happened by now if it hadn't been for the calming influence of realising that we posses the seeds of our own destruction if we went too far.
We in the west haven't had a major war since WWII because of nukes, only 'sideshow' wars whose outcome has not been crucial to national survival.

Can you imaging a world were every 20 years, a generation is decimated by industrialised warfare? Think how many lives have been saved by something that on the face of it, seems so terrible..........

Those potential world war III and world war IV's would be mild compared to the eventual real WWIII that will come because of the nuke. Deterance will only work for so long, and even if it's peacekeeping affects are irresputable, so is MAD. You could kiss the human race good-bye if a nuclear war were to happen. I'll take may frequent wars without the nuke, thankyou.

-Celeron

[IMPERATOR CAESAR]

Eonve wrote: i very much doubt the positive outcomes that were brought to us by the atomic bomb. i don't think that things are as good as they may seem on the surface.

1. WW II would have ended rather quickly and most likely with not a lot of casualities. when Japan would realize that USSR was still in and still planned to attack it, it would have surrendered. the bomb was dropped more to prevent Soviet participation in the war rather than to ensure low casualities. Truman did not want to share Japan with Soviets and hence dropping the bomb or two was politically logical course of actions.

2. nuclear deterrence has put the world in much bigger risk during the Cold War that it actually helped to keep peace. there has always been a threat of war and that war would be much more destructive than any conventional conflict that might have happened.

3. at the present moment nuclear weapons present at least as much of a threat as they used to in the cold war times. this invention turned into the best toy that everyone wants to have and works towards having. but as opposed to other types of weapons:

a. there is no effective defense against nuclear weapons except for MAD type of strategy.

b. they are much more destrcutive both in the short term and in the long run.

c. they are a source of a much greater instability on the international arena than any other conventional weapons system would be.

The main reason the US dropped the bomb on Japan is because it would result in the fewest deaths to the Japanese, and American people. An invasion would cost many American lives, as well as many Japanese civilians. When all the strategies where laid out the US went with the least evilest. That saved lives on both sides.

If the US didn't use the bomb then the world wouldn't be so afraid of it, and maybe the Cold War could have escalated into a nuclear war because both sides didn't know what kind of destruction it could actually do.

[Eonve]

IMPERATOR CAESAR wrote:
The main reason the US dropped the bomb on Japan is because it would result in the fewest deaths to the Japanese, and American people. An invasion would cost many American lives, as well as many Japanese civilians. When all the strategies where laid out the US went with the least evilest. That saved lives on both sides.

If the US didn't use the bomb then the world wouldn't be so afraid of it, and maybe the Cold War could have escalated into a nuclear war because both sides didn't know what kind of destruction it could actually do.

i've heard these arguments countless times. once upon a time i was even putting them forth myself. but the thing is when you really look at the situation at that time, you are bound to realize that from a military side it was an unnecessary step, a step that has caused enourmous civilian casualties, a step that was not aimed at preventing american casualties, but rather at securing the spoils of war and containing the Soviet Union. it may have saved some lives on the american side, but it sure did not save them for Japanese people.

however, if the US did not use the bomb, its destructive capabilities would be rather clear anyway since all the countries that has acquired nuclear weapons had to undergo the testing process and therefore had an opportunity to witness their destructive power.

[d_the_sandman]

IMPERATOR CAESAR wrote: The main reason the US dropped the bomb on Japan is because it would result in the fewest deaths to the Japanese, and American people. An invasion would cost many American lives, as well as many Japanese civilians. When all the strategies where laid out the US went with the least evilest. That saved lives on both sides.

If the US didn't use the bomb then the world wouldn't be so afraid of it, and maybe the Cold War could have escalated into a nuclear war because both sides didn't know what kind of destruction it could actually do.

I suggest strongly that you watch a film called, "The Fog of War" in which Robert McNamara himself lays out the truth behind this common line of "fewest deaths" and shows it to be the propaganda that it was.

I can't believe the shelf-life of government propaganda lines and how they still linger after many decades.

[thundertaker]

Come on, Resistance to invasion would have been even more fanatical than that which was put up by The Nazis in Germany. Japanese civilian casualties would have been enormous, especially if the Red army had landed and raped it's way all the way to Tokyo.........